Did the Obama Administration Spy on Its Political Adversaries?

The Washington, DC liberal political elite is spinning madly over the fact that it appears that the Obama Administration and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. If true, this is extremely troubling and possibly the worst example of the politicization of the FBI by the last administration. As Rep. Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, stated:

Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told "Fox & Friends" that the committee has not seen any "credible evidence or intelligence" explaining why the FBI opened its investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. . . . "What we’re trying to do is get the documents to figure out what methods were used to open this counterintelligence investigation," Nunes said, suggesting that it could reflect badly on the DOJ and FBI once all the information comes to light.

“I believe they never should have opened a counterintelligence investigation into a political party," Nunes said. "Counterintelligence investigations very rarely happen. And when they do happen, you have to be very careful because you‘re using the tools of our intelligence services and relationships with other countries in order to spy on a political campaign. Probably not a good idea."

As Andrew McCarthy explains, if true, this would be a clear abuse of power:

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation. Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge. But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

It is important to note that the counter intelligence effort against the Trump presidential campaign is very different from the criminal investigation into the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign:

The Clinton case was a criminal investigation that was predicated on a mountain of incriminating evidence.  . . . The scandal here is that Mrs. Clinton was not charged. She likes to blame Comey for her defeat; but she had a chance to win only because the Obama Justice Department and the FBI tanked the case against her — in exactly the manner President Obama encouraged them to do in public commentary.

The real story is, as McCarthy concludes:

The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation. With the blessing of the Obama White House, they took the powers that enable our government to spy on foreign adversaries and used them to spy on Americans — Americans who just happened to be their political adversaries.

This should scare all Americans and goes to the heart of our Democracy.  Rep. Nunes will address the RNLA on this and other topics on June 12 in Washington, DC. 

Why Are College Students’ Votes Worth More Than Everyone Else’s?

In the Daily Caller today, Executive Director Michael Thielen discussed the complicated issues around registering out-of-state college students to vote in battleground states. The article highlight how this issue raises gray legal and ethical issues, which are often disregarded in favor of political advantages.

[W]hy aren’t we upset when students do the same thing? Would we really accept the fact that adult commuters who work in New York and Boston and leave for their true homes on the weekends can vote in the city if it is in the strategic interest of a political party? Would we accept adults who are periodically working in a state or city voting there even when they have no real intent to live there? The answer is a resounding no. Worse, why aren’t we troubled that a political party uses students as political pawns on a regular basis?

. . . 

Legal definitions about eligibility to vote in a state vary from state to state, but state residence, domicile, inhabitance, or similar requirements usually contain the intent to live there for the foreseeable, or undetermined, future. A person who enters a state with no intent to remain usually does not meet this standard, and many college students have no intention to remain in the place they go to college. But some students do meet the legal standard, and this is why student voting location is so tricky. There is no set rule or answer for students, but the needs of a political party is not an ethical or acceptable way for a student to figure out where he or she should vote.

Americans would not be pleased if a multimillionaire politician, who owns several homes opted to register to vote in one property which happens to be in a battleground state, over his actual residence in another non-battleground state--solely based on a political factor. However, this is exactly what has happened in the past with students (and we blogged about this in 2014):

In 2008, then-Senator Obama’s campaign started a program nicknamed “float the vote”. This program involved telling students to vote where it was most politically advantageous for the Obama campaign and not where the student felt they “resided” or where they met the legal definition of residency or domicile for purposes of voter registration. This program unfortunately encouraged white lies for short-term political gain by encouraging students to state under oath that their college town was their permanent home and they intended to stay and vote. The program also undermined federal law that authorized and encouraged students who were away to vote by absentee ballot in their hometown. 

. . .

