Big govt, Courts, Politics

Bill Barr the Boogeyman — or So Democrats Would Have Us Think

Now that Democrats didn’t get the results they wanted from the Mueller report, which, to their disappointment, found the president did not collude with Russia or obstruct justice — or commit any other crime — they’re trying to discredit Attorney General Bill Barr.

It’s the ol’ shoot-the-messenger trick to achieve several tactical goals, the first being to distract the public’s attention away from the misleading allegations and flat-out conspiracy theories California Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, and scores of other Democratic lawmakers, trafficked in media relentlessly the past few years, insisting the president and his campaign associates colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Given the special counsel found no such crimes were committed, despite an exhaustive 22-month investigation that included the White House submitting over one million pages of documents, complying with hundreds of hours of interviews and not impeding the investigation whatsoever, Democrats are now scrambling to save face by changing the subject.

It’s no longer about Russian collusion; it’s about making the attorney general out to be the new Boogeyman — in yet another shameless attempt to try and delegitimize the Trump administration and fuel calls for impeachment.
Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Mazie Hirono and others are calling for Barr’s immediate resignation while scores of liberal lawmakers are smearing Barr’s integrity, despite his decades of exemplary public service at the Department of Justice that earned him wide bipartisan respect. The left is accusing Attorney General Barr of mischaracterizing the special counsel’s findings and acting as the president’s “personal attorney” to protect him.

Of course, Democrats made no such accusations against former Attorney General Eric Holder, even when he bragged he was then-President Obama’s “wingman.” Or when he referred to Obama as “my boy.” During a 2013 radio interview on the Tom Joyner show, Holder said, “I’m still enjoying what I’m doing. There’s still work to be done. I’m still the president’s wingman, so I’m there with my boy.”
Was that not partisan?

Then there was Obama’s subsequent attorney general, Loretta Lynch, who ran defense for her former boss and Hillary Clinton on numerous occasions, including when she instructed then-FBI Director James Comey to refer to his criminal investigation into Clinton’s renegade emails housed in an unauthorized server in her Chappaqua, New York, home not as an “investigation” but as a “matter.”

Was that not spinning the truth for political purposes to protect fellow Democrats during a hotly contested presidential campaign where Hillary Clinton was the frontrunner?

And no one will forget Lynch’s infamous 2016 tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton days before the FBI was to interview his wife for mishandling classified information while secretary of state during the Obama administration.
Of course, those instances of partisanship didn’t faze Democrats back then, or now. But today, they’re insisting Trump’s attorney general must step down for alleged partisanship. Go figure.

The second reason Democrats are creating all this political noise involving Bill Barr’s handling of the Mueller report is to distract from President Trump’s significant achievements since occupying the White House including a robust economy, higher wages and historically low unemployment.

Democrats are also greatly concerned that Barr indicated during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday he’s investigating the Russian Collusion Hoax fueled by a cabal of deceptive Deep State actors within the highest echelons of our government. The left is taking the “best defense is the best offense” strategy before the shoe drops. And with the inspector general’s report expected to drop any time now, along with declassified FISA documents the president will release among other relevant materials involving the attempted coup d’etat against his administration, Democrats are running scared.

As they should be. The truth is coming out, and Attorney General Barr won’t allow America’s justice system to be weaponized for political purposes. That’s something all Americans should stand shoulder to shoulder on because if one political party in power can abuse our justice system for political purposes, so can the next.
The hunter will become the hunted — all it takes is an election.
It’s a perilous scenario for all Americans.

Adriana Cohen is a syndicated columnist with the Boston Herald. Follow her on Twitter @AdrianaCohen16. To find out more about Adriana Cohen and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Read More...

Big govt, Courts, Politics

AG Barr Refuses to Stop Using the “S” Word

Attorney General Bill Barr doubled down on his use of the word “spying” to describe the Obama administration’s actions against the Trump campaign during a tense exchange with Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) on Wednesday. During testimony before the House Appropriations Committee in April, Barr alleged that “spying did occur,” sending the Left into a tizzy. Whitehouse claimed Barr could not use the term because it was “authorized” activity. “I’m not going to abjure the use of the word ‘spying,'” Barr said. “My first job was in [the] CIA. I don’t think the word ‘spying’ has any pejorative connotation at all.” Read more…

Here’s more from The Daily Caller…

Attorney General Bill Barr sparred with Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse Wednesday over the AG’s use of the word “spying” to describe the actions the FBI took against the Trump campaign.

