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. 

ICYMI: Obama DOJ in “Very Dramatic” Fashion Pressured FBI to End Investigations into Hillary Clinton

The politicization of the FBI is not good for the country and a sad day in the FBI’s proud history. Overlooked amidst the turmoil and allegations surrounding the firing of James Comey and Andrew McCabe, an important new detail has come to light on an old theme: the Obama Justice Department put unprecedented pressure on the FBI to not investigate or end its investigations of Democrat Party Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (emphasis added):

The [Justice] department’s inspector general exposed just how deep the feuding ran in a new report last week investigating the actions of former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. The report recounted an August 2016 phone call from a high-level Justice Department official who complained the FBI had taken “overt” actions to investigate the Clinton Foundation, potentially embarrassing then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Mr. McCabe said he got the sense the Obama Justice Department was telling him “to shut down” the probe. Later he called the exchange [ ] “very dramatic” and said he’d never had a confrontation like that with the Justice Department.

The reason for the pressure was that the FBI, among other things, had found “suspicious activity” between the Clinton Foundation and a foreign donor:

The inspector general (IG) confirmed in its long-awaited report released Friday that in 2016 the FBI had ongoing field investigations of the Clinton Foundation in New York, Los Angeles, Little Rock, Arkansas and Washington, D.C. The multi-city investigation was launched when agents found “suspicious activity” between a foreign donor and Clinton Foundation activity in the Los Angeles area, as TheDCNF reported in August 2016.

Although both the Obama-appointed Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz and the non-partisan FBI Office of Professional Responsibility recommended McCabe be fired, in the media liberals’ defend McCabe from politicization accusations for leaking in part because the information “hurt” Hillary Clinton.  According to the IG, McCabe’s leaking was for self-preservation as he seemed worried about the strength of the narrative that the FBI's handling of the investigations into Hillary Clinton was unduly biased in her favor:   

McCabe was worried about an Oct. 23, 2016, Wall Street Journal article, which appeared to have damaged his reputation for impartiality because the journalist, Devlin Barrett, reported McCabe’s wife received a campaign donation of nearly a half million dollars from Clinton friend and political ally Terry McAuliffe for her run for a Virginia state seat.

In an alleged attempt to show he wasn’t impartial to the Clintons, McCabe leaked information to Barrett a week later that claimed he personally fought the Justice Department’s attempt to shut down the FBI’s investigation, according to the Inspector General’s report. Barrett’s article appeared Oct. 30 and was titled, “FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe.”  . . . 

McCabe authorized bureau officials to leak the information about the Aug. 12 call, the IG claims. “Specifically, McCabe stated that he authorized Special Counsel and AD/OPA to provide to Barrett the account of his August 12 call with PADAG because McCabe thought it was the ‘best example’ to counter the “incredibly damaging” narrative in Barrett’s intended story,” the report reads.

Comey and McCabe were concerned about the evidence or appearance of evidence that Obama’s Department of Justice and Clinton allies had successfully influenced FBI investigations into Hillary Clinton.  They were concerned that might taint her victory because at the time they thought her election to be certain.  Their actions just showed why they should have been fired.  The larger question is who in the Obama Department of Justice (or even the White House) was trying to pressure the FBI and why are they not facing consequences? 

Another op-ed on the topic is here. 

Is the ACLU Looking to Politicize Local DA Races in 2018?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is focusing on district attorney races this year:

The ACLU is among a variety of organizations working to elect prosecutors willing to jumpstart a laundry list of criminal justice reforms, including an overhaul of the pretrial bail bond system. It received a $50 million grant from Soros’ Open Society Foundations in 2014. . . . 

The group hasn’t determined which local races will be targeted, but it will focus on contests in big cities with large jail populations that feed the state prison system, said Taylor Pendergrass, senior campaign strategist for the ACLU’s Campaign for Smart Justice. More than 1,000 local prosecutors are up for election in November, according to the group. . . . 