Float the vote demeaned voting from a patriotic right and duty to something strategic that included a bit of lying about where students really lived. There used to be safeguards in some states, such as Virginia, whereby students would be asked a series of simple questions when registering to see if they really resided in Virginia. This matters, in part, because there many more elections than just the Presidential election. However, Democratic Virginia Governors Tim Kaine and Terry McAuliffe appointed Democrats to the Virginia Board of Elections that eliminated these questions. McAuliffe also attempted to effectively eliminate voter registration questions on citizenship and felonies by saying those who did not answer would be automatically registered. The reason why they did so was quite simply the perception, backed up by polls, that felons, non-citizens, and students overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

The article closes on this point:

To be clear, liberals’ rhetoric about student voting has nothing to do with defending “poor students” or whether students have a right to vote and everything to do with obtaining more votes in close races. . . The Democratic Party encourages this tactic because polls show students tend to vote Democrat. It should not be contentious or controversial to say that students should have the same right to vote as everyone else, nothing more and nothing less.

Work needs to be done to reign in this behavior. It is unethical to target these students--from non-battleground states attending college in battleground states--just because their vote would have a greater impact while away at school and irrespective of where they intend to be after college. This should be a undebatable, nonpartisan issue, but sadly is not.

GOP Taking Action on Failing Obamacare

As Senate Republicans work to fix the U.S. healthcare system, the Democrats have made fantastical and wild statements about the affects any change will have to people’s access to medical treatment. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell today announced that the Senate would not vote on the GOP healthcare bill until after recess, to continue perfecting the policy specifics. We must not forget, however, that the Affordable Care Act has already done considerable damage to our healthcare system.

As pointed to in the RNLA’s annual National Policy Conference on May 5th, the Affordable Care Act is not good for anyone. Dennis Kirk, an RNLA Lifetime member among the audience, asked the panel: “When do you anticipate total failure of Obamacare and can we beat that before it gets there?” Michael Franc, Hoover Institute’s Director of DC Programs, answered Mr. Kirk’s question first:

If the black letter had been adhered to it would have happened already. It’s structurally not sustainable, and the only reason it has been in effect for this long, frankly, is that there has been this serial ignorance, or ignoring the actual language, and finding ways to direct subsidies in that really shouldn’t go there under the way the law is written.

Congressman Keith Rothfus (PA-12), also on the panel, related that Obamacare is already failing:

In many areas it’s already felt. We learned this week 94 out of 99 counties in Iowa will not have a single insurer on their exchange to choose from.

Needless to say, the GOP is taking the initiative to reform another failing government program, while the Democrats have marching orders for obstructionism.

On a side note: Ilya Shapiro, who was the third member of the RNLA panel, is celebrating his birthday today. Happy Birthday, Ilya!

RNLA Calls Upon Clinton Campaign to Condemn and Stop Recounts

RNLA officially called upon the Clinton campaign to condemn plans by the Green Party to hold recounts of the presidential election results in several states:

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) calls upon the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to stand down and condemn the recount effort in Wisconsin and possibly other states. We are extremely disappointed by the change of heart of Secretary Clinton in deciding to participate. This is an unprecedented effort to divide our country.  

RNLA President Larry Levy said: “The alleged concerns that the recount is to ensure every vote is properly counted is ludicrous. If that were true, why aren’t they seeking recounts in every state or at least include New Hampshire where Secretary Clinton won by a scant 2,736 votes or other states with narrow Democrat wins? This effort diverts attention from the critical work of President-elect Trump and his team to form a new Administration and to be prepared to lead America forward on day one.”  

The recount is pointless, a waste of resources, a squandering of taxpayer funds, and flies in the face of the long tradition of accepting results. Do not take our word for it. Look at the past statements of Secretary Clinton and her lawyer. Further, RNLA agrees with the Obama Administration in its opposition to the recount.  

1. Previously, Secretary Hillary Clinton called the very thought of not accepting the election results “horrifying.” . . . 2. To be clear, there is no doubt about the election results. This is why the Clinton campaign decided previously not to pursue the recount. . . . 3. The Obama Administration also agrees that there is no basis for a recount . . . .

Whatever the fundraising and publicity goals of the Green Party are, Secretary Clinton and her campaign should not approve them.  As her running mate Sen. Kaine said the day after the election, "Nobody — nobody had to wonder about Hillary Clinton, whether she would accept an outcome of an election in our beautiful democracy."

DOJ's Civil Rights Division Actions Since October 15, 2014, May Be Void

Hans von Spakovsky recently published a commentary calling into question the validity of all Vanita Gupta’s official actions. Ms. Gupta is the acting head of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division and apparently has been working in violation of federal law for more than a year and a half. The result—it may render all the official actions Ms. Gupta has taken during her entire tenure, including lawsuits, demand letters, and hires, “void” and of no effect.

Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, when an office that requires Senate confirmation becomes vacant, “the first assistant to the office of such officer shall perform the functions and duties of the office temporarily in an acting capacity subject to the time limitations of section 3346.” The time limitation set by that section is 210 days…. But it also stipulates that if an acting officer violates this time limitation, all actions taken by that individual “shall have no force or effect.”

[Ms. Gupta] was appointed on Oct. 15, 2014, by President Barack Obama “to lead the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice.” It describes her as the “chief civil rights prosecutor for the United States.”…The official Justice Department press release from that same day states that Gupta will “serve as principal deputy assistant attorney general and acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division” (emphasis added).

Obama never formally nominated anyone to fill this post after Gupta was appointed. Consequently, Gupta has remained the designated acting assistant attorney general since that designation was made on Oct. 15, 2014. That means her 210 days of being able to hold the acting position expired on May 13, 2015, 18 months ago. 

The bottom line is that the Obama administration appears to have blatantly violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act precisely because it didn’t want to comply with the confirmation requirement for Gupta. It has treated her as the head of the Civil Rights Division from the very first day she was hired and officially named as the acting assistant attorney general.

Hans von Spakovsky concludes by arguing that those groups targeted by Ms. Gupta’s Civil Rights Division might have a valid defense, under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, as a means of avoiding actions rendered against them.

A Third Strike for Obama at the EAC

Yesterday, President Obama nominated Kate Marshall to the Election Assistance Commission (EAC). A brief review of his previous nominations seems to be in order. All too often the Democrats consider election administration in a partisan fashion, seeking to advance a political agenda or scare their base.  

President Obama seemingly believed such when he nominated the hyper-partisan liberal extremist Myrna Perez previously.  As we wrote at the time:

It is hard to imagine a person less suited for a commission whose job is to be “independent, bipartisan commission charged with developing guidance to meet HAVA requirements” than Ms. Perez.  Some of the Help America Vote Act, or HAVA’s, requirements were for states to update their voting rolls.  An effort which Ms. Perez has long opposed calling such efforts “list purging” with made up statistics and overheated rhetoric.  An example of the latter is Ms. Perez once said: “purging happens all across the country, probably every day.” 

To election officials of both parties that statement is ridiculous but it is the kind of extremist rhetoric that Ms. Perez has been spouting for years against Republicans and Democrats who try to enforce laws on voting that the far left opposes.  In Ms. Perez’s world such Republicans and Democrats are racists or fear mongers. 

According to Perez, Secretaries of State and other election officials spend their time trying to remove people from the voting rolls.  Such rhetoric and her extreme partisanship resulted in Perez being forced to withdraw her name.  

President Obama replaced Perez's nomination with Matthew Butler. Butler was the former CEO of Media Matters. While Perez was a partisan extremist on election issues, Butler had no experience at all on election issues.  He is now the Chief of Staff for the Democratic National Convention. In other words, he was only a partisan.  

Which brings us to the current nominee, Kate Marshall. She similarly has no election administration background. (Although unlike Butler, at least she "applied" for such a position when she ran unsuccessfully for Nevada Secretary of State.)

And that is how the Democrats view the EAC: a place to reward partisans for their service to the liberal movement. It is sad that the left has so little regard for election administration.

