Author Topic: The war on the rule of law; the Deep State  (Read 353548 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile
Does Baraq's strong backing for EDC mean the fixi is in?
« Reply #456 on: March 18, 2016, 09:26:34 AM »
How we now know that Hillary Clinton will not be prosecuted for anything
POSTED AT 8:01 AM ON MARCH 18, 2016 BY JAZZ SHAW

John wrote yesterday about how Barack Obama has been working behind the scenes to move large dollar Democratic donors away from Bernie Sanders and towards Hillary Clinton. This, combined with various attacks from his bully pulpit on Donald Trump, have led to the correct conclusion that Obama will wind up being one of the most active presidents in modern history in terms of the election of his successor. This was a point made this week by Juliet Eilperin at the Washington Post. Traditionally, Presidents have bent over backward to at least lend the patina of non-involvement in such an election, allowing the voters to make their own choice, but not so in this case.

But we learned something else from this episode if you’re willing to look into the tea leaves closely enough. Michelle Jesse came to the same conclusion I did yesterday.

But the bigger point is, why would President Obama tell his party to unite around a candidate at serious risk of criminal indictment — when all signs from the FBI would indicate a very good chance, if not a certainty, that indictment will be recommended based on the investigation? Of course, he would only do such a thing if he knew — was determined — that, no matter what, the chosen candidate would not be charged.

Hillary Clinton herself has appeared to think she’s untouchable — even declaring with certainty that she will not be indicted. “Oh, for goodness, it’s not going to happen. I’m not even answering that question,” Clinton said recently in Miami.

There’s a reason that these two stories are so closely interwoven. If Barack Obama were taking the usual stance of presidents past he would simply express his support for whichever Democrat the voters chose in the primary and get on with his life, but this cycle has a number of wildcards mixed into the deck. You’d be hard pressed to find a parallel in the history of American politics where a major party presidential candidate was on the verge of winning the nomination while simultaneously facing the threat of indictment on serious criminal charges. (We won’t count Nixon in 72 because the break-in at the Watergate hotel didn’t happen until June of that year and there wasn’t a conviction until after Nixon was reelected and sworn in the following January.)
With the President being so clearly invested in electing a Democrat in general and Hillary Clinton in particular to continue his legacy, there’s simply no way he would risk putting his thumb on the scale for a candidate who might be essentially disqualified if she had to run the last stage of her campaign from a jail cell. With all that in mind, it’s difficult to conclude anything other than a presumption that Obama knows that Clinton will face no such peril. But how could he know that if the investigation isn’t even finished yet?

It’s a question which is answered rather easily, and it all comes down to Huma Abedin. It’s true that we’ve previously speculated that Huma might be the undoing of Clinton once all of her records are examined, but she also serves as an example of just how far the Obama administration is willing to go to block any damage to Clinton’s historic candidacy. When the Inspectors General turned over an embezzlement case against Abedin for prosecution, the Justice Department promptly dropped it in the circular file as an act of prosecutorial discretionand that was the end of it.

Is there any reason that they won’t do the same with Hillary Clinton herself? There are only two people who can know the answer to that question with certainty and they are Barack Obama himself and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. If the fix is in and Lynch has been told to flush any recommendation she receives from the FBI or other law enforcement officials, Clinton is in the clear and the campaign can continue without losing any sleep. But if there was even a chance that an indictment was coming, you’d see Barack Obama sidestepping away from Hillary as fast as his feet could carry him.

The game is rigged, folks. At this point even the FBI must be wondering why they’re even bothering with all this work.



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
AG Loretta Lynch wants to let nation break law without consequences
« Reply #459 on: April 09, 2016, 05:14:49 PM »
http://nypost.com/2016/03/27/ag-loretta-lynch-wants-to-let-nation-break-law-without-consequences/

AG Loretta Lynch wants to let nation break law without consequences
By Paul Sperry March 27, 2016 | 6:00am
Modal Trigger AG Loretta Lynch wants to let nation break law without consequences


Black Democrats pitch Loretta Lynch for Supreme Court
As New York moves to decriminalize low-level offenses, arguing enforcement is “rigged against communities of color,” other large cities are coming under pressure from the Justice Department to do the same thing.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has issued a warning to municipal and state judges across the country that their courts could lose federal funding if they don’t ease up on fines and arrest warrants for minor crimes involving poor offenders, indigent minorities in particular.