As the article points out, many on both the right and the left, Republicans and Democrats, are calling for criminal justice reform, but there is a great deal of debate over the proper changes, the economic considerations, and what the practical effects of any legal changes will be.  Many law enforcement organizations warn that ill-considered changes could drastically increase crime rates and decrease public safety.  The number and murkiness of the considerations in this area make it important that a vibrant public debate is held over law enforcement and criminal justice issues and that the people's elected legislators collectively make the hard decisions about policy matters.   

The Color of Change Political Action Committee, which has also received Soros funding, is urging black voters to support Democratic candidate Elizabeth Frizell for Dallas County District Attorney in Texas. A former state district judge, Frizell has called for special prosecutors to investigate shootings by police. She also supports replacing cash bail bonds with a pretrial release system based on factors such as the type of offense, the facts of the case and the defendants’ likelihood to re-offend and return to court. . . .

With great discretion about whether to charge and how severely to punish defendants, district attorneys hold immense power over the way justice is dispensed, advocates for similar reforms agree. . . .

While prosecutors exercise immense discretion as an important facet of our adversarial system, we have seen all too often how politically motivated prosecutors will selectively enforce the law to serve their progressive political goals, not to serve the greater public interest.  Unfortunately with the ACLU's track record in selectively supporting free speech rights (anarchists - yes, religious groups - no), we are not optimistic that the candidates supported by the ACLU will be ones who will use their discretion with respect for the rule of law instead of using it to politicize justice on the local level.  And when justice is politicized, it is the most vulnerable of our citizens who suffer the greatest consequences.

Senator Cotton Points Out Democrats' Absurdity and a Big Lie

If you only have time (or the desire) to watch one Senator “question” Attorney General Sessions in today’s hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, may I suggest watching Senator Cotton. 

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) comically mocked the allegations that Attorney General Jeff Sessions colluded with the Russians during a campaign event at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington during a campaign event last April. . . . “Do you like spy fiction? Do you like Jason Bourne or James Bond movies?” Cotton continued before slamming the probe.

“Have you ever, ever in any of these fantastical situations heard of a plot line so ridiculous that a sitting United States senator and an ambassador of a foreign government colluded at an open setting with hundreds of other people to pull off the greatest caper in the history of espionage?” he asked, prompting Sessions to laugh for the first time during the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.

More seriously, Senator Cotton pointed out one of the many lies of the Democrats in this matter that may be overlooked:

"For the record, as stated earlier, the Republican platform was weakened on the point of arms for Ukraine. That’s incorrect,” the Arkansas senator said. “It was actually strengthened. I would add it was the Democratic president who refused requests to supply arms to Ukraine.” 

As Byron York detailed:

The wildest expression of the theory came, as it often does, from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who told viewers on March 8 that "something weird" happened to the GOP platform on "that Ukraine and Russia thing" when the Trump team "jumped right up on that and they insisted that that plank only, that one, had to be taken out, that language could not stand." . . .

As it turns out, a look at the original draft of the platform — which has never been released publicly — shows that it always had tough language on Russian aggression in Ukraine. And not only did that language stay in the final platform — nothing was taken out — it was actually strengthened, not weakened, as a result of events at the convention.

As the Daily Caller adds on the Obama Administration:

Cotton’s claim that former President Barack Obama prevented lethal arms aid to Ukraine is also accurate. The Obama administration avoided sending offensive weapons to Ukraine out of fear that they would escalate the conflict, despite bipartisan support for such a measure.

Senator Cotton, through pointing out both absurdity and facts, proved once again Democrats are not interested in the truth but in playing the worst form of politics.

Is It Time to Give the Slip to Blue Slips?

The unprecedented obstruction of President Trump’s nominees has led Senate Republicans to rightly consider redoing the so-called blue slip policy.  Before we go to describing the policy, let just remind people that Senate Democrats have opposed people they like and qualified nominees for no other reason then to give into the far left’s desire to “resist.”

