Archive for the ‘Judges’ Category

JUDICIAL WATCH : JUSTICE DEPTARMENT BLACKS OUT TALKING POINTS ON CLINTON/LYNCH TARMAC CAPER

Friday, August 4th, 2017

 

Where is the team of lawyers and a grand jury being set up to investigate this ? Thanks to Judicial Watch for persevering  in using a FOIA lawsuit to g

et the Justice Dept documents on the Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch tarmac caper !

  Avoiding   FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) was the reason Hillary used a private server.  If she had used the government server for her government communications as she was required to do, all her communications would be available to a FOIA request.  How she got away with deleting by bleachbit her 33,000 emails  would be an ideal investigation for another special counsel and grand jury .     Let the games begin !!!     Nancy

Judicial Watch: Justice Department Blacks Out Talking Points on Lynch-Clinton Tarmac Meeting

AUGUST 02, 2017

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that the Justice Department refuses to disclose the talking points developed by the Obama Justice Department to help it respond to press inquiries about the controversial June 27, 2016, tarmac meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.

The Justice Department heavily redacted the documents under Exemption b (5), which allows agencies to withhold draft or deliberative process material.  The blacked-out material centers around talking points drafted and used by Justice to respond to press inquiries about the Lynch-Clinton meeting.

The agency produced 417 pages of documents in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-00421) seeking:

  • All records and/or transcripts of a meeting held between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton in June 2016.
  • All records of communication sent to or from officials in the Office of the Attorney General regarding the meeting held between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton in June 2016.
  • All records of communication sent to or from officials in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General regarding the meeting held between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton in June 2016.
  • All references to the meeting held between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton contained in day planners, calendars and schedules in the Office of the Attorney General.
  • (more…)
Share

THE TYRANNY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

Tuesday, June 27th, 2017

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Tyranny of the Administrative State

Government by unelected experts isn’t all that different from the ‘royal prerogative’ of 17th-century England, argues constitutional scholar Philip Hamburger.

New York

What’s the greatest threat to liberty in America? Liberals rail at Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration and his hostility toward the press, while conservatives vow to reverse Barack Obama’s regulatory assault on religion, education and business. Philip Hamburger says both sides are thinking too small.

Like the blind men in the fable who try to describe an elephant by feeling different parts of its body, they’re not perceiving the whole problem: the enormous rogue beast known as the administrative state.

Sometimes called the regulatory state or the deep state, it is a government within the government, run by the president and the dozens of federal agencies that assume powers once claimed only by kings. In place of royal decrees, they issue rules and send out “guidance” letters like the one from an Education Department official in 2011 that stripped college students of due process when accused of sexual misconduct.

Unelected bureaucrats not only write their own laws, they also interpret these laws and enforce them in their own courts with their own judges. All this is in blatant violation of the Constitution, says Mr. Hamburger, 60, a constitutional scholar and winner of the Manhattan Institute’s Hayek Prize last year for his scholarly 2014 book, “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” (Spoiler alert: Yes.)

“Essentially, much of the Bill of Rights has been gutted,” he says, sitting in his office at Columbia Law School. “The government can choose to proceed against you in a trial in court with constitutional processes, or it can use an administrative proceeding where you don’t have the right to be heard by a real judge or a jury and you don’t have the full due process of law. Our fundamental procedural freedoms, which once were guarantees, have become mere options.” ​

In volume and complexity, the edicts from federal agencies exceed the laws passed by Congress by orders of magnitude. “The administrative state has become the government’s predominant mode of contact with citizens,” Mr. Hamburger says. “Ultimately this is not about the politics of left or right. Unlawful government power should worry everybody.”

  (more…)

Share

OUR NARCISSIST PRESIDENT IS WINNING !

Wednesday, June 7th, 2017

 

Forget What You Hear: Our Narcissist President Is Winning

I first became aware of Donald Trump in the late seventies.  I was not impressed.  In fact, I didn’t like him.  I thought he was a braggart and a man who went out of his way to disrespect women.  I wouldn’t have said so at the time, but he was clearly a narcissist.

Growing up in an Italian neighborhood in the Bronx, I have been around men like him all my life.  They’re going to do this; they’re going to do that.  They have this; they have that.  I took him to be a person so full of himself that his company would be unbearable.

I didn’t give him much hope of winning the presidency, either, but as election day neared, friends would ask what I thought a Trump presidency would look like.  Forced at that point to think about it, I would say that as a businessman, at least he would make quality appointments to the power positions in his administration – you can’t run a successful business without being able to delegate authority to a strong team of employees. 

As far as Trump’s narcissism, I’m not sure that hurts him as a president.  Sure, he could show better discretion with what he says – he does seem to have an almost Plaxico Burress-type dedication to shooting himself in the foot (see L’Affaire Comey).  Yet I think you need to have a certain amount of narcissism to be a successful president, although it doesn’t guarantee success. 