In lieu of fines and jail time, Lynch urges the nation’s 6,500 municipal courts to provide an avenue for offenders to perform “community service” or take advantage of “amnesty days,” whereby outstanding arrest warrants are cleared for nominal fees.

Failure to comply with these policies could trigger a Ferguson-style discrimination investigation. Already, Lynch says she’s “evaluating discrimination complaints against several court systems.”

A strongly worded “guidance” letter, written by her civil rights team, warns that a local court policy of enforcing warrants for failure to pay court fines and fees can have an adverse “disparate impact” on African-Americans, who are fined and/or arrested for outstanding warrants at “disproportionate” rates versus whites.

Federal data also show that blacks tend to break both felony and misdemeanor laws at a disproportionate rate. Even if applied evenly across all races and in neutral, color-blind fashion, such policies could be found by Justice to be discriminatory.

“In court systems receiving federal funds, these practices may also violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when they unnecessarily impose disparate harm on the basis of race,” the nine-page letters states.

It’s a slippery slope to clemency for criminals, large and small.
This is the same dubious legal threat the administration is using to force the nation’s public schools to back off suspending unruly — even violent — black students, and to force cops to avoid stopping, frisking and arresting minority offenders.

The Supreme Court has ruled that disparate impact doesn’t violate Title VI, only “intentional” discrimination does. “The administration is quite wrong to say that Title VI incorporates a ‘disparate impact’ standard,” Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity points out. “The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that it does not.”

This new court “reform” will only exacerbate the crime problem. Studies show ignoring low-level crimes like warrant violations only leads to bigger crimes.

Under Mayor Bill de Blasio, the NYPD has scaled back its aggressive enforcement of low-level offenses only to see both minor and serious crime rebound. Already cops have backed off public urination and other public nuisance violations, while overlooking outstanding warrants for many other misdemeanor crimes.

Even a senior Justice Department official predicts the decriminalization-cum-deincarceration movement will backfire in higher crime nationwide. “In five years the crime rate is going to be crazy again,” he said.

The official, who oversees probation of felons paroled from federal prisons and who requested anonymity, worries the new department policy will be abused.

“I don’t see liberal judges even attempting to make people pay or spending the time making an accurate determination of a person being ‘indigent,’ ” he said. “It’s another way of not holding people accountable for their actions.”

Modal Trigger
The Justice guidance defines “indigent” as anybody who might be “eligible for public benefits,” but not actually receiving them. “Jurisdictions may benefit from creating statutory presumptions of indigency for certain classes of defendants,” the source said.

The administration claims cops and courts conspire to exploit poor blacks to generate city revenue in some kind of shakedown. But data show blacks fail to pay their fines at far greater rates than whites, so why not target whites if cash extortion is the objective?

Many of the cities with the highest fines, such as Philadelphia, are run by Democrats; and the Justice Department is no piker when it comes to levying fines.

“US attorneys always want fines and restitution amounts in the millions from people who have little chance of ever paying it back,” the department official said.

Liberals are actually to blame for the trend they’re trying to reform. Court fines and fees help pay for all the new costs liberals have added to the system, such as drug counseling and home electronic monitoring. They’ve also pushed judges to assess more fines in lieu of incarceration, especially for drug offenders.

Yet now they claim the whole court fine and bail system is racist.

Former federal civil rights attorney Hans Bader, now with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, describes the latest reforms as a “massive assault on the criminal justice system.”

It’s a slippery slope to clemency for criminals, large and small.

Paul Sperry is a former Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration.”

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #460 on: April 09, 2016, 05:32:30 PM »
Just another example of the war on white people.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #461 on: April 18, 2016, 03:48:00 PM »
While I was gone I saw something about how Baraq said there would be no White House interference with the FBI/DOJ investigation of the Empress Dowager and then later in the same comments he interfered.  Anyone have a good citation for this?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 08:02:51 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #463 on: April 18, 2016, 08:03:01 PM »
Thank you.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18269
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #464 on: April 19, 2016, 11:16:35 AM »
He has been meddling from the beginning, like he did with Supreme Court cases, Fast and Furious and IRS Targeting.  Just the fact that he guarantees no political influence tells us there is. 