Which brings us to blue slips.  As the Hill writes:

Blue-slipping a nominee, which dates back to at least 1917, isn’t actually an official rule. It’s more of a courtesy in which the home-state senators are asked to sign off on a judicial nominee on an actual blue slip of paper before the committee holds a nomination hearing.  

With Democrats blocking or delaying even their friends and qualified nominees, Republicans have no choice but to consider a new “blue slip” policy.  As Senator Cotton stated:

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Tuesday that if Democrats start abusing the so-called blue slip rule, Republicans should consider dumping the policy, which allows a senator to block a judicial candidate from his or home state by simply not returning a blue slip to the Judiciary Committee.. . .  “I think the blue slip tradition can be helpful if it encourages the White House to consult in advance with senators,” Cotton told Hewitt, an avowed opponent of the blue slip rule. “But we can’t allow Democratic senators to continue to obstruct this president’s agenda. If they’re just arbitrarily not returning blue slips, we have to consider changing that tradition to one of its past other forms.”

Ed Whelan list some of the potential solutions which really aren’t radical as they were done in the past:

I respectfully suggest that Chairman Grassley should restore what Senator Orrin Hatch, his predecessor as chairman (from 1995 through 2005), called the “Kennedy-Biden-Hatch blue-slip policy.” Under that policy, the return of a negative blue slip on a nomination would be given “substantial weight,” but a committee hearing and vote on the nomination would proceed.

As a second-best alternative, Grassley could sensibly differentiate—as he has signaled he might well do—between district-court and appellate-court nominees and give home-state senators more say over district-court nominees. After all, the caseloads of district judges clearly relate to the state in which the judge will sit. By contrast, the caseloads of appellate judges are drawn from the various states in a single circuit, and any particular appellate judge takes part equally (pro rata) in the cases arising from the district courts across those various states. If Grassley takes this differentiated approach, it is important that he make clear that a negative blue slip on an appellate nomination will receive no more than “substantial weight.”

It is unfortunate that Democrats are working so hard to undermine government at every turn.  Hopefully, Senate Democrats will return to decorum but if they don’t, we have faith in the Senate Republican leadership to do what is necessary so nominees get treated fairly.  

Democrat Leaders All Agreed with President Trump that Comey Needed to Be Fired, Until He Fired Him

Yesterday, President Trump did what Democrats have long called for: he fired FBI Director James Comey.  Of course being Democrats, they disagree with President Trump even when he does what they want.  Here's a list of just a few of the past statements by Senate Democrats calling for Comey to be fired.

SenateMinority Leader Chuck Schumer:

“I do not have confidence in him any longer,” said the New York Democrat, who has criticized as “appalling” Comey’s decision to send a letter to lawmakers 11 days before the election disclosing the bureau’s new review of e-mails potentially pertinent to the investigation of Clinton’s private server.

House Minority Leader Nancy Peloisi:

"Maybe he's not in the right job," Pelosi said. "I think that we have to just get through this election and just see what the casualties are along the way."The former House speaker said Comey had made a "mistake" by sending a letter to Congress about the new review of emails potentially related to Clinton's private server after not recommending prosecution earlier this summer. She alleged that he had a "double standard" given reports that Comey at other points did not want to use his agency to interfere in the election, adding that the new investigation is interfering in the race.

Tim Walz (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee:

"I was nonjudgmental until the last 15 minutes. I no longer have that confidence in him," Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, said as he left the meeting in the Capitol.

Rep. Adam Schiff,  Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (Ranking Member)

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Wednesday criticized FBI Director James Comey’s “disparate” treatment of President Trump and Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election, saying Comey failed to justify his actions during a Senate hearing earlier in the day.

“Nothing excuses the disparate way he handled those,” Schiff said. "I don’t think in any way he justified both what he did and why he treated those investigations so differently.”

Former Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid:

“Comey knew and deliberately kept this info a secret,” he said. Asked whether he believes Comey should step down over the matter, Reid replied, “Of course, yes.”