RNLA Congratulates Jennifer Choe Groves for Her Nomination to the U.S. Court of International Trade

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) is pleased to congratulate Jennifer Choe Groves on her nomination by President Obama to serve on the United States Court of International Trade. The U.S. Court of International Trade, an Article III court, has nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions arising out of U.S. customs and international trade laws. If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Groves will be the first Asian Pacific American judge to serve on this court.

Groves has been a longtime supporter of the RNLA having previously served as a Secretary of our Board of Governors.

RNLA Executive Director Michael Thielen stated:

The RNLA was privileged to count Jennifer Choe Groves among our ranks and as part of our leadership team in the past. She will make a great addition to the U.S. Court of International Trade.

Groves is currently the Chief Executive Officer of Titanium Law Group PLLC and Choe Groves Consulting LLC, where she provides legal and consulting services in the areas of international trade and intellectual property. Previously, she was a partner at the law firms of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC and Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP.

Groves also served as the Senior Director of Intellectual Property and Innovation in the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in the Executive Office of the President. During her time at USTR, she also served as chair of the Special 301 Committee, where she led the interagency committee’s decision-making on international trade policy and intellectual property protection. Prior to joining USTR, Groves was Counsel at O’Melveny & Myers LLP and an associate at Fish & Neave LLP (now Ropes & Gray LLP). She began her legal career as an Assistant District Attorney in New York County District Attorney’s Office from and received her LL.M from Columbia Law School, her J.D. from Rutgers School of Law – Newark, and her A.B. from Princeton University. 

Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department

Hans von Spakovsky of The Heritage Foundation has co-authored a book with National Review Columnist John Fund entitled Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department. The book is a careful examination of the Holder Justice Department’s egregious violations of the law and relentless pursuit of the Obama political agenda.

Hans von Spakovsky, who will be a featured speaker at this year’s National Election Law Seminar, presented his book during a panel discussion at The Heritage Foundation on Tuesday. Von Spakovsky explains how Holder was selected by Obama for his reputation of partisan loyalty. “Eric Holder is an ideologue. He considers himself the President’s attorney first, the attorney general second. . . . He was the number two guy there at the Clinton Administration. In fact, he was the go-to guy for the White House. Why? Because they didn’t trust Janet Reno to make the right political decisions. But they trusted Eric Holder to do that.”

Also on the panel, Fund says that, “the Supreme Court has ruled against the Justice Department’s position on key issues approximately a dozen times,” as a result of Holder’s extreme positions. He further highlights that, “these are all unanimous defeats. Over the last two or three terms, the Obama Administration’s Justice Department has succeeded before the Supreme Court only about 40% of the time. That is compared to an average of over 70% for previous Presidents in the last half-century. To put that into perspective, they have failed more than twice as often as the Clinton Administration.”

Holder makes decisions based on politics. Von Spakovsky says that Attorneys General are required to perform a careful balancing act, weighing law enforcement and the political interest of the President. However, he observes that every time Holder has come to that fork in the road, he has chosen political interests. Holder has, “contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. . . . You are taking an extreme legal position when all nine justices of the Supreme Court disagree with you, including your former Solicitor General, and yet we have a dozen cases like that.”

Reflecting on his time at the Justice Department, von Spakovsky notes that when Holder testifies before Congress, “I don’t know,” either he has contempt for the interview or he has an incompetent staff. Having communicated with current Justice Department officials, he can guarantee it is not the latter.

Von Spakovsky and Fund both argue that the only remedy for this dangerous course of action is to appoint an ethical attorney general. “Eric Holder and his subordinates have politicized the Justice Department to a degree that I have never seen before. The only way to do anything about this is through new leadership. You need an ethical Attorney General, and those get chosen only by the President. Until we get a new Attorney General in, who is willing to bring the standards of the Department back up as prior Attorneys General of both political parties have done, nothing is going to happen to clean up the Department.”