Barr alleged during his testimony to the House Appropriations Committee in April that “spying did occur” against the Trump campaign as the FBI investigated alleged ties to Russia.

In addition to conducting surveillance on former Trump campaign official Carter Page, the FBI used informant Stefan Halper to make contact with three Trump campaign advisers.

Whitehouse grilled Barr about his use of the term “spying” in relation to those efforts, suggesting that the term was not accurate because the activities of the DOJ were “authorized.”

Read More...

Big govt, Courts, Issues, Politics

Father Guilty of “Violence” for Rejecting Child’s Transgender Pronoun

Canadian Justice Francesca Marzari just found the father of a 14-year-old girl guilty of “family violence” after he refused to refer to his daughter as “he.” Upon issuing an order of protection, Marzari stated that the father could be arrested “immediately” and “without warrant” if he calls his daughter by her birth name, refers to her “as a girl or with female pronouns” directly or to third parties,” or suggests that his daughter is actually a girl and should “abandon treatment.” According to the report, the teen’s school counselor encouraged her to identify as a boy while in the seventh grade, and a doctor in turn encouraged hormone disruption. Read more…

Here’s more from Breitbart…

A British Columbia (BC) Supreme Court judge has found the father of a 14-year-old girl claiming to be transgender guilty of “family violence” because he continued to refer to his daughter as “she.”

An order of protection issued by Justice Francesca Marzari states the father, known as “Clark,” is subject to arrest if he attempts to “persuade” his daughter, known as “Maxine,” to “abandon treatment for gender dysphoria,” to call her by her birth name, or to refer to her “as a girl or with female pronouns,” either “directly or to third parties.”

The court order states the father’s arrest may occur “immediately” and “without warrant” by a police officer “who has reasonable and probable grounds” to enforce the order.

Read More...

Big govt, Courts, Politics

SCOTUS To Hear Critical LGBT vs. Christians Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court will be taking on three significant cases in its next term, all concerning where LGBT rights begin and those of Christians end. According to the Wall Street Journal: “The court’s calendar all but ensures decisions will come in the late spring or early summer of 2020, injecting a significant social issue-and the court’s role in resolving it-into the presidential election season.” Already, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh are regarded as a key swing bloc in what will be the first gay rights cases since Justice Kennedy’s retirement in the wake of the 2015 opinion legalizing same-sex marriage. Read more…

Here’s more from The Daily Wire…

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court added three key cases to its docket for next term — all of them impacting the intersection of religious liberty and gay and transgender employment protection.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

The Supreme Court will hear three cases concerning whether gay and transgender people are protected from discrimination on the job, marking the first major LGBT rights issue to reach the court since its 2015 opinion legalizing same-sex marriage.

Lower courts have differed sharply on whether the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits sex discrimination, necessarily covers sexual orientation or gender identity. Congress, unlike some two dozen states, hasn’t explicitly added those classifications to federal antidiscrimination laws.

Read More...

Big govt, Courts, Politics

Trump: Time to “Investigate the Investigators”

President Trump is doubling down on his call for an investigation of the Russia collusion witchhunt against his campaign that lasted for more than two years during his White House tenure. The president tweeted early Monday: “Mueller, and the A.G. based on Mueller findings (and great intelligence), have already ruled No Collusion, No Obstruction. These were crimes committed by Crooked Hillary, the DNC, Dirty Cops and others! INVESTIGATE THE INVESTIGATORS!” President Trump’s tweet follows Attorney General Barr’s testimony that “spying did occur” on the Trump 2016 campaign, which the Left blasted as “peddling conspiracy theories.” Read more…

Here’s more from Fox News…

President Trump on Monday said it was time to “investigate the investigators,” doubling down on Attorney General Bill Barr’s summary of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings in the Russia investigation.

“Mueller, and the A.G. based on Mueller findings (and great intelligence), have already ruled No Collusion, No Obstruction. These were crimes committed by Crooked Hillary, the DNC, Dirty Cops and others! INVESTIGATE THE INVESTIGATORS!” Trump tweeted early Monday.