President Trump did what the Democrat leaders had been asking him to do for months.  This is just another in a long line of examples that the Democrats do not want to work with the President to govern but instead are trying to undermine the government and never stopping their efforts to campaign. 

Schumer Will Oppose Any Non-Democrat to the Supreme Court

Senator Schumer is leading an unprecedented effort to oppose President Trump’s nominees.  This effort is across the board and is not based on the nominees’ qualifications. In 2009 after President Obama's swearing in:

The very next day the Senate confirmed six of his Cabinet secretaries — Hillary Clinton, Ken Salazar, Tom Vilsack, Steven Chu, Arne Duncan, and Janet Napolitano. Clinton received two no votes, Duncan and Napolitano received so little opposition that Senate only did unrecorded voice votes, and the other three were literally unanimous. The very next day, the Senate unanimously confirmed Obama’s nominees for HUD, Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, United Nations ambassador, Securities and Exchange Commission chair, and the Council on Environmental Qualities.

Other Obama nominees were more controversial but still had plenty of Republican support. Eric Holder, not exactly a conservative favorite, got 19 Republican votes. Hilda Solis got 24. Ron Kirk got 38. Tim Geithner got 10. Kathleen Sebelius ended up being the most contentious nomination, since anti-abortion groups decided to go hard at her, but she still got nine Republican votes.

At the time, there were only 40 Republican senators, so that meant about a quarter of the GOP caucus was voting for even the most controversial nominees.

Trump’s nominees have received much less support than Obama’s. Even his least controversial nominees like Defense Secretary James Mattis and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley have drawn token opposition from someone looking to make a point.

Next week is likely President Trump’s most important nominee, a Supreme Court Justice.  Senator Schumer has stated his standard for passage:

"If the nominee is out of the mainstream, we will do our best to keep the seat open."

However, the reality is Schumer has already decided to oppose ANY nominee by President Trump:

Schumer said that it is "hard for me to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose that would get Republican support that we could support."

The media and the public needs to realize the Democrat leader of the United States Senate and his party are going to fight any nominee by the President of the United States solely because the President made the nomination.  

NY GOP Calls for Investigation of Pay to Play Violations by AG Schneiderman

New York Republicans are calling for an investigation of Democrat Attorney General Eric Schneiderman after emails were uncovered showing that his campaign to silence critics of the theory of man-made global warming may have been motivated not only by his political animus but also by potential campaign donations for a gubernatorial run:

The New York Post obtained emails showing Schneiderman reaching out to former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer in March — about four months after Schneiderman began investigating ExxonMobil for allegedly misleading investors about the risks of global warming. 

Steyer, a major funder of environmental causes and an Exxon critic, spent more than $73 million in the 2014 election cycle supporting Democratic candidates and opposing Republicans. 

Schneiderman also wanted to talk to Steyer about his ongoing Exxon investigation, which is being pushed by environmentalists who want to see the company punished like the tobacco industry.

State Republican Chairman Edward Cox called for an investigation of Schneiderman for using his office for improper political gain:

Another day, and more evidence Eric Schneiderman is using the Office of the Attorney General for political purposes. Just last week we learned he is allowing his close ally Hillary Clinton to subvert New York charity laws by refusing her to disclose the Foundation's foreign donors, and now we learn he sought to leverage his investigation of ExxonMobil to secure support from billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer in his potential run for higher office. 

Mr. Schneiderman has established a long and disturbing pattern of abusing the power of his office for political gain. Both of these cases indicate sufficient evidence to warrant an independent investigation by US Attorney Preet Bharara. Mr. Schneiderman must also comply with a subpoena issued by the U.S. House Science Committee requesting information about his ExxonMobil investigations amid allegations that the investigation is politically motivated. To date, he has chosen to defy the subpoena, leaving many troubling questions unanswered. As the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the state, the Attorney General must be above politics and until this matter is investigated by an independent body, there will be an indelible stain on the office.

