THE LAWLESS REGIME OF BARACK OBAMA TO SERVE BANKSTERS, WALL STREET AND THE MEXICAN INVADERS WHOSE VOTES HE NEEDS FOR A THIRD TERM

THE OBAMA – CLINTON RUSSIA CONNECTION

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-traitors-how-obama-and-clinton.html

*

WITH THESE TRAITORS, JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!

*

How President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aided Russia’s quest for global nuclear dominance.

///

THE SHADY POLITICS OF HILLARY CLINTON and her PAY-TO-PLAY MAFIA

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2018/09/had-hillary-clinton-won-election-left.html

The left cared nothing about that bit of collusion. 

Hillary and her campaign aides have long been involved with Russia for reasons of personal gain.  Clinton herself got $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation for allowing Russia to take over twenty percent of all uranium production in the U.S. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, is reaping the financial benefits of being on the board of a Russian company, Joule, which he did not disclose.  PATRICIA McCARTHY

Had Hillary been elected, the Clinton Foundation would be raking in even more millions than it did before.  She would be happily selling access, favors and our remaining freedoms out from under us. PATRICIA McCARTHY

GEORGE SOROS AND THE CLINTON GLOBALIST AGENDA FOR BANKSTERS AND WIDE OPEN BORDERS

NEW YORK — Demand Justice, an organization founded by former members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and associated with a “social welfare organization” financed by billionaire activist George S oros, is raising money for an eventual court fight against what the group describes as President Trump’s proposed “racist, unnecessary wall.”

*

https://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2019/01/hillary-clinton-partners-with-globalist.html

Unmasking the Illegalities of the Obama Administration

By Janice Shaw Crouse

Well informed citizens have been rocked by revelations from recently unclassified documents that clearly show that President Obama "was aware of the details of wiretapped conversations of then-incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December 2016."  Further, there's a long list of Democrat dignitaries who are also part of the unprecedented spying on an opposition party in an attempt to influence a presidential election and then undermine the duly elected president.  The really pivotal fact, however, is that "Obama's knowledge of Flynn being wiretapped raises significant questions about what Obama knew and when he knew it with regard to the attempt to railroad Flynn and prevent him from serving as Trump's national security advisor."

There is nothing new about Obama seeking private information in order to smear a political opponent.  It was well known that when he ran for the Senate in 2004, a California judge ruled that the divorce papers of his opponent, Republican Jack Ryan, be released.  Both Ryan and his wife argued that the disclosure of the closed records would be harmful to their son, and they both opposed public disclosure of the documents.  With the release of those documents, Ryan withdrew from the U.S. Senate election, and Obama sailed into the Senate without an opponent.  That scheme was not a new tactic for candidate Obama.  His opponent in the primary, Blair Hull, was also a divorced man with sealed records from 1998.  In the infamous Chicago, Illinois politics in 2004, an enterprising reporter "discovered" that Hull's wife had previously sought a protective order against her husband.  Obama "cruised to victory" in the primary — with the impossible odds of the same circumstances enabling him to win the general election against Ryan.  One analyst described Obama as "lucky with his enemies" — a man with a fortunate history of "hapless opponents."

According to multiple media reports, including in the Western Journal, those campaign practices continued at the presidential level.  "The Barack Obama presidential campaign hired Fusion GPS in 2012 to dig up dirt on Republican candidate Mitt Romney," according to a 2018 book by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and Donald Trump's Election.

Further, we now have documents indicating exactly how various Obama administration leaders who were supposed to be serving the American people were actually weaponizing for political purposes their agencies to spy on the incoming Trump personnel.  Just days ago, Gina Loudon recounted details on RealClear Politics about how acting director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell has been cleaning up the Office of National Intelligence to strengthen and protect its transparency and accountability.  "Thanks to Grenell's efforts, Americans now know that the Obama administration abused its power during the 2016 campaign in order to illegally spy on Donald Trump's associates."  The sheer volume of requests during the Obama administration is indicative of how widespread the spying was.  For instance, United Nations ambassador Samantha Power was the "largest unmasker of US persons in our history."  She unmasked more than 300 U.S. citizens in less than a year!