The president’s tweet comes following a week of mounting scrutiny on the attorney general for his testimony that “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election.

Democrats blasted Barr, and accused him of “peddling conspiracy theories.”

But despite the backlash from Democrats over his use of the term, Barr’s testimony appeared to refer to intelligence collection that already has been widely reported and confirmed.

Read More...

Big govt, Courts, Politics

Transparency for Thee But Not for Me

That’s Democrats’ modus operandi in Washington these days — especially when it comes to their unrestrained mission to “Get Trump.”

Take the latest special counsel report that, after a 22-month, $30 million investigation into the 2016 presidential election, found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Nor did Bob Mueller or his team of aggressive lawyers find any other alleged crimes by the president, blowing a seismic hole in House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and fellow Democrats’ credibility. After all, these are the politicians who told the American people for the past two years the president colluded with Russia to affect the outcome of the 2016 election — a lie.

Desperate Democrats scrambling to save face are now working overtime, launching an additional never-ending investigation into virtually every aspect of the president’s life including his vast business empire and shuttered foundation. But that’s not all. The House Judiciary Committee issued an unnecessary subpoena to the attorney general this week that demands a full unredacted copy of the special counsel report, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal is demanding the IRS release six years of the president’s personal tax returns, and those of some of his businesses.

This out-of-control fishing expedition on the backs of taxpayers goes well beyond presidential harassment; it’s a full-blown Inquisition, waged by a hateful cabal of rabid Democrats weaponizing government agencies to target political opponents.

“This was not a transparency subpoena. This was a 2020 subpoena,” said House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, in an interview on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.” “It’s all political theater. It has nothing to do with really getting to the truth.”

Of course, Trump’s enemies in Washington claim they’re just fulfilling their congressional oversight duties and seeking “transparency.” That’s quite laughable given these are the same Democrats who aren’t the slightest bit interested in oversight or transparency when it comes to their own party’s dirty deeds or illicit actions by the deep state agents who spied on the 2016 Trump campaign using deceptive and misleading FISA warrants.
Not to mention other pernicious actions to remove a duly elected president.

Once such example is Rep. Schiff’s attempt to block Congress from accessing the bank records of Fusion GPS to shield Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and the Democratic National Committee, which paid millions to the slimy opposition research firm for the infamous “dirty dossier” used by the FBI to spur the special counsel investigation. Then there’s House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler who, during the 1998 Bill Clinton investigation conducted by independent counsel Kenneth Starr, was against the public release of details contained in the report. Back then, he sought to protect grand jury testimony.

All of this illustrates that when it comes to government oversight and “transparency,” Democrats have a distinct set of rules: One for thee, and none for me.

Adriana Cohen is a syndicated columnist with the Boston Herald. Follow her on Twitter @AdrianaCohen16. To find out more about Adriana Cohen and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Read More...

Abortion, Big govt, Courts, Politics

SCOTUS Refuses to Toss Planned Parenthood Lawsuit Against Pro-Life Group

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to scrap a request by the Center for Medical Progress to throw out Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit against the group for allegedly illegally secretly recording employees discussing selling aborted baby body parts. The recordings caused a tidal wave of negative publicity for Planned Parenthood, America’s #1 abortion provider, because selling aborted fetal tissue for profit is illegal as is altering abortion protocols to maximize profit with more “intact” specimens. For now, the ruling from the 9th Circuit allowing the lawsuit to proceed remains in effect despite the Center for Medical Progress’ arguments that it was exercising its First Amendment rights. Read more…

Here’s more from Washington Examiner…

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the anti-abortion Center for Medical Progress’ request to throw out a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood alleging that the group broke the law by secretly taping its employees discussing reimbursement for fetal tissue.

The Center for Medical Progress argued that the Planned Parenthood lawsuits interfered with the organization’s right to free speech and that it violated a law in California meant to protect citizen journalists. Because the Supreme Court will not take up the case, the ruling from the 9th Circuit permitting the lawsuit to proceed remains in place.

The case did not receive the support of at least four justices, which is the threshold all cases must meet in order to receive a hearing in the Supreme Court. The justices have appeared reluctant to take up controversial topics, including those linked to abortion, after the bruising confirmation battle Justice Brett Kavanaugh faced in the Senate.