In addition to the troubling free speech implications of General Schneiderman's investigation of climate change deniers, he may be using government power to advance his political career and court wealthy donors.  "Disturbing" indeed.

The Rule of Law Unjustly Manipulated: 4th Circuit Strikes Down NC Voter ID

In a decision that has many at a loss, today the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that North Carolina election integrity laws were enacted with a racially discriminatory intent. The Public Interest Legal Foundation released a statement with regard to the decision.

“The trial court conducted the trial, heard the evidence, and ruled that the law was valid. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals behaved like a trial court and decided that the law had a discriminatory intent,” said J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. “Normally, appeals courts remand to trial courts to review the evidence with the guidance of the appeals court. The Fourth Circuit undertook the job of a trial court and the integrity of the upcoming election is worse off because of it.”

Among the unusual rulings was the court holding that Section 5 objection letters by the Obama Justice Department about other election procedures constituted relevant evidence of racially discriminatory intent in the voter ID law. Objections are based on a failure to affirmatively disprove discriminatory intent, not because discriminatory intent is found.

“This case was brought to extract partisan advantage using the Voting Rights Act and sadly the plaintiffs were successful in turning that important civil rights law into a political weapon,” said Adams.

The concerns raised by the decision are numerous, as the Fourth Circuit acted like a trial court determining evidence and found that the voter ID law and other important election integrity reforms were not enacted for a legitimate purpose.

The three judges assigned to the case — all Democratic appointees — were unanimous that the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature violated the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act three years ago by enacting the measure requiring voters to show certain types of photo ID at the polls.

"The record makes clear that the historical origin of the challenged provisions in this statute is not the innocuous back-and-forth of routine partisan struggle that the State suggests and that the district court accepted," Judge Diana Motz wrote on behalf of Judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd. "Rather, the General Assembly enacted them in the immediate aftermath of unprecedented African American voter participation in a state with a troubled racial history and racially polarized voting. The district court clearly erred in ignoring or dismissing this historical background evidence, all of which supports a finding of discriminatory intent."

There is little that remains to be stated that cannot be implied from the decision itself. Unorthodox left-leaning decisions not based on the rule of law are just a prelude to what another four years of Democratic “leadership” will undoubtedly impose on this country and the judiciary itself.

Unanimous Supreme Court Rejects "Unrestrained Power for Prosecutors"

This is yet another case in a series of recent cases that we have discussed on this blog indicating a dangerous trend of politicizing justice. It has continued to be a favorite tactic utilized by the left while attempting to silence those with differing opinions. We discussed it when groups attempted to enforce the law of the land , again when the left went after Rick Perry,  then when a leftist AG harassed non-profits involved in scientific research, once again with the current DOJ attorney’s ethics violations in U.S. v. Texas and finally in the Planned Parenthood allegations against David Daleiden.

This has also become a preferred path for those who seek to silence free speech. As a country, we should not support throwing tantrums.  In an unanimous decision, SCOTUS reversed former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s 11 corruption convictions today. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the court. The Richmond Times-Dispatch put out an article earlier today discussing some of the finer points of the case (emphasis added).

“The government openly advocates a legal rule that would make a felon of every official at every level of government — from a Cabinet secretary to a janitor — who accepts travel in exchange for public appearances, who has lunch with a lobbyist when both know the lobbyist will pick up the check, who trades campaign contributions for a few minutes of time, or who cleans one classroom with special care because its teacher brings him gift cards,” McDonnell’s lawyers wrote in one of his appeal briefs.

Before McDonnell's case was argued before the Supreme Court, some analysts thought his case suffered a blow with the February death of Justice Antonin Scalia. That left the high court with four justices nominated by Republican presidents and four nominated by Democratic presidents.

[. . .] On April 27, when the Supreme Court heard McDonnell's appeal of his 11 corruption convictions, the justices questioned lawyers about what constitutes “official action” by public officials and expressed concern about giving unbridled power to prosecutors who are probing corruption.