What else would be holding up the investigation?  Why didn't he start the investigation when he found out about her personal server long before we did?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18269
    • View Profile
The war on the rule of law: The Danziger Bridge case
« Reply #465 on: April 27, 2016, 09:13:13 AM »
(Moving this over by request)  I'm sure everyone has already seen this case plastered all over the news...

Serious misconduct and cover up by the New Orleans police followed by misconduct of the Justice Department lawyers in the case. The judge excoriates in very strong language the conduct of gov’t prosecutors and their supervisors in Washington. The judge puts the blame on the supervisors of the civil rights division of the Justice Dept. and Thomas Perez, the current Secretary of Labor and head of the Civil Rights Division at the time, is specifically mentioned.

Perez is a possible Hillary VP choice and Loretta Lynch runs a Justice Department that still hasn't acted on Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, black Panthers voter interference or Hillary Clinton's security breaches.  Also note the lack of coverage outside of that region.  Does anyone here know more on this?

More here:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/04/across-the-danziger-bridge.php
and here:
http://theadvocate.com/news/neworleans/neworleansnews/15568565-123/with-danziger-bridge-pleas-federal-judge-unloads-on-top-government-officials

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #466 on: April 27, 2016, 12:04:13 PM »
Lets keep an eye out for those names should they become part of the Empress Dowager's campaign.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Legitimacy
« Reply #467 on: April 27, 2016, 07:41:19 PM »



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
are we at war or not?
« Reply #470 on: May 07, 2016, 05:16:00 AM »
This officer does have a good point.  Why are we always conducting war like military operations without approval from Congress.  OTOH we have a President who will not name the enemy for who they are.   

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/05/06/army-captain-sues-obama-war-isis/

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: are we at war or not?
« Reply #471 on: May 07, 2016, 05:28:09 AM »
This officer does have a good point.  Why are we always conducting war like military operations without approval from Congress.  OTOH we have a President who will not name the enemy for who they are.   

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/05/06/army-captain-sues-obama-war-isis/

The JV squad is somehow exempt. Obama has a pen and a phone.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18269
    • View Profile
Re: are we at war or not?
« Reply #472 on: May 07, 2016, 12:59:19 PM »
This officer does have a good point.  Why are we always conducting war like military operations without approval from Congress.  OTOH we have a President who will not name the enemy for who they are.   
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/05/06/army-captain-sues-obama-war-isis/
The JV squad is somehow exempt. Obama has a pen and a phone.

I think Rand Paul had an authorization of force proposal.  Even if you oppose use of force, you should support taking and up or down vote.  Are we at war with ISIS or not?  To be at war, the constitution requires that congress declare it.  Even against a "JV team".  I don't know a sports analogy that works for people who blow up civilians and decapitate innocent people.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #473 on: May 07, 2016, 03:36:27 PM »
"Obama has a pen and a drone."

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #474 on: May 07, 2016, 05:21:47 PM »
"Obama has a pen and a drone."

I kick myself for not thinking of that! Nice.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
The end result of war on the rule of law
« Reply #477 on: May 23, 2016, 06:22:59 AM »
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/22/government-corruption-law-abiding-society-trust-irs-hillary-clinton-column/84744432/

Glenn Reynolds: When leaders cheat, followers ... follow
Glenn Harlan Reynolds 4:14 p.m. EDT May 22, 2016
The trust that underlies a law-abiding society is rotting away thanks to double-dealing in Washington.


The state is “a gang of thieves writ large,” economist Murray Rothbard is said to have remarked. I’ve always viewed that sort of comment with a bit of skepticism. But now I’m beginning to wonder.

I wonder more when I read things like this report from the Washington Examiner: “The CIA's inspector general is claiming it inadvertently destroyed its only copy of a classified, three-volume Senate report on torture, prompting a leading senator to ask for reassurance that it was in fact ‘an accident.’”

Here’s a hint: It very likely wasn’t.

Is that unfair? I mean, it could have been an accident, right? Yeah it could have been. But it wasn’t. Accidents like that just don’t happen — or, when they do, they’re generally not accidents. And it’s right for people who have custody of evidence to know that any convenient “accidents” will give rise to the presumption that they had something pretty awful to hide, and that they hid it.