Just look at our second-most recent president, a solipsist so narcissistic he actually thought his mere presence would slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet.  Barry took narcissism to a new level, seemingly believing himself some kind of god, a belief fed by the nearly total hagiographic coverage he received from the Fourth Estate, our once nationally treasured free press, reduced to sycophantic (more like “sycofanatic”) exaltation of the “light bearer,” the man with the “crease.”

The difference between Barry’s narcissism and Trump’s is this: Trump is the guy who looks at the most beautiful girl at the party and says, “I can get her number.”  Barry would look at the same girl and say, “She wants me.”  Trump would then pursue the girl, and Barry would walk away, because obviously, she is not good enough for him, and besides, someone told him there’s a mirror in the next room. 

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – OBAMA’S NSA CONDUCTED ILLEGAL SEARCHES ON AMERICANS FOR YEARS

Tuesday, May 30th, 2017

 

OBAMA’S NSA CONDUCTED ILLEGAL SEARCHES ON AMERICANS FOR YEARS 

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017,  Judicial Watch Director of Investigations and Research, Chris Farrell,  appeared on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on the Fox Business Network to discuss the NSA under Obama routinely violated American privacy protections by conducting illegal searches for years.

“The Constitution is at risk”………”there has got to be a criminal prosecution”
VIDEO  

Share

GERMAN MAN PUSHED IN FRONT OF TRAIN BY MOROCCAN MIGRANTS

Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017

 

It is hard to imagine the hatred these two men must have for the West to do something like this.  It is also difficult to understand why the two Moroccan men  were released by the police and not charged with attempted murder.    Thanks to Charlie Hendrix of Ohio for sharing.  Nancy
GATES OF VIENNA

Culture-Enrichers Who Pushed Man in Front of a Train Released From Custody

March 20,  2017

As a follow-up to Saturday’s post about the man in Dresden who was pushed in front of a train by migrants, Egri Nök has translated an article from today’s TAG24:

Two men shoved him in front of a train and are already free again: Now the victim speaks

by Hermann Tydecks
March 20, 2017

Dresden — When the S-Bahn rushed towards him, René J. (40) stood in the track bed as if paralyzed: “I thought, this is it.” — the Dresdener wound up his life. Only the engine driver’s quick reaction saved the family father — emergency braking!

The two attackers who nudged him onto the tracks were arrested — and let go again (TAG24 reported). Inconceivable for the victim: “In my eyes it was attempted murder!”

[photo caption: father from the family of René J. (40) from Dresden returns to the crime scene, two days after the inconceivable act of violence.]

The S-Bahn stop Zschachwitz on Sunday. Two days after the stunning deed. René’s hand is shaking, he points to the spot one meter lower on the track bed: “They would not let me up again. I will never forget their faces…”

(more…)

Share

FEUD IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Saturday, March 18th, 2017

 

NY SUN

Feud in the Ninth Circuit

Share

LIMBAUGH: WE ARE ON THE VERGE OF A GENUINE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

Saturday, March 18th, 2017

 

Limbaugh: ‘We Are on the Verge of a Genuine Constitutional Crisis’

March 17, 2017

Friday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh warned of a coming constitutional crisis should the certain federal judges continue to deny President Donald Trump the ability to institute his policies.

Limbaugh pointed to the precedent set by the federal judiciary’s effort to deny Trump’s travel ban and argued it could lead to other limits on the president’s powers down the road.

Partial transcript as follows (courtesy of RushLimbaugh.com):

We are on the verge of a genuine constitutional crisis because of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opening the door for this Hawaii Obama-appointed judge to deny Trump’s travel ban the second time going, and I want to get into detail as to what this really means and what the left is really doing here.

(more…)

Share

RESCIND THE EXECUTIVE ORDER – AND REPLACE IT WITH MANY TOUGHER ONES

Friday, February 10th, 2017

 

Rescind the Executive Order — And Replace It With Many Tougher Ones

by Jim Simpson  

James Simpson is an economist, businessman and investigative journalist. His latest book is The Red Green Axis: Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America. Follow Jim on Twitter & Facebook.


   February 9, 2017



President Trump needs to deny the Left a victory over his immigration executive order. The court challenge now being heard by the infamously unconstitutional and extremist 9th Circuit threatens to set a precedent that will codify open borders and leave the president powerless to protect us. Trump can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and deny the Left their unconscionable and unconstitutional attempted power grab by rescinding this EO and issuing stronger multiple replacements as stand alone orders.