That day, a sometimes frustrated Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, looked for a definition that would catch wrongdoers but not give unrestrained power to prosecutors who might bring “ridiculous” cases.

FreedomWorks, Curt Levey, applauded the decision earlier today noting that:

"The job of prosecutors, like other officers in the executive branch, is to objectively enforce the law, not to rewrite or expand the laws to reflect their moral or ideological preferences. The Court's ruling is an important step towards preventing overly zealous or politically motivated prosecutors from criminalizing routine, helpful actions performed for constituents. It is the voters who should decide whether elected officials are conscientious public servants.

James Bopp, Jr., counsel for the Madison Center, is pleased with the decision: 

“The Court rightly recognized the First Amendment chill that would be cast over both constituent and campaign participation if the government can selectively enforce so broad a corruption definition against public officials and candidates associating with voters.  Limiting quid pro quo corruption to exchanges of money or other gifts for official acts ensures the government does not exceed its authority and unconstitutionally silence the speech of its citizens.”

McDonnell was also quick to praise the decision.

Today, a unanimous United States Supreme Court vacated my convictions, and it is a day in which my family and I rejoice and give thanks.

From the outset, I strongly asserted my innocence before God and under the law. I have not, and would not, betray the sacred trust the people of Virginia bestowed upon me during 22 years in elected office.

[. . . ] I am exceptionally grateful to my faithful legal team who zealousy advocated my cause at every step, as well as the authors and signers of the 13 excellent amicus briefs that argued for reversal. 

More and more innocent leaders and organizations are being targeted for expressing their opinions and these attackers relish in the fact that they are working to silence an entire segment of society. The last eight years have seen entire federal organizations turned into partisan attack dogs seeking out any who oppose a certain point of view.  These cases are not about corruption but silencing speech and attacking those who disagree with the political views of the Democrat and DOJ prosecutors. 

Politicizing Justice – A Disturbing New Trend

Justice. It’s a word that is frequently thrown around but many seem to forget the meaning behind the word.

/‘jəstəs/

noun

1.

just behavior or treatment.

"a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people"

A rather concerning trend has been creeping into the United States judicial system. Politicizing justice. More and more the left is using the judicial system as a means to attack those with thoughts and ideas different than their own and against those seeking actual justice for those who cannot protect themselves. One of the more recent issues involved David Daleiden, an undercover investigator who proved that Planned Parenthood participated in the business of selling the body parts of aborted babies. This is disgusting enough on its own but the charges that were levied against the reporter who uncovered the truth are outright absurd and were clearly politically motivated.

Last month, LifeNews chronicled the explosive new evidence showing the Houston district attorney behind the bogus charges against pro-life advocate David Daleiden colluded with attorneys for Planned Parenthood.

According to attorney for Daleiden, District Attorney Devon Anderson shared confidential information with the abortion business, which she was supposed to be investigating for running afoul of state laws prohibiting the purchase or sale of body parts form aborted babies.

Yet, in recent court filings by the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s attorney Josh Schaffer admitted in a sworn declaration that the Harris County DA’s office shared evidence with Planned Parenthood. That occurred even after the Texas Attorney General’s office had forbidden Anderson’s office from doing so.

This is one of the many politically motivated attacks discussed at length in the article but it certainly forces you to step back and question the motivations of the prosecutors and their varying interpretations of the word justice as it relates to their political posture. The two things do not mix. Yet, we have even addressed similar issues in our election processes on quite a few occasions. Justice and politics are not the same thing. Somehow, despite our professional obligations that are diametrically opposed to the type of thinking and action outlined above, people have forgotten that justice itself has no political affiliation.

Executive Overreach Creeps into Virginia

A “Crooked Hillary” lackey, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, is having a rough week and it’s mostly self-inflicted. The Governor has recently come under investigation by the FBI for donations to his gubernatorial campaign (more on that in a later post).

