Eric Holder Calls Charleston Shooting “Domestic Terrorism” . . . Still Labels Ft. Hood Islamic Terror Attack “Workplace Violence”…

Why do retired democrats feel the need to open up there traps!!!!

Via: Weasel Zippers

Continue Reading....

Classic Trey Gowdy cross-examination: Does President Obama have a private email server?

The State Department is taking Hillary Clinton’s word for it.

That was the message Wednesday when a State Department employee testified in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, telling lawmakers she relied on former Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton’s assurances that all relevant emails had been turned over, just as they do with all other employees.

“Like we do with other federal employees we have to depend on them to provide that information to us,” Chief State Department Freedom of Information Act Officer Joyce Barr said.

Rep. Trey Gowdy pounced.

Gently, but with assurance of what the answers would be, the South Carolina Republican led Barr through questions to show no other high-ranking official in the Obama administration  was in a position to provide such assurances.

“Well, you mentioned other federal employees which got me wondering… Attorney General Holder — did he have his own server?” Gowdy asked.

Her answer was no.

“How about new Attorney General Lynch? Does she have a personal server?”

No again.

“What about President Obama — is there any indication — because if you’re going to pursue the theory of convenience, I can’t really imagine a busier person on the globe than President Obama,” Gowdy said, recalling Clinton’s excuse that she used a private server as a matter of convenience. “Did he have his own personal server?”

Via: BizPac Review

Continue Reading....

[CARTOON] Eye of Eric Holder

Via: California Political Review

Republican State Attorneys General Slam “Inappropriate” Eric Holder

Republican state attorneys general on Tuesday slammed comments from Attorney General Eric Holder that state officials don’t have to defend their states’ same-sex marriage bans, calling them “inappropriate.”

The Republican Attorneys General Association seized on the comments, made by Holder in a New York Times interview published Monday, in which he said when it comes to defending same-sex marriage bans in court, “Engaging in that process and making that determination is something that’s appropriate for an attorney general to do.”

“The approach is as inappropriate as it is unprecedented, ” Montana Attorney General Tim Fox said in a statement put out by the RAGA. “What General Holder is asking state attorneys general to do is accept a gratuitously offered nonbinding legal opinion on an issue that has not been decided by a national court of competent jurisdiction at this time.”

Via: Politico

Continue Reading....

Holder: You Don't Have to Enforce Laws You Disagree With

Attorney General Eric Holder has given the nod to his state counterparts that they do not have to defend laws they consider discriminatory -- effectively giving the green light for states to stop defending bans on gay marriage.

Holder addressed the issue during a gathering of state attorneys general on Tuesday, after detailing his position in a New York Times interview.

Speaking to the National Association of Attorneys General, Holder said that any decision not to defend individual laws must be "exceedingly rare" and reserved for "exceptional circumstances." He indicated that legal challenges to gay marriage bans would qualify as such a circumstance.

"In general, I believe that we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation," he said.

His remarks, while already generating backlash from conservatives, could fuel a wave of legal challenges at the state level. In the wake of the federal Defense of Marriage Act being struck down by the Supreme Court last year, several Democratic state attorneys general have taken the unusual step of abandoning their defense of state gay marriage bans.

Among the most recent is Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring, who stood by as a U.S. District Court ruled against his state's prohibition on same-sex marriage. However, his office said Monday that it would appeal that ruling -- in the interest of expediting the appeals process.

The U.S. attorney general's comments could encourage other state officials to follow in Herring's footsteps.

Holder, in the Times interview, reportedly said that attorneys general should apply a high level of scrutiny on whether to defend a state law when constitutional issues are at stake.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

DEM. REP. SAYS PROPOSED VOTER ID LAWS ARE ‘THINLY VEILED ATTEMPTS’ TO ‘SUPPRESS THE VOTING RIGHTS OF AFRICAN AMERICANS’

Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder last week asking him to review two proposed voting measures she claims are designed to “suppress the voting rights of African Americans and other minorities.”

“I am concerned about restrictive legislation concerning voter photo identification and the reduction of early voting days pending in the Ohio legislature, and seek your assistance,” Fudge wrote in her letter.

Rep. Marcia Fudge. (Image source: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

The legislation, S. 238 and H.B. 269, would reduce the number of absentee voting days by six, prohibit pre-paid absentee ballots from being mailed to every voter and require individuals present a form of photo ID to vote.

“I believe both of these proposals are designed to systemically restrict the access of eligible Ohioans’ to the voting booth, particularly minorities, students and the elderly,” Fudge said of the proposals.

Via: The Blaze

Continue Reading....

Justice, JP Morgan Chase Agree on $13 Billion Settlement BY KEVIN G. HALL AND MICHAEL DOYLE

WASHINGTON — Thousands of homeowners could gain some measure of mortgage relief under a record $13 billion deal reached Tuesday between the Justice Department and banking giant JPMorgan Chase, in what is the largest such government settlement with a single entity.

Long in the making, the settlement resolves allegations about the bank’s liability for financially toxic packages of mortgage-backed securities sold to unsuspecting investors. It includes $9 billion to settle federal claims and those from individual states like California, and $4 billion in consumer relief.

It is also, far and away, the most highly anticipated settlement to arise from the housing market crash and general economic calamity that came to a head in 2008.

“Without a doubt, the conduct uncovered in this investigation helped sow the seeds of the mortgage meltdown,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “JPMorgan was not the only financial institution during this period to knowingly bundle toxic loans and sell them to unsuspecting investors, but that is no excuse for the firm’s behavior. “

In the settlement, JPMorgan Chase acknowledged a set of facts laid out by the Justice Department, stopping short of an outright admission of guilt. The facts included a statement that JPMorgan Chase employees, not just those of lenders it had purchased, knowingly signed off on the sale of complex mortgage bonds that they knew did not meet compliance guidelines.

In a website statement, company CEO Jamie Dimon said he was “pleased to have concluded this extensive agreement” and said it covers a “very significant portion” of lawsuits involving it and two lenders it purchased in 2008.

The investigation included help from U.S. attorneys in New York, California, Delaware, Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania and does not does not close the book on Wall Street misdeeds, Holder warned.

Via: McClatchy

Continue Reading.....

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/19/209040/justice-jp-morgan-chase-agree.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/19/209040/justice-jp-morgan-chase-agree.html#storylink=cpy

Three Ritzy Eric Holder Events Cost A Staggering 400K In Awards Alone

The Justice Department’s internal watchdog blasted the U.S. Marshals Service for excessive spending on “swag,” but the attorney general spent half as much on just three events.

Internal documents reveal that award spending for the Annual Attorney General Awards Ceremony — headed by Attorney General Eric Holder — more than doubled between 2009 and 2011, coming to a total of over $410,000 in the course of just three ceremonies.

The event is held by the Justice Department to recognize employees for their work. Holder presents the awards himself, which may explain why the department spared no expense when purchasing them.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading.....

Ted Yoho Tells Of Republican Plan To Impeach Eric Holder

A group of House Republicans plan an effort to oust Attorney General Eric Holder by year's end, Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) told the Gainesville Sun.

“It’s to get him out of office -- impeachment,” said Yoho, who was a large-animal veterinarian before winning election last year. “It will probably be when we get back in [Washington]. It will be before the end of the year. This will go to the speaker and the speaker will decide if it comes up or not.”

Yoho's chief of staff, Cat Cammack, said the congressman wants Holder fired for issues that include the Fast and Furious sting operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that left federal agents' weapons in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. One of the guns was found at the 2010 scene of a Border Patrol agent's killing.

"Obviously there is a lot frustration with our attorney general. You can name the botched programs," Cammack said. "Fast and Furious has been one of the number one complaints we get in our office and why no one has been held accountable."

Yoho told the Sun that he and his House cohorts have plans to meet with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) when they return to the Capitol.

The House may begin impeachment against a cabinet member, but it's only been done once before, reports Politico. The House impeached Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 over corruption allegations. Belknap resigned his post and the Senate acquitted him.

Via: Huffington Post

Continue Reading.....

Court Lets FBI Keep Authorized Racial Profiling Secret

The U.S. has been side-swiped by a robust wave of political correctness, so it may be tough to believe that the nation’s Attorney General actually authorizes federal agents to engage in “limited racial and ethnic profiling” when conducting assessments of criminal and terrorist threats.

It’s probably something the Obama administration would prefer to keep quiet so as not to upset or alienate the president’s liberal base, but evidently it’s considered a valuable homeland security tool. Otherwise, why would this, the most leftist and politically correct administration of modern times, allow it to continue? Furthermore, why would the Obama Justice Department engage in a legal battle to make sure details of the “FBI’s use of ethnic and racial data” are kept secret?

The authorized racial and ethnic profiling began after the 9/11 Commission report determined that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) should be restructured to be the domestic equivalent of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). That included overhauling the FBI and revising its internal manual, known as the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG). Among the manual’s revisions was permission for FBI agents to engage in limited racial and ethnic profiling when conducting proactive assessments of criminal and terrorist threats.

Specifically, the DIOG allows FBI agents to identify and map “locations of concentrated ethnic communities” if doing so would “reasonably aid the analysis of potential threats and vulnerabilities” and “assist domain awareness for the purpose of performing intelligence analysis.” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asserted this would encourage unlawful racial profiling and took the administration to court to obtain internal documents about the FBI’s use of ethnic and racial data.

As is often the case when a group or individual seeks government records, the FBI turned over some files, would neither confirm nor deny having a portion of the records and refused to provide a large stash. A federal judge ruled in favor of the government’s right to withhold hundreds of pages of documents and the ACLU appealed, determined to expose the administration’s racial profiling initiative.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the ACLU’s argument, ruling last week that the FBI has the right to protect the information. In its 21-page decision the court also rebuffs the ACLU’s claim that release of the limited public source information it seeks would not tip off targets or impede investigations. “This argument misses the obvious point that while the demographic data itself may be public, its use by the FBI is certainly not,” the court writes.

Via: Judicial Watch

Continue Reading.....

Fired DOJ Atty. Sues: U.S. Ignored 9/11 Fundraising Evidence

A respected veteran federal prosecutor got fired for reporting government misconduct involving a terrorism fundraising operation run by 9/11 hijacker Mohamaed Atta, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court against the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Attorney General Eric Holder.

The complaint, filed this month in United States District Court for the District of Columbia, is downright chilling. It outlines an alarming retaliation plot at the upper levels of the DOJ to oust an esteemed prosecutor who had received numerous awards for outstanding performance. Scarier even is that the feds failed to act on evidence that linked domestic fundraising to the 9/11 terrorists because it was uncovered by the Assistant U.S. Attorney under fire for exposing government wrongdoing.  

The ousted prosecutor, identified only as John Doe in the complaint, led an investigation dubbed Money Exchange that uncovered evidence that Atta was raising cash for terrorist missions in the U.S. before 2000. Rather than focus on his solid investigative work, his bosses at the DOJ retaliated against him for refusing to sign off on an illegal search and seizure in the terrorism fundraising case. His superiors, George W. Bush appointees, approved the illegal search anyways and the prosecutor blew the whistle on the wrongdoing.

“John Doe made additional disclosures regarding his supervisors’ misconduct from 2005 through 2008 which are protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act,” the complaint says. “These additional protected disclosures included reports of misconduct by his superiors in disciplinary proceedings, in political hirings, and in mishandling of a terrorist investigation.”

Besides forcing the whistleblower out, the DOJ hierarchy continued punishing him by snubbing his topnotch investigative work on the terrorism financing case, which spanned several years. In fact, he came under fire for distributing a memo on the Money Exchange investigation to the DOJ counterterrorism division as part of an agency directive to promptly make disclosures of national security information to all law enforcement components.

Incredibly, authorities never followed through with the valuable evidence that the former federal prosecutor and his team provided, according to the lawsuit. “On May 23, 2008, John Doe urged the Acting United States Attorney to act upon the Money Exchange Memorandum because bank records underlying the terrorist funding would be destroyed after 7 years,” the complaint says.

“On May 27, 2008, the United State Attorney ordered John Doe to retrieve the May 5 Money Exchange Memorandum from all recipients. The Acting United States Attorney then criticized John Doe for “going outside the chain of command.” The Acting United States Attorney ordered John Doe to turn over the Money Exchange case materials to another AUSA. That AUSA never followed up on the Money Exchange Memorandum.”

If the allegations in the complaint are true, heads should roll at the DOJ for allowing a personal vendetta to interfere with a terrorism investigation. While the complaint doesn’t mention names, you can deduct that the Assistant U.S. Attorney suing the DOJ was pretty high up at the agency and probably has a boatload of evidence that authorities prefer to keep from going public.

Via: Judicial Watch

Continue Reading....

Obamacare personal data used for law enforcement

At least one state's Obama marketplace can use personal data collected for "law enforcement and audit activities."  Jeryl Bier of the Weekly Standard reports on Maryland's state Obamacare on-line marketplace:

Should you decide to apply for health coverage through Maryland Health Connection, the information you supply in your application will be used to determine whether you are eligible for health and dental coverage offered through Maryland Health Connection and for insurance affordability programs. It also may be used to assist you in making a payment for the insurance plan you select, and for related automated reminders or other activities permitted by law.  We will preserve the privacy of personal records and protect confidential or privileged information in full accordance with federal and State law. We will not sell your information to others.  Any information that you provide to us in your application will be used only to carry out the functions of Maryland Health Connection. The only exception to this policy is that we may share information provided in your application with the appropriate authorities for law enforcement and audit activities. 

Yet the Obama administration, through the powers of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (with an assist from Eric holder's Department of Justice") is all but trying to prevent private businesses from running criminal background checks during the hiring process. Businesses do not want to expose their employees or customers and clients to risks from criminals on their own staff. Businesses want to protect people. The Obama administration looks at such background checks as being discriminatory. I wrote about the pressure the administration is exerting to force businesses to comply with these diktats here.

So a double standard is at work.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....