Saturday, July 22, 2017

Eric Holder lectures Trump about Constitution?

Image result for obama and holder fast and furious

Eric Holder lectures Trump about Constitution — gets fact checked about ‘Fast & Furious’ past

Image result for obama and holder fast and furious

Eric Holder lectures Trump about Constitution — gets fact checked about ‘Fast & Furious’ past

 Image result for obama and holder fast and furious

Eric Holder recently weighed in on reports that President Donald Trump has considered firing Robert Mueller as the FBI’s special counsel.

“Trump cannot define or constrain Mueller investigation. If he tries to do so this creates issues of constitutional and criminal dimension,” Holder wrote on Twitter.

Holder’s comments come after the Washington Post reported earlier this week that Trump’s team of attorneys are exploring ways to “limit and undercut” Mueller’s investigation. Mueller has been tasked by the Department of Justice to lead the bureau’s investigation into Russian interference and allegations that Trump’s campaign may have colluded with Russian operatives.

Many Republicans and top Trump supporters are unhappy with Mueller’s investigation and especially unhappy with the team of lawyers Mueller has hired to assist him in the investigation, many of which have ties to Democrats.

Critics say that because of this and other factors, Mueller’s probe will not be objective.
Technically speaking, however, Holder’s tweet isn’t exactly correct. According to Business Insider, who spoke with former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal, Trump has several legal maneuvers that would help take Mueller’s heat off of him.

Trump could either instruct deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein to fire or limit Mueller, or Trump could repeal a set of special counsel regulations adopted in 1999 to fire Mueller himself. Neither of these options are favorable, however, and an attempt to remove Mueller could get the ball rolling on impeachment proceedings as they are what began former President Richard Nixon’s fall, Katyal said.
Trump’s other option would be to work out a deal with Rosenstein to rein in Mueller’s power. This option is least likely to carry political ramifications.

However, many found Holder’s attempt to lecture Trump about the law pretty rich. After all, Holder was deemed responsible for “Operation Fast and Furious,” a gun-running operation that led to a Border Patrol being shot by an American firearm.

Holder was even held in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents related to the case during the course of a congressional investigation into the operation.
People were quick to remind Holder of his hypocritical past:

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Why is Obama fundraising and why are corporations answering his cash call?

The burning question of our day: When will Barack Obama have made enough money?
When, for instance,  will Obama turn off the money tap that is now pouring millions into the Obama Foundation?
Not until the ‘12th of Never’, and as Johnny Mathis sings “and that’s a long, long time.”
No one should have ever have taken Obama at his word in his speech to a Quincy, Illinois audience about Wall Street reform on April 28, 2010: “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.

But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.”
Now happier economy than growing your own!
The “certain point” when he’s made enough money” has yet to have been reached by dollar scrounging Barack Obama.

With over $14 million for his first three best sellers already banked, and now bidding his next book deal in a contract with wife, Michelle, estimated at over $60 million, does Obama really need the money?
And that doesn’t even take into account the fees he is paid for speeches.
“Technology and energy corporations have joined the list of top donors to the Obama Foundation, which on Friday made public the names of more than 700 patrons from the last three months. (Chicago Tribune, July 14, 2017)

“Exelon and Microsoft have given more than a million dollars to the foundation, which was founded in 2014 but boosted its fundraising efforts after President Barack Obama left the White House.”

Sunday, July 2, 2017

How The Obama Era Department Of Justice Is Funding Left Wing Liberal Lunatics To Further Their Own Political Agenda.?

 The unit will root out lending discrimination in all forms.”  Meaning Can't Saying { "No"  } forcing lenders To Say Yes! , Again The Word (No ) IS Not discrimination. Lenders Got The Right To Say No! 
Image result for obama holder
Ideas have consequences. In 2013, during the preliminary investigation for the book, Extortion GAI researchers detected a pattern of federal lawsuits and settlementsbrought by a newly created office within the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez made the DOJ’s intentions clear in his January 14, 2010 speech to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition – Annual Wall Street Conference.
Mr. Perez stated: “Fair lending is a top priority for the Civil Rights Division, and I have taken a number of critical steps to ensure that we put our best forward. I have hired a Special Counsel for Fair Lending to spearhead our efforts. We are also establishing a dedicated Fair Lending unit within the Division’s Housing Section. The unit will root out lending discrimination in all forms.” ( Meaning Can't Saying { "No"  } forcing lenders To Say Yes! , Again The Word (No ) IS Not discrimination. Lenders Got The Right To Say No! 
In remarks at the Brookings Institution Perez stated:
The establishment of the Fair Lending Unit, with dedicated attorneys, economists, investigators, support staff and a Special Counsel for Fair Lending, ensure that fair lending issues receive immediate attention and high priority.