But, of course, the CIA’s “accident” was only the latest in a long rash of “accidental” losses of incriminating information in this administration. The IRS — whose Tea Party-targeting scandal is now over 1,100 days old without anyone being charged or sent to jail — seems to have a habit of ”accidentally” destroying hard drives containing potentially incriminating evidence. It has done so in spite of court orders, in spite of Congressional inquiries and in spite of pretty much everyone’s belief that these “accidents” were actually the deliberate, illegal destruction of incriminating evidence to protect the guilty.

Then there’s Hillary’s email scandal, in which emails kept on a private unsecure server — presumably to avoid Freedom of Information Act disclosures — were deleted. Now emails from Hillary’s IT guy, who is believed to have set up the server, have gone poof.

“Destroy the evidence, and you’ve got it made,” said an old frozen dinner commercial. But now that appears to be the motto of the United States government.

So why do the rest of us bother to obey the law? And, yes, that’s an increasingly serious question.

People follow the law for a mix of reasons. First, they may simply fear punishment. That undoubtedly motivates a lot of people, though in fact the risk of punishment is usually pretty low, and people, in general, obey the law even when the risk of being caught is negligible.

People may also obey the law because they agree with it: I don’t need to worry about the likelihood of punishment for torturing kittens because I think that’s wrong, and I wouldn’t do it anyway.

And people may obey the law because they think that being law-abiding is an important part of maintaining a viable society. But that’s the kind of law-abiding behavior that’s at risk when people at the top treat the law with unconcealed contempt.

Being law-abiding for its own sake is a traditional part of bourgeois culture, and our ruling class has lately treated the bourgeoisie with contempt as well. Which raises the risk that this contempt will be returned.

Back in the midst of the financial crisis, Gonzalo Lira looked at how people were responding to the mortgage meltdown and warned of a coming middle-class anarchy. He wrote:

“A terrible sentence, when a law-abiding citizen speaks it: Everybody else is doing it — so why don’t we? ... What’s really important is that law-abiding middle-class citizens are deciding that playing by the rules is nothing but a sucker’s game.”

America has been — and, for the moment, remains — a high-trust society. In high-trust societies, people extend trust to strangers and follow rules for the most part even when nobody is watching. In low-trust societies, trust seldom extends beyond close family, and everybody cheats if they can get away with it.

High-trust societies are much nicer places to live than low-trust ones. But a fish rots from the head and the head of our society is looking pretty rotten. As Lira says, “I’m like Wayne Gretsky: I don’t concern myself with where the puck has been — I look for where the puck is going to be.” Where will our society be in a decade if these trends continue? And what can we do to ensure that they don’t?

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
this is nice but as always changes nothing
« Reply #479 on: May 25, 2016, 03:46:05 PM »
But what does "public scolding" mean? 

Are there any consequences?

Should not the state or DC bar take action against these attorneys?

What good is public scolding anyway?  It will not really be in the MSM domain.

What consequences? 

I assume there is no controlling legal authority.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18269
    • View Profile
Re: changes nothing, Rule of Law?
« Reply #480 on: May 25, 2016, 04:10:30 PM »
But what does "public scolding" mean? 

Are there any consequences?

Should not the state or DC bar take action against these attorneys?

What good is public scolding anyway?  It will not really be in the MSM domain.

What consequences? 

I assume there is no controlling legal authority.

Agree!  Where are the consequences?  The IRS commissioner, the Attorney General is Fast and Furious, the private email server and on and on.  Break the law, break the rules, no consequence.

Can't wait to see the upcoming pardon season.  No one went to jail, maybe there won't be any pardons.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #481 on: May 25, 2016, 09:45:35 PM »
Judge Napolitano said today's IG report PROVES mens rea on Hillary's part and unambiguously predicts the FBI will recommend prosecution before the convention.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Laws are for the little people, not Hillary
« Reply #482 on: May 27, 2016, 06:30:19 AM »
Sub sailor's photo case draws comparisons to Clinton emails
By JOSH GERSTEIN 05/27/16 08:07 AM EDT Updated 05/27/16 09:20 AM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

A Navy sailor is set to plead guilty Friday in a classified information mishandling case that critics charge illustrates a double standard between the treatment of low-ranking government employees and top officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus, a source close to the case said.
Prosecutors allege that Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier used a cellphone camera to take photos in the classified engine room of the nuclear submarine where he worked as a mechanic, the USS Alexandria, then destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card after learning he was under investigation.