IRS Scandal Update

Now that the White House has labeled it a “phony scandal” apparently they feel free to obstruct the investigation.  The IRS actions are nothing less than stonewalling.  According the House Oversight and Government Reform committee:

o   The IRS originally identified over 64 million pages of responsive documents and has revised that number down to 660,000 responsive documents, but has produced to the Committee only about 12,000 pages.

o   Approximately 2,500 pages are fully redacted and a significant portion of the remaining pages are duplicative.

o   The IRS – without consulting with House Committees – unilaterally limited the date range for searching relevant documents and appears to have unilaterally narrowed the search terms from 81 agreed-upon terms to a subset of only 12 terms.

Big government liberals were initially troubled by the IRS Scandal and wanted to get to the bottom of it.  But now when it comes time to actually investigate they are stonewalling and President Obama is calling it a “phony scandal.” 

Thank you Chairman Issa for staying on top of this and working to get to the bottom of it.  

Indiana Vote Fraud Conviction Means A Lot More

Liberals often downplay vote fraud when they aren’t using people like Al Sharpton who actually committed vote fraud to disclaim it.  So predictably the reaction to the convictions early this week of a Democratic Party official in the Indiana fraudulent petition scheme from 2008 is the same as it has always been to down play its claim that it was isolated and had no effect.

In the stories on it you have quotes about how the “victim” is the Democratic Party and it did not make a difference made by people with no clue on politics or protecting Democrats.

On Monday, there was some closure to the case, though, as the four defendants who were convicted or pleaded guilty in the state's presidential petition fraud scandal were sentenced. Only one received prison time for the illegal scheme that touched the race for the White House.

. . .In court, former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic Chairman Butch Morgan, Jr. was sentenced to one year behind bars, and is expected to serve half that, as well as Community Corrections and probation.

But, what does it really mean?

1.  Let’s say the Fraud had been uncovered at the time.  What could have happened?  Barrack Obama would have been kicked off the Indiana Ballot.  This would have resulted in a very different narrative for the great Obama campaign. 

·         The Obama campaign, which was so praised for its efficiency, would have instead had to answer questions about why it had to cheat to even obtain a measly 500 signatures in a Congressional District in Indiana.   If you think this is a non-story, fast forward to 2012 when Senator Santorum failed to obtain enough petitions to qualify for the ballot in Ohio and had his momentum dampened and campaign hurt.  Santorum had to deal with the story for a key week during the campaign.  Senator Obama, unlike Santorum, had money and no excuse for such a screw up. 

·         Senator Obama won Indiana by .9% in the general election.  The scandal almost certainly would have cost him some votes from Hooisers who don’t like that kind of activity.  Senator McCain would have likely won Indiana. 

·         One of Senator McCain’s best issues in 2008 was tying Senator Obama and his campaign to the corrupt and now defunct ACORN and its fraudulent voter registrations.  This would have been another log in that fire. 

2.  It took five years to bring this case to justice and there can be little doubt this was just the surface of what was going on for the Democrats were so blatant about it. 

·         Dr. Deb Fleming, St. Joseph County’s Republican chairwoman, said, “They’ve just never gotten caught. Because they’ve been in control of St. Joseph County for so long, they felt they could get away with it.”

·         The scandal was not uncovered by authorities, but a former Obama White House Intern Ryan Nees:  "What seems to have happened is that a variety of people in northern Indiana knew that this fraud occurred, and actively participated and perpetuated the fraud, and did so on behalf of two presidential campaigns," according to Nees. 

So it takes five years and the help of a Democrat to take down a party leader who cheats.  You have to wonder if liberals down play the importance of vote fraud to stop their own from reporting it. 

 

Even Liberal Justices are Rejecting the Obama Administration's Efforts to Expand Power

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is more than just a Senator. He is also a legal scholar.  We have watched Senator Cruz since we had him speak at our National Policy Conference as Solicitor General of Texas. At that time, he was making a name for himself in the generally low profile office of state solicitor general.  Yesterday he issued a report on “the Legal Limit: The Obama Administration’s Attempts to Expand Federal Power.” 

The report begins by citing a speaker at this year’s RNLA Policy Conference, Ilya Shapiro who wrote: “When the administration can’t get even a single one of the liberal justices to agree with it in these unrelated areas of law, that’s a sign there’s something wrong its constitutional vision.”

Cruz’s report goes on to cite six cases where the administration argued the federal government should have unprecedented power.  The report is short but extremely scary.  It should be read by all lawyers.  It is also worth noting to those on the left who attack Cruz as a tea party extremist or some such that Obama’s own hand-picked liberal Justices agreed with Cruz on all six cases he cited.

And we could not agree more with Cruz conclusions: “The arguments advanced in these cases demonstrate an astonishing view of federal power on behalf of the Obama Administration, worthy of further examination.” 

Depending on votes next Thursday, Senator Cruz is going to stop by the RNLA pre-conference reception on April 25. 

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to Speak at the National Policy Conference

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is a man of many words-literally.  The candidate for Virginia governor recently released a new book called “The Last Line of Defense: The New Fight for American Liberty,” which will be highlighted and discussed this month during a special luncheon at the National Policy Conference.  The book shows Cuccinelli as unabashedly conservative in his views and demeanor, and hits hard on the “unprecedented overreach of the federal government.”

Ken Cuccinelli was the first Attorney General to argue in federal court against Obamacare.  He spends much of the book discussing this and calls the Obama Administration “the biggest set of lawbreakers in America.”  He also argues that politicians have created entitlement programs to make people dependent on government.  In the book his stories explain why the Attorney General thinks the way he does.  His intimate stories, including one which explains how his family relied on each other instead of government handouts when his sick mother was hospitalized for six months, shows a man who is rightfully unapologetic in his viewpoints and truly believes that it is up to the state attorney general to fight as the last line of defense for liberty.

While few would ever advise a candidate for governor or otherwise to release a book while campaigning, Cuccinelli seems to do it with flare.   A leader of the conservative movement, he will be a highlight to see at the National Policy Conference.  Sign up to see him today!

Obomination: Obama Campaign Goes On Under a C4

In an earlier Obomination we detailed how even liberal groups were outraged over the selling of the White House by Organizing for Action.  The liberal groups are just making noise and really not intending to do anything.  (Isn’t it funny how liberal groups are most critical of Democrats when elections are furthest away? )

But at least those liberal groups are admitting that what the President is doing is wrong.  Of course this is a problem even more serious then selling the White House, it sure looks like breaking the law.   Organizing for Action was Obama for America which was President Obama’s reelection campaign.  It does not look any different now except for the fact it can take unlimited contributions.  For the White House and this supposedly independent 501c4 are directly coordinating.  Check out the following email from an RNLA member:

Mike,

 

I sent in a comment on sequestration to WH, but got back below email same day from OFA.  Curious direct connect.

 

From: Organizing For Action <info@barackobama.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:13 AM
Subject: Thanks For The Email Re: SEQUESTRATION: What is really happening….Keep Bitching---or, Get Real and Awake to the Next "Crisis"
To: REDACTED

Friend,

Thanks for your email.

If you have a question about Organizing for Action or need support, please write us at support@barackobama.com or call (571) 403-1776.

Click here for a list of Frequently Asked Questions.

And if you have a question about the 2012 campaign, including those regarding your contribution(s), merchandise, or an invoice, please contact Obama for America at info@obamabiden.com.

Thanks again,

Organizing for Action

Can you imagine the uproar if the Bush White House had the NRA respond to any question on guns?  Can imagine the media firestorm that would develop if questions on taxes to the Republican House were responded to by the Heritage Foundation?   How can you have a question from a “privately operated” group that is addressed to support@barackobama.com?   According to OFA website “ it was privately established and will be privately operated,” if this is true why is it answering the White House’s mail? 

RNLA will keep calling attention to this but at a minimum the Obama’s campaign “son” Organizing for Action activities do not pass any smell test and are an Obomination.