The unit already has 50 matters open, including 18 investigations. We have identified large, mid-size and small lenders as targets of enforcement efforts and
those targets include national, regional and local actors.
What Mr. Perez did not say in these comments was that millions of dollars would eventually be handed over, no strings attached, to activist nonprofits.

The DOJ began to file lawsuits against financial institutions based on evidence of unfair lending practices. With the threat of protracted litigation and bad press looming, the DOJ extracted settlements before trial. These technically voluntary settlement agreements, referred to as “consent orders,” usually established a settlement fund to service claims made by victims of the defendant’s alleged illegal behavior. More often than not, the consent order specified that unclaimed funds were to be distributed to a qualified organization as approved by the Department of Justice. Moreover, many of the settlements called for large sums of money to be paid toward educational efforts, often provided by these same qualified organizations.
The DOJ filed pleadings in each case that used essentially identical language for each complaint and settlement. This assembly line approach uses what is sometimes referred to in the legal profession as “cookbook pleadings” – those not designed for actual litigation, but intended merely to provide a basis for the settlement and payment of money. Seldom was the actual complaint filed more than a month prior to filing the consent order and occasionally within days.
A consent order, sometimes referred to as a “consent judgment” or a “consent decree,” is an order or judgment by the court where the parties have previously agreed to the settlement terms and provisions. Another feature of the consent decree is that the court will maintain jurisdiction of the matter to supervise the implementation of the decree. The filing of the complaint serves to invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
These institutions spend a vast sum of money advertising each year. A case of this nature could have a devastating impact for any bank deemed racist. As the Wall Street
Journal reported, “The lenders quickly settled these cases rather than run the reputational risk of being called racist in court.”63 When contacted by the DOJ, often a target financial institution would want to reach a number and shut the process down as soon as possible, as one bank put it, “to avoid contested litigation.” Because the entire negotiation process occurs in the context of litigation, the internal communications of a party remain confidential protected by attorney client privilege. Thus, the public and Congress are provided very little information regarding the nature and process of the negotiations between the parties. In other words, the DOJ effectively silences the target institution without any form of congressional oversight or public scrutiny. Courts were either unaware of this mechanism of disbursement or did not comment in their review of the proposed consent orders.
The agreements were reached prior to filing the proposed order and the parties both had legal representation. A settlement in court is technically reached by the parties freely and voluntarily unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The congressional testimony of Paul Larkin, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation in 2015 denounced the court’s limited participation in the process:
What aggravates this problem even more is that you have these sorts of settlements gradually coming into wider and wider…Why is that a problem? Because oftentimes there is no judicial involvement whatsoever. These agreements often are a means of disposing not of charges or a lawsuit that has already filed. They are a means often of disposing of charges or a lawsuit before any are filed. So there is no judicial involvement whatsoever. You have an agreement entirely between the lawyers for the United States and the lawyers for other parties. And in this agreement they are trying to engage in what is for all intents and purposes a sham transaction to avoid depositing all of the money that is due to the taxpayers of the United States into the account that the Treasury maintains, that Congress thereafter can decide how it will
be spent.
In all of the cases we reviewed in the course of our research, the court simply accepted the proposed order, with one noted exception. In United States of America v. Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. and Citizens Bank, the defendant bank gave the court reason to believe that something was amiss and the court took quite a different approach. The defendant objected to the claims made by the DOJ in the pleadings which the defendant had not seen until after the terms of settlement had been established. This anomaly opened up the process and demonstrated the pressure placed on a target institution by the federal government and its incentive to settle.
The DOJ had alleged that the defendants, Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. and Citizens Bank, had engaged in a pattern of conduct violating the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The proposed Agreed Order imposed a much smaller contribution amount to the settlement fund, but incorporated several of the same elements in its terms as have been seen in other consent orders for other cases.