No advance notice was given on the court’s docket, but a clerk’s office employee confirmed just after 9 a.m. Friday morning that a change of plea hearing was underway in the case.
Last July, Saucier was indicted on one felony count of unlawful retention of national defense information and another felony count of obstruction of justice. The classified information charge is part of the Espionage Act, but no charge of espionage was filed and no public suggestion of espionage has been made.
The charges carry a maximum possible sentence of up to 30 years in prison, although the sailor’s sentence will likely be significantly less than that.
Saucier’s friends, conservative commentators and others say the stiff charges against Saucier are out of whack with more lenient treatment given to senior officials who face allegations of mishandling classified information, like Clinton.
“I just don’t think it’s fair,” said Gene Pitcher, a retired Navy sailor who served with Saucier aboard the Alexandria. “In reality, what she did is so much worse than what Kris did. ... I think it’s just a blatant double standard.”
Clinton has not been charged with any crime, but the FBI has been investigating how information that intelligence agencies consider classified wound up on the private server that hosted her only email account during the four years she served as secretary of state. Some news reports have said charges are unlikely.
“Felony charges appear to be reserved for people of the lowest ranks. Everyone else who does it either doesn’t get charged or gets charged with a misdemeanor,” said Edward MacMahon, a Virginia defense attorney not involved in the Saucier case.
To some, the comparison to Clinton’s case may appear strained. Clinton has said none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time. In many cases, it was marked as unclassified when sent to her by people in the State Department more familiar with the issues involved.
By contrast, sailors are trained early on that the engine compartment of a nuclear sub is a restricted area and that much information relating to the sub’s nuclear reactors is classified.
Still, it’s far from obvious that the information Saucier took photos of is more sensitive than information found in Clinton’s account. Court filings say the photos were clear enough that they reveal classified details about the submarine that could be of use to foreign governments, such as the vessel’s maximum speed.

However, the Navy says the photos are classified “confidential,” which is the lowest tier of protection for classified information and is designated for information that could cause some damage to national security but not “serious” or “exceptionally grave” damage.
Intelligence agencies claim that Clinton’s account contained 65 messages with information considered “Secret” and 22 classified at the “Top Secret” level. Some messages contained data under an even more restrictive “special access program” designation.
Clinton and her campaign have disputed those findings, calling them a result of “overclassification” and urging that the messages be released in full.

However, Clinton’s critics and some former intelligence officials said she should have recognized the sensitivity of the information. They’ve also noted that about 32,000 messages on Clinton’s server were erased after her lawyers deemed them personal.
“The DOJ is willing to prosecute a former sailor to the full extent of the law for violating the law on classified material, in a situation where there was no purposeful unsecured transmission of classified material,” conservative blogger Ed Morrissey wrote last year. “Will they pursue Hillary Clinton and her team, at the other end of the power spectrum from the rank-and-file, for deliberate unsecured transmission of improperly marked classified nat-sec intelligence? Will they pursue the same kind of obstruction of justice charges for Hillary’s wiping of her server as they are for Saucier’s destruction of his laptop?”

Jury selection in Saucier’s case took place earlier this month in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and opening arguments were scheduled to take place Tuesday, just after the Memorial Day holiday. Instead, a change-of-plea hearing is expected Friday. It was not immediately clear to what charge Saucier plans to plead guilty or what plea deal has been struck.
A defense attorney for Saucier and a spokesman for the prosecution did not respond to messages Thursday evening seeking comment for this story.

The investigation into Saucier kicked off in a rather unusual way in 2012 when a supervisor at a dump in Hampton, Connecticut, found a cellphone “on top of a pile of trash approximately three to four feet into the middle of a dumpster at the transfer station,” a court filing read. The supervisor showed the images to a retired Navy friend who turned over the device to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

Pitcher acknowledges that his friend violated Navy rules if he took the photos as prosecutors allege, but he says such infractions by submariners were not uncommon and were almost always dealt with through what the military calls “nonjudicial punishment” or Captain’s Mast. Those involved were demoted and docked some pay, but didn’t face a felony record or the prospect of years behind bars, the retired sailor said.