Grenell has released the names of sixteen Obama officials who specifically targeted Michael Flynn by requesting that his name be "unmasked" on documents recounting his conversations with Kislyak.  In fact, during a two-month period after the 2016 election, Lee Smith, of the New York Post, reported that there were 49 requests to unmask General Flynn — a clear indication that Flynn was chosen because he was "one of Trump's 'most trusted advisers,'" thus his conversations could reveal Trump's plans.

From the very beginning of the Trump presidency, there were conflicting rumors and leaks about documents purported to show Trump colluding with the Russians.  Others claimed that Trump was under investigation by the FBI.  At the time, Glenn Reynolds, of Instapundit fame, wondered if we would ever know the truth and answered his own question: "Maybe, if there's a proper investigation into Obama Administration political spying."  At the time, Reynolds ventured an hypothesis: the "spying on Trump thing is worse than we even imagine."  Further, he declared that after Hillary lost the 2016 election and those involved realized that proof of the spying would "inevitably" come out, they invented "the Trump/Russia collusion talking point ... as a distraction."  In fact, Reynolds noted that back on March 6, 2017, Democratic senator Chris Coons apologized with a rather contrived story.  He claimed that his earlier comments about there being "transcripts" of President Trump colluding with Russian officials had been "misinterpreted."  Sadly, he worried, those misinterpretations had produced some Senate "hyperventilating."  Senator Coons declared that he had "no hard evidence of collusion."

Let all that sink in: there was enough talk about political spying and "transcripts" that a leading Democrat was compelled to declare that there was nothing there to see!  In fact, the media laughed at President Trump's assertions that his campaign was being spied upon.

Then-chair of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes, likewise, was subjected to ridicule back in 2017 when he declared that "none of this surveillance was related to Russia, or the investigation of Russian activities."  Similarly, Attorney General William Barr has been derided for his revelations.  The problem for the Democrats is that both Nunes and Barr have reputations for excellence and for being completely trustworthy.  What Victor Davis Hanson wrote about Barr applies equally to Nunes: they "will follow the law wherever it leads ... without worry over the consequences."  Hanson described that reality as being "quite scary indeed" for some politicos.

Among the scary realities finally coming into the light is evidence that Russia actually preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump to win the election of 2016.  Regardless of that reality, the narrative pushed by the Democrats and the media was that the Russians' pro-Trump efforts ensured Trump's victory.  Last month, we learned that the U.S. Intelligence Community knew that the Russians preferred Hillary, but then–CIA director John Brennan suppressed that information "over the objections of CIA analysts."  So, all this time, according to Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst, the U.S. Intelligence Community was fully aware that the Russians preferred Hillary — explaining that "it was not in Russia's interests to support Trump[.] ... Putin stood to benefit from Hillary Clinton's election."

The scary reality is that the U.S. has been deliberately duped into a long national nightmare of division.  The president and his family have been subjected to unprecedented personal attacks.  The president's supporters have been disparaged and called "hypocrites" and worse.  All the while, high-ranking officials in the Obama administration have been perpetuating false narratives to cover up their illegal spying, inventing talking points about "Russian collusion," and conducting an impeachment process based on lies in order to overturn the results of a legitimate election of a candidate they hate.

Will Smith summed up what happens when a person hates another: "Hate in your heart will consume you, too."  The recently revealed unmaskings point to illegal actions that threaten to consume innumerable high-ranking dignitaries in the former Obama administration.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr.

Seven Times the GAO Found the Obama Administration Violated Federal Law

AP/Jacquelyn Martin

JOEL B. POLLAK

16 Jan 202012,897

5:32

Democrats and journalists were excited Thursday when the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a legal opinion that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine last summer.

The non-binding opinion was disputed by the OMB, which released a memo last month arguing that the “programmatic” delay sought to fulfill, not oppose, congressional intent.