This proposed order required that the Defendant “enter a partnership” with the City of Detroit to set up a fund in the amount of $1.625 million and provide grants to homeowners to enhance neighborhood stability and revitalization. The program was to be administered by the city or its “designated partner.” The proposed order also required the Defendant to ensure that the Defendant’s lending products and services in the Detroit area were marketed in majority-black census tracts. It also required that the bank hire two Community Development Leaders to focus primarily on generating residential mortgage loans in the “majority-black census tracts of Wayne County” as well as to facilitate the bank’s grant program.
It instated a separate fund in the amount of $400,000 with one half of that fund devoted to advertising and marketing in these same neighborhoods. The consent order required that the other half be spent on consumer education in order to sponsor programs offered by community or governmental organizations engaged in fair lending work.
Furthermore, the proposed order required that the Defendant make $1.5 million available for loan subsidies via a “special financing program” for residents in Wayne County. If the funds were not fully expended, the remaining amount was to be donated to a nonprofit housing organization in the City of Detroit or to such other organization involved with community reinvestment in the City of Detroit.
In its response to the DOJ’s Motion For Entry of Proposed Agreed Order, the Defendant described the process by which the DOJ pursued the settlement.69 It became apparent that the motivation for these banks was to settle rather than resist the claims of the DOJ.
The Defendant bank explained that it was not aware of the precise nature of the charges until the complaint was filed. The Defendant stated:
The precise articulation of the Department’s claim was not made available to Citizens until the Department provided Citizens with a copy of the Complaint after it was filed with the Court on May 5, 2011. Citizens disputes the factual and legal basis for the claim presented, and, to the extent permitted, has included in the proposed “Agreed Order” as Part III, the “Position of Citizens Bank” that describes its actual conduct and performance.
It went on to illuminate some of Bancorp’s considerations in reaching a settlement: Nonetheless, threatened litigation by the Department imposes a substantial
financial burden on Citizens, particularly in the context of current economi cconditions. Thus, Citizens entered into negotiations with the Department in an effort to avoid contested litigation. The only option afforded by the Department to avoid contested litigation was the filing of a complaint and the simultaneous presentation of an “Agreed Order.”
The Defendant further stated: Citizens pursued the negotiations to avoid the cost and burden of litigation…. The important point for Citizens is that the voluntary resolution will put the matter to rest, through entry of the Agreed Order. Then the Defendant bank reiterated their reasons for entering into settlements over litigation, which had little to do with culpability:
Perhaps there are some inconsistencies here because Citizens continues to deny a factual or legal basis for the claim, but agrees to take certain action to resolve the claim of the Department. But it is not uncommon for businesses facing the prospect of very expensive litigation against the government t seek a way to avoid the cost. If reasonable business objectives can be met,Citizens prefers settlement to the alternative of expensive litigation, and indeed would prefer to use the bank’s resources to assist the City of its continued efforts to stabilize housing conditions in the City. The bank Currently faces economic challenges that further favor settlement over
When faced with the prospect of extended litigation, expense, and bad publicity,many targeted institutions choose to settle rather than resist the questionable anddisputable claims brought by the DOJ.
On May 24, 2011, the Court issued a scathing order denying approval of theproposed consent order. The Court had its own reasons for refusing to approve
the consent order.
The Court noted: In reviewing the Agreed Order, it (1) fails to define terms; (2) lacks completeness; (3) contains superfluous clauses; (4) lacks clarity; and (5) is void of provisions for the Court to effectively oversee the parties’ obligations under the Agreed Order during its anticipated term.
Others, in the banking industry, have criticized the DOJ practices that haveresulted in these settlements.…there is a troubling lack of transparency with the DOJ’s growing fair lending actions. DOJ’s unprecedented actions and the legal theory upon which they are based are shrouded in secrecy, as targeted banks are forced to enter into
confidentiality agreements. Community banks work hard to comply with laws and regulations and consistently seek information and guidance on how to implement applicable rules in this ever-changing lending and regulatory environment. By requiring banks to enter into confidentiality agreements regarding the investigations, enforcement and settlement agreements, DOJ is thwarting banks’ ability to assess and refine, if necessary, their policies or practices to ensure compliance with fair lending laws.
This approach is counter to the intent of well-functioning fair lending laws.

Mr. Perez and the newly created Fair Lending Unit in the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of the DOJ had a different take on the Citizens case. In his estimation this had been a cooperative effort to right wrongs recognized by all.
He states:
Both Citizens and Midwest worked collaboratively with the Department to develop these creative solutions, and were eager to find solutions that allow them to remedy

the harm done while also reaching new customers.
Toward the end of his remarks Mr. Perez addressed concerns that he had gleanedfrom “…listening sessions we have conducted with industry stakeholders.” Among thoseconcerns were “transparency” in the DOJ processes; promptness of decisions by the DOJ
because “the cloud of uncertainty that looms during the pendency of an investigation can take a toll” and uncertainty regarding the legal theories that the DOJ was using. Mr. Perez described an “…unprecedented level of collaboration and coordination between DOJ and its partner agencies.”
The banking industry was concerned about the “harmful and inappropriate fair lending actions” of the DOJ, as expressed in a letter addressed to Eric Holder. The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate made this observation: …the DOJ used the settlement process to achieve policy goals—including the

distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars from private companies to third-party

housing counseling groups—that would not have been possible in litigation. In other words, the DOJ used the threat of litigation—and the corresponding financial and reputational costs—to cause banks to take actions that a court would not have

ordered them to do. (emphasis added)
Even as early as 2010, some members of Congress had begun to take notice that all was not right in the new administration’s Justice Department.
See  entire 115 page Government Accountability Institute report here: FOLLOW THE MONEY: HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FUNDS PROGRESSIVE ACTIVISTS
Related Article:
HEADLINE JUNE 27, 2017: Hidden Government Forcing Taxpayers To Finance Their Own Destruction
Peter Schweizer‘s Government Accountability Institute issued a report in October 2016, “Follow the Money: How the Department of Justice Funds Progressive Activists,” that detailed the stunning amount of money the DoJ has been awarding to left-wing groups. Under Eric Holder’s DoJ, financial institutions paid an unprecedented $110 billion in fines, much of which came in through out-of-court settlements.
Many of the cases were based on tenuous grounds, such as “disparate impact” which assumes racism based solely on the proportion of loans awarded to minorities. According to the report, “The DOJ used the threat of litigation—and the corresponding financial and reputational costs—to cause banks to take actions that a court would not have ordered them to do.”
We are still trying to figure out where it all went. But we do have some ideas. As with Obama’s corrupt green energy subsidies, it seems apparent that Holder’s DoJ extorted huge sums from banks specifically to funnel money to political allies. Schweizer documents how the DoJ flagrantly misused this money:
holder the dept of just us

Saturday, July 1, 2017

Related image

Obama makes nostalgic trip to his Indonesia childhood home, as Susan Rice Agrees to Testify

Image result for obama i will stand with the muslims

Former U.S. President Barack Obama and his family arrived Friday in his childhood home of Jakarta on the last leg of a 10-day vacation in Indonesia, where they visited ancient temples and went whitewater rafting.
Local television news channels broadcast live coverage of the family's arrival in the capital.
Indonesian President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo later met Obama at the Bogor Palace in West Java. The grand Dutch colonial building about 55 kilometers (35 miles) south of Jakarta is famous for its botanical gardens and a herd of spotted deer that roam the grounds.
The two jumped into a golf cart with Jokowi at the wheel and headed off to a cafe nestled inside the lush gardens. Many Indonesians have drawn comparisons between Jokowi and Obama, who were both highly popular during their election campaigns.
After Obama became president, many here viewed him as a native son and saw him as a symbol of hope and religious tolerance because of his years living in the world's most populous Muslim country.
A statue of the boy still remembered as "Barry" by childhood friends was erected outside the elementary school he once attended in the capital's upscale, leafy neighborhood of Menteng.
"This is the last opportunity for us to meet with Barry, our childhood friend who has made us so proud," said Widianto Cahyono, who sat next to Obama in the fourth grade and is hopeful the former president will visit his old neighborhood. "We have long waited for a reunion with him."
Obama also retains a soft spot for Indonesia, where he lived from age 6 to 10. He moved to Jakarta in 1967 after his mother split up with his father and remarried an Indonesian man. They had his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, who is traveling with the family.
After her second marriage failed, Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, stayed on in Indonesia and Obama returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents.
During a 2010 presidential visit, he delighted onlookers by proclaiming in Bahasa Indonesia that bakso, a savory meatball soup, and nasi goreng, flavorful fried rice, are delicious. They are two of the country's signature dishes.
Prior to arriving in Jakarta, Obama, his wife Michelle and daughters Sasha and Malia visited the resort island of Bali where they stayed in the tranquil mountain enclave of Ubud, touring sweeping terraced rice paddies and rafting the Ayung river. They then traveled to the island of Java to the historic city of Yogyakarta, where Obama's mother did anthropology research. They visited Borobudur, a ninth century Buddhist temple complex, as well as the ancient Prambanan Hindu temple compound.
Obama is scheduled to speak at an Indonesian Diaspora Congress in Jakarta on Saturday.

Friday, June 30, 2017

Watch: GOP Senator Torches Obama's Weakness On Russia

Image result for obama putin

There are those who continue to use the Russian collusion story as a crutch to avoid dealing with the reality that Hillary Clinton lost to Donald J. Trump in the 2016 election. Moreover, because of the collusion story and the borderline Russophobic hysteria that’s ensued since then, people think that Trump is weaker with Russia. He has to be, right? I mean Vladimir Putin helped him get elected, so say the delusional leftists. On Wednesday, at a Senate 
Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) aptly noted the differences between the two presidents when it comes to handling Russia, torching Obama, and rightfully so, for his weakness in confronting a nation that he thought was yesterday’s news. It’s very satisfying. In short, the Obama way of dealing with the Russians was either caving or letting them walk all over him, whether that be in Syria, Ukraine, or even during our own election. 

President Trump has bombed Kahn Sheikhoun military base in Syria [I think he meant to say Shayrat air base; Kahn is the town that was hit by the chemical weapons attack]. He has shot down Syrian planes. He has shot down Iranian drones. Thereby Russia is unable to protect its two main clients in the Middle East. We’re on the verge of deploying more troops to Afghanistan where Russia has been meddling with ever-greater intensity in recent years. And we have finally proposed a budget that increases military spending, albeit, not enough, that accelerates ballistic missile defense. And our domestic agencies are doing everything they can to promote oil and gas production in the United States.

By contrast, President Obama famously pressed the reset button a few weeks into his tenure, six months after Russia invaded Georgia. He mocked Mitt Romney for calling Russia our number one geopolitical foe. He asked Dmitry Medvedev in a hot mic moment to wait until after the election to discuss missile defenses because he would have more flexibility. Despite bipartisan support in the Congress, President Obama refused to send lethal weapons to Ukraine. He stood idly by as Russia returned to the Middle East for the first time in 40 years, and he stood idly by, as we’ve heard today, in the 2016 election.

Ranking House Democrat On Intel Committee: Obama Fumbled The Ball On Russia

Image result for obama putin

Every day more and more Democrats are saying that President Obama fumbled the ball on the Russian meddling during the 2016 election. The Washington Post dropped a bombshell report that the Obama administration knew well in advance of Russia’s interference campaign, but hesitated on how to respond. It also pointed out that it seemed the Obama White House was afraid of Russia and what they would do if they reacted strongly. In the end, they booted a few suspected Russian operatives, closed a couple of their compounds, and enacted sanctions that had a de minimis effect. Russia views this as a slap on the wrist and Obama failed miserably in deterring similar action in the future. Yet, Obama did nothing when Russia annexed Ukraine and did nothing when Russia elbowed their way into Syria. They read him like a book and his reaction was no different in this instance. Liberals criticized Bush for him sitting while school children listened to a rendition of “The Pet Goat” when the nation was under attack on 9/11. Obama dropped the ball for weeks on how to respond to Russia.
On CBS’ Face The Nation last weekend, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell did say that Obama did a good job coordinating with other states to protect their voting systems, but ceded the battlefield to Vladimir Putin when he sat on this information. President Trump tweeted why there was no response from the Obama administration on Russia's meddling. There seems to be a rare moment of agreement between Trump and some congressional Democrats: Obama should have done more. Now, we have ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) saying that President Obama more or less fumbled the ball on Russia (via CNN):
 The top Democrat on the House intelligence committee said Sunday he believed the Obama administration should have taken bolder action in response to intelligence reports about Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election. 

"I think the Obama administration should have done a lot more when it became clear that not only was Russia intervening, but it was being directed at the highest levels of the Kremlin," Rep. Adam Schiff said on CNN's "State of the Union."
Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) has also said President Obama should have done more with regards to Russian meddling.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Susan Rice Says She's A Victim of Racism And Sexism? Sorry Rice Playing The Race Card, Will Not Work Here

Related image

Susan Rice Says She's A Victim of Racism And Sexism? Sorry Rice Playing The Race Card, Will Not Work Here

Image result for Susan Rice lied

Former national security adviser and UN ambassador Susan Rice refuses to go quietly into retirement, even though she remains one of the most controversial figures of the Obama Administration.

Now, thanks to a glowing profile in New York Magazine, we know that despite Susan Rice’s very public shortcomings  (whatever happened to that dastardly filmmaker who spurred violence across the Middle East, anyway?), she believes any criticism of her tenure is at least partly the result of racism and sexism.

When asked why she became a “target” in the Trump Administration, she replied, “I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. What do you think?…I do not leap to the simple explanation that it’s only about race and gender. I’m trying to keep my theories to myself until I’m ready to come out with them. It’s not because I don’t have any.”

But, she goes on to imply, Trump—and the rest of his administration, for that matter —doesn’t seem to like people of her race and gender.

And she feels personally violated by the continued interest by Trump and others in her actions as both a National Security Adviser and as a diplomat. All of her major achievements —the non-binding Paris Climate Accord, the new relationship with Cuba, and the Iranian nuclear deal—have been walked back by Trump. And she thinks that’s a personal jab at her and not simply a new administration rolling back hastily made and ineffective policy.