“Two guys in our boat were caught taking photos in the engine room on the nuclear side of things. Basically, all that happened to them was they … lost a rank,” Pitcher said. “I’ve seen quite a few cases like this and never seen any handled like Kris’.”
secondary_sub_compy_1_ho_1160.jpg

Redacted and declassified cell-phone photos of nuclear sub’s engine room/Justice Department Court Filing
One factor that may have led investigators and prosecutors to handle Saucier’s case more aggressively is the way he responded when confronted about the photos. Court filings say he initially denied he took the pictures. Prosecutors say he later smashed his laptop, camera and memory card and threw them in the woods.
On top of that, Saucier had a handgun not registered to him in his home, prosecutors allege. After the FBI and NCIS showed up to question him, he allegedly cleaned it with bleach and stashed it under the dishwasher.
“They love the obstruction charges,” MacMahon said. “What they look for is something that’s aggravating.”
The defense attorney noted that CIA Director David Petraeus was accused of lying to the FBI when first confronted about keeping top secret notebooks at home and sharing them with his lover. Many lawyers believe that fact may have tipped the case against Petraeus from something that might have cost him his job to one that resulted in criminal prosecution.

Still, Petraeus was never charged with obstruction of justice. Before any charges were filed, his attorney reached a deal with prosecutors in which the retired general pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.
A former military investigator who handled classified information cases said the military tends to treat such violations more seriously than civilian government agencies do and there are some valid reasons for that.

“It is exceedingly common for people in the military to be held accountable for classified information violations, much more so than in the civilian government or contractor world,” said Bill Leonard, former director of the government’s Information Security Oversight Office. “My sense is that’s just a reflection of the military’s emphasis on good order and discipline. ... It really does make a difference to the guy or gal next to you if [sensitive] information is compromised. That’s a very real consequence.”
secondary_sub_compy_2_ho_1160.jpg
Redacted and declassified cell-phone photos of nuclear sub’s engine room/Justice Department Court Filing

Since Saucier is still in the Navy, it’s unclear why he was charged in federal civilian court rather than sent to a court-martial. One possibility is that investigators may have considered charging others in civilian life with conspiring with the Navy sailor, but that has not happened.
Former Navy sailors said Saucier’s case also overlaps with a period during which the Navy was trying to strike a balance involving the boredom of submarine life during deployments as long as six months and the increasing popularity of smartphones, video-game players and similar devices.
While photography was always banned in engine rooms and taking a camera there would have been highly suspicious, ubiquitous phones with cameras have added new complexity to the situation, the sailors said.
With his friend set to plead guilty, Pitcher said he’s still convinced that Saucier is being treated more harshly than others in government of low or high rank.
“A lot of people were doing what Kris was doing,” Pitcher said. “Clearly, to an educated observer, this is not fair treatment in comparison to other highly visible cases.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/kristian-saucier-investigation-hillary-clinton-223646#
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #485 on: May 31, 2016, 04:34:15 AM »
"Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

The left's answer is always the same.  She did NOT "willfully and unlawfully etc...... " (even though the public record alone is enough to prove that she did.)




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #486 on: May 31, 2016, 08:07:08 AM »
Thank you Doug!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18269
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #487 on: June 01, 2016, 07:25:17 AM »
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=245244612504426&set=a.109079146120974.1073741827.100010566667295&type=3&theater

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

One point first, the constitution spells out the requirements to be President and the requirement of the Vice President are the same, eligible to be President, and Title 19 of the US Code doesn't come above that.  So this law means she is banned and barred from holding any office in the United States - except President or Vice President. 


1)  She "willfully, unlawfully, concealing and removing, or attempting to conceal or remove"
        30,000 documents removed from server under her direction, hidden from oversight

2) "any record, paper, document, or other thing [ELECTRONIC MAIL (EMAIL)]

3)  with "any public office"  [Secretary of State]

Is there a gray area here?  She didn't "attempt to remove or conceal"?  These aren't "other things" like papers and documents?  Sec State is not a "public office"?

US Code provides that:  Shall be fined and / or imprisoned. 

Within the law above, either or both, fined and imprisoned, is a legal choice; neither is not.