Read More...

Big govt, Courts, Economy & Investments, Politics

DOJ Tells Court That Obamacare is Unconstitutional

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) informed a federal appeals court on Monday that President Trump’s repeal of the individual Obamacare mandate has made the entire law unconstitutional, and accordingly the entire thing should be nixed. This fight boils down to the issue of severability or to what degree lawful parts of a law can be upheld following the removal of unconstitutional parts of it. Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida has already put forth that the unlawful individual mandate cannot be severed from the remaining portions of the Affordable Care Act and so has the state of Texas. Congress, too, has already found that the individual mandate is key to making the entire Obamacare system function based on that mandatory coverage or financial punishment of those willing to go without coverage. The Obama administration itself called the individual mandate a “linchpin” to the entire system. Read more…

Here’s more form Breitbart…

The Trump-Barr Department of Justice (DOJ) informed a federal appeals court on Monday that it agrees with Texas and the other states suing over Obamacare that President Donald Trump’s repealing of the individual mandate renders the entire law unconstitutional, and therefore should be struck down in its entirety.

This all turns on the legal doctrine of severability. Much of the time when a statute is unconstitutional it is actually only partially unconstitutional. Typically a court will strike down that part of the law, but sever it from the rest of the statute and uphold the remainder.

Pundits who have never studied or litigated severability will surely show up on television now posing as experts, and criticizing DOJ’s position. But writing as a former law school faculty member who authored the largest academic work on severability doctrine ever published, permit me to describe the argument and why it should be taken seriously.

 

Read More...

Big govt, Courts, Politics

Obama-Clinton Insider Caught Unlawfully Lobbying for Russia

Former Obama White House counsel and Clinton-tied attorney Greg Craig is facing possible federal charges for illegal unregistered overseas lobbying on behalf of Russian-backed Viktor Yanukovych, president of Ukraine. The allegations are coming to light as the latest installment of deep state corruption getting caught up in the Russia collusion dragnet during the course of the Mueller investigation. According to a Fox News report, the lobbying work occurred in 2012 while Craig was a partner at the law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, but Craig failed to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA. Read more…

Here’s more from Fox News…

Former Obama White House Counsel and Clinton-linked attorney Greg Craig may soon be charged by the Justice Department for engaging in illegal unregistered overseas lobbying, in a case initially probed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller — a development that would make him the first Democrat to face prosecution amid the long-running Russia investigation.

The case centers on lobbying work that Craig performed in 2012 for the Russian-backed president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, while Craig was a partner at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Craig allegedly never registered as a foreign agent under a U.S. law known as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which requires lobbyists to declare publicly if they represent foreign leaders, governments or their political parties.

FARA violations were only rarely prosecuted until Mueller took aim at Paul Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, for his lobbying work in Ukraine. Manafort, who connected Craig with Yanukovych, has been convicted on numerous bank and tax fraud charges, and was separately accused of FARA violations as well. He was sentenced earlier this month to approximately seven years in prison.

Read More...

Big govt, Courts, Politics

War Memorial Cross Scrutinized by SCOTUS

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday from atheists targeting a 40-foot-high cross erected in 1925 to honor American soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice in World War I. The Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland, is offending enemies of Christian symbolism at a prominent intersection. It has been made possibly more offensive to them after President Trump signaled his support for saving it. The legal battle reached the Supreme Court after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the cross must be removed or altered to eradicate religious symbolism, an impossible task for a cross. At the heart of the legal debate is the “Lemon Test,” which seeks to determine whether a government action is based in religious intention or coercion. Read more…

Here’s more from Breitbart…

The fate of a 40-foot high cross erected in 1925 to honor men who died in World War I will be the focus of arguments before the Supreme Court Wednesday.

The concrete cross, known as the Peace Cross, was erected in Bladensburg, Maryland by the American Legion. It has been owned by the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission since 1961.

Atheists demanded the federal courts rule the monument violated the constitutional prohibition on the establishment of religion, claiming they were offended by the display. The cross sits at a prominent intersection in the Washington area. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a two to one decision, ordered that the cross be removed or altered to remove any religious symbolism.

Read More...