The GAO decision, which had been requested by Democrat Senator Chris van Hollen of Maryland, disagreed, concluding that the delay had been for “policy reasons,” not “programmatic delay.” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) cited the decision in her morning press conference — though she had trouble pronouncing the word “impoundment” — and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) likewise trumpeted the GAO decision as a vindication of the House impeachment.

Though the GAO works for Congress, it is not the finder of fact in impeachment cases. Moreover, it is not even clear that the Impoundment Control Act is constitution.

Nevertheless, if a mere GAO finding is sufficient to justify impeachment, then President Barack Obama ought to have been impeached at least seven times over for each of the following cases in which the GAO found that the Obama administration had violated federal law.

• The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and United States Secret Service (USSS) were found to have violated section 503 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, and the Antideficiency Act, in 2009 after the Secret Service reported that it had overspent on candidate protection in 2008 by $5,100,000, and used money from another program to cover the shortfall. DHS failed to notify Congress 15 days in advance of the “reprogramming.”
• The Department of the Treasury was found to have violated the Antideficiency Act in 2014 when it used the voluntary services of four individuals. “Treasury did not appoint any of the individuals to federal employment, nor did any individual qualify as a student who may, under certain circumstances, perform voluntary service,” the GAO found, adding that there was no emergency that might have justified using the individuals to perform several months of work without receiving pay.
• The Department of Defense was found to have violated the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2014 and the Antideficiency Act in the infamous Bowe Bergdahl swap, when President Barack Obama traded five high-level Taliban detainees for a U.S. Army deserter. The administration transferred the five Taliban from Guantanamo Bay without notifying relevant congressional committees 30 days in advance, as required by law. Republicans complained; Democrats were silent.
• The Department of Housing and Urban Development was found to have violated the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, and the Antideficiency Act in 2014 when the deputy secretary of the department sent an email to “friends and colleagues” asking them to lobby the Senate in favor of a bill appropriating money to the department, and against amendments offered by Republican Senators.
• The Environmental Protection Agency was found to have violated “publicity or propaganda and anti-lobbying provisions” in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act and the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act in 2015 by using some of the department’s social media accounts in rule-making for the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) regulations (which have since been repealed under the Trump administration).
• Two officials in the Department of Housing and Urban Development were found in 2016 to have violated Section 713 of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act by attempting to prevent a regional director within the agency from being interviewed by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. (Notably, the GAO reversed its earlier decision that the department’s general counsel had not violated the law once it was presented with more evidence.)
• The Federal Maritime Commission was found to have violated Section 711 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, as well as the Antideficiency Act, in 2016 when it failed to notify the relevant Senate and House committees that it had spent more than $5,000 to furnish and redecorate the office of its former director in 2010. (The total amount spent was $12,084 over three years, as noted by the GAO in a footnote reference to an inspector general’s report on the excessive expenditures.)

Needless to say, Obama was never impeached.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

 

Lawless: The Obama Adminstration’s Uprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law


 12:00-1:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 17, 2015


The Heritage Foundation, Lehrman Auditorium
214 Massachusetts Ave NE
Washington DC 20002-4999


http://www.heritage.org/events/2015/11/lawless

Overview: In Lawless, George Mason University law professor David E. Bernstein offers a scholarly and unsettling account of how the Obama Administration has undermined the Constitution and the rule of law. He documents how the President has presided over one constitutional debacle after another – from Obamacare to unauthorized wars in the Middle East to attempts to strip property owners, college students, religious groups, and conservative political activists of their rights, and more.

Respect for the Constitution’s separation of powers has been violated time and again. Whether in amending Obamacare on the fly or signing a memorandum legalizing millions of illegal immigrants, the current Administration ignores not only Congress, but also the Constitution’s critical checks and balances.

In Lawless, Professor Bernstein shows how the Constitution as well as the President’s own stated principles have been betrayed. In doing so, serious and potentially permanent damage has been done to our constitutional system and repairs must be addressed by the next President of the United States.