The president cannot lose here. We must protect our borders; keep out the terrorists and rein in out-of-control immigration. It is the signal issue that got him elected. It is also the signal action needed to save this country from the Left’s malevolent intentions. The Left is attempting to subvert our country by simply replacing its population with a more malleable, sympathetic one. Unlike the immigrants of yesteryear, today’s are largely illiterate, welfare-dependent, unwilling to learn our language and definitely hostile to American culture and traditions. And while they are in many cases fleeing conditions created by their countries’ socialist policies, they nonetheless bring socialist ideas with them. As our country has become more “multi-cultural”, it has drifted ever leftward.

This was no mistake.

President Trump can and must rescind this executive order. Despite it’s hesitation, the 9th Circuit is virtually guaranteed to agree with the ruling by District Judge Robert Chambers halting Trump’s immigration ban. As the initial complaint was not justified by immigration law, which provides the president clear authority to do what he did, it would set a horrible precedent in eroding the president’s ability to protect the nation. If it goes to the Supreme Court, it will likely lose. Justice Kennedy will side with the leftists. With an 8 person court, even a 4-4 decision would mean the 9th Circuit ruling holds. Even with Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, a likely Kennedy defection would mean 5-4 for the Left. And support for Trump’s position is not even certain with Gorsuch.

(more…)

Share

FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM HAS DECLARED WAR ON THE WORLD

Sunday, November 20th, 2016

 

JUSTICE AMERICA

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:   The problem is worldwide and growing by the day. The thinking that defeating ISIS will resolve the issue is naive. ISIS Is merely the “flavor of the day.” Yesterday (and perhaps again tomorrow) it was al Qaeda. Before that, it was Islamic Jihad. The Muslim Brotherhood and its ally Hamas dates to the thirties and is stronger now than ever. Boko Haram in Africa and Abu Sayef in the Philipines remind us the problem is not restricted to any particular region. Fundamentalist Islam is a world power and it has declared war on the world.

There were many losers in the election. Hillary would seem to be the biggest but in the great scheme of things she is not. She may turn out to be a bit player, after all.

The Democrats and liberals, in general, were set back exponentially and now control less of the government than at any time since the 1920s or perhaps even in the history of their party founded in 1828. They lost not only the Presidency, The House, and the Senate but will soon see the Supreme Court transformed into a bastion of Constitutionalism for at least a generation to come. The GOP will hold governorships in 33 states, the most in nearly a century. Some are predicting the end of a liberalism that threatened the very nature of the Republic. It may take decades to realize the full impact of what has happened, but America has been put back on the “right” path after decades sliding into a moral and economic abyss.

The Media lost “bigly”, especially CNN and the New York Times as did many others who did all within their power to  ensure Trump never entered the White House. They are now hoping they will see the inside of the White House in days to come.

(more…)

Share

HILLARY, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CONSTITUTION

Friday, October 21st, 2016

 

For all you undecided voters out there, this is the number one reason to vote for Donald Trump !   Nancy 
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Hillary’s New Constitution

Clinton explains how she’ll gut the First and Second Amendments.

October 21, 2016

Donald Trump is no legal scholar, but at Wednesday’s presidential debate he showed a superior grasp of the U.S. Constitution than didHillary Clinton. Amid the overwrought liberal fainting about Mr. Trump’s bluster over accepting the election result (see below), Mrs. Clinton revealed a view of the Supreme Court that is far more threatening to American liberty.

Start with her answer to moderator Chris Wallace’s question about the role of the courts. “The Supreme Court should represent all of us. That’s how I see the Court,” she said. “And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on our behalf of our rights as Americans.”

Where to begin with that one? The Supreme Court doesn’t—or shouldn’t—“represent” anyone. In the U.S. system that’s the job of the elected branches. The courts are appointed, not elected, so they can be nonpartisan adjudicators of competing legal claims.

Mrs. Clinton is suggesting that the Court should be a super-legislature that vindicates the will of what she calls “the American people,” which apparently excludes “the powerful.” But last we checked, the Constitution protects everyone, even the powerful. The law is supposed to protect individual rights, not an abstraction called “the people.”

The Democrat went downhill from there, promising to appoint judges who would essentially rewrite the First and Second Amendments. Asked about the 2008 Heller decision that upheld an individual right to bear arms, Mrs. Clinton claimed to support “reasonable regulation.” She said she criticized  Heller because it overturned a District of Columbia law intended merely “to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them.”

Toddlers had nothing to do with it. What Mrs. Clinton calls “reasonable” was an outright ban on handguns. The D.C. law allowed the city’s police chief to award some temporary licenses—but not even the police officer plaintiff in the case could persuade the District to let him register a handgun to be kept at his home.

Anyone who did lawfully possess a gun had to keep it unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, ensuring it would be inoperable and perhaps useless for self-defense. AsAntonin Scalia wrote for the Heller majority, “Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District’s handgun ban.”

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories