Against Federal Law: Obama OK’d $310 Million In Free Legal Advice To Illegal Aliens

Weasel Zippers

So is anyone going to take the fall for breaking the law here?

Via Washington Examiner:

The Obama administration approved $310 million in free legal advice to young illegal immigrants despite federal law barring charging taxpayers for helping immigrants avoid deportation, according to a new report.

The Immigration Reform Law Institute said that the funding was provided to a top legal defense group to help unaccompanied alien children under the age of 18 land with a sponsor in the U.S.

In 2015 and 2016, contracts reviewed by IRLI showed that several worth $310 million went to one nonprofit legal group, the Vera Institute of Justice. A top director has ties to liberal philanthropist George Soros.

At issue, said the group, is immigration law that bars using tax dollars to help illegal immigrants avoid deportation. In a report, IRLI said:

The Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 292, states that aliens in removal proceedings “shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the government).” Immigrant special interest groups, sometimes on behalf of unaccompanied minors, have tried since 1996 to challenge this section, claiming it violates aliens’ rights. Federal courts have always rejected these claims.

Keep reading…

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez just violated House Ethics rules when she threatened to use her Congressional power of subpoena against someone who criticized her

Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog

According to this news article that was just published by CNN, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted the following:

I have noticed that Junior here has a habit of posting nonsense about me whenever the Mueller investigation heats up.

Please, keep it coming Jr – it’s definitely a “very, very large brain” idea to troll a member of a body that will have subpoena power in a month.

Have fun!

Ocasio-Cortez is threatening to use her power as a federal lawmaker to punish someone who exercised his first amendment right to free speech.

Such a threat is a violation of House Ethics rules.

The Congressional Committee on Ethics states:

https://ethics.house.gov/campaign-activity/campaign-contributions-and-contributors

Members and staff are not to take or withhold any official action on the basis of the campaign contributions or support of the involved individuals, or their partisan affiliation. Members and staff are likewise prohibited from threatening punitive action on the basis of…

View original post 2 more words

Federal Judge Opens Discovery Into Clinton Email Usage

Court Excoriates Obama State Department/Justice Department for Possibly Acting in “Bad Faith” and Colluding “to Scuttle Public Scrutiny” of Clinton Private Email Server

Court Criticizes Current Justice Department for “Chicanery”

District Court Judge Lamberth Orders “Proposed Plan and Schedule  for Discovery Within Ten Days” 

Discovery Must Also Explore Whether Clinton Intentionally Used Private Email Server to “skirt FOIA”

 

Judicial Watch

 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that, in a ruling excoriating both the U.S. Departments of State and Justice, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth has ordered both agencies to join Judicial Watch in submitting a proposed schedule for discovery into whether Hillary Clinton sought to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a private email system and whether the State Department acted in “bad faith” by failing to disclose knowledge of the email system.  The decision comes in a FOIA lawsuit related to the Benghazi terrorist attack.

Specially, Lamberth ruled:

… the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer to plan discovery into (a) whether Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA; (b) whether the State Department’s attempts to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and (c) whether State has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests.

Terming Clinton’s use of her private email system, “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency,” Lamberth wrote in his MEMORANDUM OPINION:

… his [President Barack Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart this lofty goal [Obama announced standard for transparency]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching – and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case?

***

At best, State’s attempt to pass-off its deficient search as legally adequate during settlement negotiations was negligence born out of incompetence. At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.

Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, Lamberth wrote:

The current Justice Department made things worse. When the government last appeared before the Court, counsel claimed, ‘it is not true to say we misled either Judicial Watch or the Court.’ When accused of ‘doublespeak,’ counsel denied vehemently, feigned offense, and averred complete candor. When asked why State masked the inadequacy of its initial search, counsel claimed that the officials who initially responded to Judicial Watch’s request didn’t realize Clinton’s emails were missing, and that it took them two months to ‘figure [] out what was going on’… Counsel’s responses strain credulity. [citations omitted]

The Court granted discovery because the government’s response to the Judicial Watch Benghazi FOIA request for Clinton emails “smacks of outrageous conduct.”

Citing an email (uncovered as a result of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit) that Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Benghazi was a terrorist attack immediately after it happened, Judge Lamberth asked:

Did State know Clinton deemed the Benghazi attack terrorism hours after it happened, contradicting the Obama Administration’s subsequent claim of a protest-gone-awry?

****

Did the Department merely fear what might be found? Or was State’s bungling just the unfortunate result of bureaucratic redtape and a failure to communicate? To preserve the Department’s integrity, and to reassure the American people their government remains committed to transparency and the rule of law, this suspicion cannot be allowed to fester.

“The historic court ruling raises concerns about the Hillary Clinton email scandal and government corruption that millions of Americans share,” stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton.  “Judicial Watch looks forward to conducting careful discovery into the Clinton email issue and we hope the Justice Department and State Department recognize Judge Lamberth’s criticism and help, rather than obstruct, this court-ordered discovery.”

###

Drinking The Kool-Aid: How And Why Communist Ideology Kills

America’s Survival

by

Daniel Flynn, the author of Cult City, explains the nature of the Democratic Party political machine that included communist cult leader and sex pervert Jim Jones and resulted in the “revolutionary suicide” of 900 people in Guyana in 1978. Turns out that Rep. Nancy Pelosi praised one of Jones’ main supporters, Dr. Garlton Goodlett, years after Goodlett was exposed as a communist with high-level Soviet/Russian connections. On the 40th anniversary of the mass murder, where is the investigation of this Russia-gate scandal?

Mastercard and Microsoft have a frightening plan to create universal “digital identities”

fastcompany.com

Cale Guthrie Weissman

Sometimes a business inadvertently drops the pretense and just tells the world its real intentions. We saw this yesterday, when Amazon bragged about how it “allowed” an employee to lose 100 pounds by endlessly delivering boxes. Amazon saw this as a heartwarming tale about how great it is to work for the e-commerce juggernaut. It completely missed the subtext: Who needs a gym when someone can physically labor for their corporate overlord and lose weight?

Now we have another, possibly darker example. Mastercard announced a new partnership with Microsoft that is tackling “digital identities.” Here’s how it described the project in a tweet:

Mastercard News ✔ @MastercardNews

Voting, driving, applying for a job, renting a home, getting married and boarding a plane: what do these all have in common? You need to prove your identity. In partnership with @Microsoft, we are working to create universally-recognized digital identity. https://news.mstr.cd/2U5pnBI

(Excerpt) Read more at fastcompany.com