Whoever it is [U.S. Attorney General and the President] that is charged with fining or imprisoning her [at least bringing charges] should also face a consequence for refusal to perform the duties entrusted upon them.  Even President Nixon's cabinet understood the choices available to them, do your job or resign your office.  Too bad we don't use the impeachment process more often for office holders who don't and won't enforce the laws that apply to the executive branch.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #488 on: June 01, 2016, 09:24:28 AM »
"One point first, the constitution spells out the requirements to be President and the requirement of the Vice President are the same, eligible to be President, and Title 19 of the US Code doesn't come above that.  So this law means she is banned and barred from holding any office in the United States - except President or Vice President." 

Disagree.  I think the C. is setting out the minimum requirements here; the requirements listed are not meant to be an exhaustive list.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18269
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #490 on: June 02, 2016, 12:58:10 PM »
[DM] "One point first, the constitution spells out the requirements to be President and the requirement of the Vice President are the same, eligible to be President, and Title 19 of the US Code doesn't come above that.  So this law means she is banned and barred from holding any office in the United States - except President or Vice President." 

Crafty]  Disagree.  I think the C. is setting out the minimum requirements here; the requirements listed are not meant to be an exhaustive list.


Very interesting.  My view above is based on my opinion, not necessarily legal ruling.  Crazy, but I believe one Congress cannot bind a future Congress, for example, notice how they ignore Humphrey Hawkins and laws that required budgets to be introduced and passed on a particular schedule.  To me, same goes for Title 19 etc.  Congress and Pres of 1960s do not limit who can run for President in 2016.  We have an amendment process for that and it requires 4/5ths of the state legislatures, not a majority in congress plus a Presidential signature.

Even if you went with my view that only the constitution can limit her eligibility to be President, it should be damaging enough that she is banned from any lower office and that her entire inner circle is ineligible for re-hire to staff positions because they conspired to commit the same crimes.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18269
    • View Profile
War on the rule of law, "This is how I was treated by the IRS"
« Reply #491 on: June 20, 2016, 08:31:48 AM »
This summarizes the Presidency of Barack Obama and the continuation of this national nightmare under the name of Hillary Clinton.  Obama has not answered to Fast and Furious or to the IRS scandal that helped him get fraudulently reelected in a way far worse than Richard Nixon.  No one has been fired, arrested or prosecuted.  Hillary Clinton worked on the Nixon impeachment and has not distanced herself from the Obama administration scandals.  Waiting for "the media" to pursue this is beyond foolish.  Trump's strength supposedly was to control the media coverage in his favor.  None of that is happening.  This treatment described here is obscene, unworthy of happening in the Soviet Union or PRC.  It is on a par with tanks rolling over protesters in Tiananmen Square.  Worse in a way because of how it is swept under the carpet where the PRC wanted all potential protesters to see their carnage.

Here it is, for all who read PJ Media or DBMA forum, to see:
(I better post the entire text in case the government censors take the story down.)

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/16/heres-how-the-irs-treated-me-because-im-a-conservative/

To save on accounting fees, I did much of the legwork. I mailed the heavy envelope with my $850 fee to the IRS on February 8, 2013. The IRS cashed my check -- but the three-month mark, by which we were told we could expect a response, passed.

Then the process became Kafkaesque -- not American.

We called as instructed. We were told we were not assigned an agent yet. We were told we could not be told when we would be assigned an agent. We were told to call back. We did. We were sent a form saying there were problems with the application.

We asked what kinds of problems. We were told that we could not be told. They would assign us an agent. When would we be assigned an agent? The IRS woman impatiently said she did not know.

We waited, long past the three-month mark. And past our opportunity to hold a 2013 year-end fundraiser. I continued to post and speak, and I published three educational guidebooks.

But over a year passed. I called my senator’s office. After several correspondences, we were told we had been assigned an agent.

On May 16, 2014, our – ahem -- Cincinnati-based agent sent an “Information Request” consisting of seven multi-part objections -- with a two-and-a-half week deadline to respond. I was floored. She ended up granting us several extra days.
To save on accounting fees, I did much of the legwork. I mailed the heavy envelope with my $850 fee to the IRS on February 8, 2013. The IRS cashed my check -- but the three-month mark, by which we were told we could expect a response, passed.

Then the process became Kafkaesque -- not American.

We called as instructed. We were told we were not assigned an agent yet. We were told we could not be told when we would be assigned an agent. We were told to call back. We did. We were sent a form saying there were problems with the application.

We asked what kinds of problems. We were told that we could not be told. They would assign us an agent. When would we be assigned an agent? The IRS woman impatiently said she did not know.

We waited, long past the three-month mark. And past our opportunity to hold a 2013 year-end fundraiser. I continued to post and speak, and I published three educational guidebooks.

But over a year passed. I called my senator’s office. After several correspondences, we were told we had been assigned an agent.

On May 16, 2014, our – ahem -- Cincinnati-based agent sent an “Information Request” consisting of seven multi-part objections -- with a two-and-a-half week deadline to respond. I was floored. She ended up granting us several extra days.

The IRS had three types of objections to our application: minor paperwork, a financial inquest, and ideological accusations.

The paperwork, involving a signature and a confusingly worded line on the application, could have been handled quickly by telephone.

The other categories were clearly intended to harass.

One amounted to an audit. An audit not on an existing organization, but on one still applying for status.

In the standard 501(c)(3) application, the IRS only asks for projected expenses, not exact amounts or names of vendors.

But now, still in the application process, we were asked to account -- down to the penny -- for such things as office supplies, honoraria to bloggers (ranging from $0 to $25), and professional fees. They wanted names of bloggers, contributors to guidebooks, and vendors -- how much each was paid, for which project, and what purpose. They wanted percentages of “time and resources” spent on named activities.

We then faced an ideological inquisition on … Common Core. Remember, the IRS granted non-profit status to the multi-million dollar agency that wrote the Common Core standards, namely the Bill Gates-funded Achieve.

They asked us to describe:

… the percentage of your total [Common Core] expenditures and total time spent on these activities during each of your past taxable years.
They also wanted future estimates. Then, they demanded:

Submit representative copies of the materials you prepare or distribute in furtherance of these activities.
Another demand they made was laughably harassing considering the information they already:

For purposes of calculating the percentage of expenditures, allocate salaries, administrative, overhead, and other general expenditures to these activities using a reasonable method. For purposes of calculating the percentage of time, include volunteer as well as employee hours.
Remember, it was pretty much me in the basement. I described my one-woman efforts in a recent post.

We finally received approval on September 2014. They forced me to waste money and time when we should have been building on the momentum of our launch and fundraising. Other groups also lost opportunities, namely in 2012.

That’s how this IRS, this administration, works.

FACEBOOK3.10K TWITTERTWEET 


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #492 on: June 20, 2016, 08:59:17 AM »
The federal government has been weaponized. Dissent will be treated accordingly.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile
Paris guns from Operation Fast & Furious?!?
« Reply #495 on: June 29, 2016, 02:26:53 PM »
Second post


Not yet confirmed, but there would appear to be considerable smoke , , ,

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/06/law-enforcement-sources-gun-used-paris-terrorist-attacks-came-phoenix/

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Paris guns from Operation Fast & Furious?!?
« Reply #496 on: June 29, 2016, 03:01:12 PM »
Second post


Not yet confirmed, but there would appear to be considerable smoke , , ,

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/06/law-enforcement-sources-gun-used-paris-terrorist-attacks-came-phoenix/

I'm sure the MSM will jump right on this story!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #497 on: June 29, 2016, 07:22:57 PM »
At the moment it looks murky. 

IF the gun was outside OFF, then I'm guessing this will be used as proof of the need for the controls suggested by the proposed UN Small Arms Treaty.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The war on the rule of law
« Reply #498 on: June 29, 2016, 07:40:53 PM »
At the moment it looks murky. 

IF the gun was outside OFF, then I'm guessing this will be used as proof of the need for the controls suggested by the proposed UN Small Arms Treaty.


There are already laws governing the import/export of weapons, which I doubt were followed, but that has never stopped them before. So, I guess that is how it will be spun.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69438
    • View Profile
Why Special Prosecutor is a bad idea
« Reply #499 on: July 03, 2016, 10:41:02 AM »
Well, if the gun in question walked into Mexico, and from there to Jihadi hands in Paris, that presents all kinds of interesting questions, , ,


==============================================



http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436488/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-obama-special-prosecutor-james-comey-fbi-justice-department