A Pattern of Executive Overreach

David Berstein / @ProfDBernstein           

Commentary By

     

David Berstein/ @ProfDBernstein

David Bernstein is the George Mason University Foundation Professor at the George Mason University School of Law, and the author of the new book, Lawless: The Obama Administration's Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law .

Recently, the Justice Department announced it would not be indicting anyone for his or her role in the most serious domestic political scandal since the Nixon years.

Starting in 2010, the IRS, under pressure from congressional Democrats and the White House, engaged in blatant ideologically motivated discrimination against conservative organizations applying for non-profit status.

That the most feared bureaucracy in Washington was making decisions based on illegal political criteria should send a chill down the spine of any American who cares about the First Amendment and the rule of law.

Yet the Department of Justice has refused to indict even IRS official Lois Lerner, who invoked her Fifth Amendment right to silence to avoid incriminating herself in testimony before Congress.

Unfortunately, the failure to prosecute anyone responsible for abusing the IRS’s authority reflects the Obama administration’s broader contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.
Consider just a few examples:

1.               Going to war in Libya in blatant violation of the War Powers Resolution, and in defiance of the legal advice of the president’s own lawyers, based on the ridiculous theory that bombing the heck out of Libya did not constitute “hostilities” under the law

2.               Appointing so-called policy czars to high-level positions to avoid constitutionally-required confirmation hearings

3.               Modifying, delaying, and ignoring various provisions of Obamacare in violation of the law itself

4.               Attacking private citizens for engaging in constitutionally protected speech

5.               Issuing draconian regulations regarding sexual assault on campus not through formal, lawful regulation but through an informal, and unreviewable, “dear colleague” letter

6.               Ignoring 100 years of legal rulings and the plain text of the Constitution and trying to get a vote in Congress for the D.C. delegate

7.               Trying to enact massive immigration reform via an executive order demanding that the Department of Homeland Security both refuse to enforce existing immigration law, and provide work permits to millions of people residing in the U.S. illegally

8.               Imposing common core standards on the states via administrative fiat

9.               Ignoring bankruptcy law and arranging Chrysler’s bankruptcy to benefit labor unions at the expense of bondholders

10.         Trying to strip churches and other religious bodies of their constitutional right to choose their clergy free from government involvement.

More generally, the president has abandoned any pretense of trying to work with Congress, as the Constitution’s separation of powers requires. He prefers instead to govern by unilateral executive fiat, even when there is little or no legal authority supporting his power to do so.
Presidents trying stretch their power as far as they can is hardly news. What is news, however, is that top Obama administration officials, including the president himself, see this not as something to be ashamed of, but as a desirable way of governing, something to brag about rather than do surreptitiously.
Obama behaves as if there is some inherent virtue in a president governing by decree and whim, as if promoting progressive political ends at the expense of the rule of law is proper not simply as a desperate last resort but as a matter of principle.
After all, Obama says, democracy is unduly “messy” and “complicated.” “We can’t wait,” the president intones, as he ignores the separation of powers again and again, ruling instead through executive order.
“Law is politics,” and only politics, according to a mantra popular on the legal left, and therefore the law should not be an independent constraint to doing the right thing politically. Obama seems to agree.
As Obama’s lawlessness has received increased attention from Congress, the (conservative) media, and the general public, the president has been defiant, even petulant. When confronted by allegations of lawlessness, Obama takes no responsibility, and doesn’t even bother to defend the legality of his actions.
Harry S. Truman famously said “the buck stops here.” Obama responds to serious concerns about his administration’s lawlessness with a derisive “so sue me.”
As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley writes, Obama “acts as if anything a court has not expressly forbidden is permissible.” And in many situations, no one has legal standing to challenge the president’s actions in court—which means that no judge can stop the administration’s lawbreaking.
So sue me? If only we could.
On Tuesday, Nov. 17, David Bernstein will be at The Heritage Foundation at noon for an event about his book, “Lawless: The Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law.” More details here.