As if that was not enough for a bad day, McAuliffe is also facing a lawsuit that was filed in the Virginia Supreme Court today challenging the constitutionality of using an executive action to restore voting rights to felons en masse:

  

Republicans in the Virginia General Assembly will file suit today in the Supreme Court of Virginia challenging Gov. Terry McAuliffe's authority to order a mass restoration of rights April 22, covering more than 200,000 felons who have served their time.

"The Constitution of Virginia forbids this unprecedented assertion of executive authority," the filing states. "Governor McAuliffe’s executive order defies the plain text of the Constitution, flouts the separation of powers, and has no precedent in the annals of Virginia history. The governor simply may not, with a stroke of the pen, unilaterally suspend and amend the Constitution."

McAuliffe's order came just days after the General Assembly wrapped up the 2016 legislative session, has the potential to expand the state's voter rolls by up to 3.8 percent.

Chuck Cooper, the attorney for Republicans filing the suit, said the plaintiffs are making a direct appeal to the state's highest court because "time is of the essence...the governor issued the order in time for thousands and thousands of felons to register and ultimately vote in November elections, but that isn't enough time to litigate a case in the normal course of the trial courts of the commonwealth."

In a statement, [Speaker of the House William J.] Howell, who has clashed frequently with McAuliffe during his term over Medicaid expansion, gun control and most recently judicial selection for the Supreme Court of Virginia, said legislators "simply cannot ignore this unprecedented executive overreach.”

Given the current FBI investigation, the lawsuit, and even further allegations of wrong doing, one need not infer the Governor’s motive, as his actions speak directly to it. The unconstitutional executive action was taken for one reason alone: adding Virginia’s felon voters to the rolls in time for the presidential election. Voters that statistically will likely support “Crooked Hillary” for President. 

Judge Sanctions DOJ Attorneys for Putting Politics Ahead of Truth, Ethics, and Justice

In an astounding, unprecedented rebuke of the Department of Justice and its attorneys, Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued an order sanctioning the DOJ attorneys for their conduct in U.S. v. Texas, the challenge by 26 states to Obama's immigration policies.  Judge Hanen found that they deliberately and repeatedly misled and lied to the court, violating ethical rules:

According to Hanen, the Justice Department “admitted making statements that clearly did not match the facts. It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements.” The only explanation DOJ had was that the lawyers “lost focus” or that the “fact[s] receded in memory or awareness,” a dubious and not very credible justification. That “lost focus” and memory problem caused the DOJ attorneys to “effectively” mislead the plaintiff states and “misdirect” the court. . . . 

Hanen lists the specific statements made by DOJ lawyers in court and on conference calls that were outright lies, and then he lists all of the applicable ethics rules that the DOJ lawyers violated. Those misleading statements put “to rest any doubt regarding misconduct.” Hanen said the representations were made in “bad faith” by DOJ lawyers and breached Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), which makes such conduct sanctionable.

Judge Hanen wisely decided not to make the American people pay for the attorneys' misconduct through imposing a fine:

He could also have awarded attorneys’ fees against the government and its DOJ attorneys. However, those fees would simply “be paid by taxpayers of the United States.” Thus, the Justice Department “would go unscathed.” There would be “no corrective effect and no motivation for the Government’s lawyers to act more appropriately in the future” because “there seems to be a lack of knowledge about or adherence to the duties of professional responsibility in the halls of the Justice Department.” 

So instead, Hanen ordered the Obama administration to take a series of steps: 

• Provide the court with a list of all of the aliens who were given benefits under the Obama amnesty plan; 

• All DOJ attorneys stationed in Washington, D.C., who appear in the courts of any of the 26 states that filed this lawsuit must take a yearly ethics course taught by someone unaffiliated with DOJ — and the attorney general must file an annual report with Judge Hanen for five years listing all of the DOJ attorneys who have appeared in those 26 states certifying their attendance at this ethics course; 

• Attorney General Loretta Lynch must file a comprehensive plan within 60 days “to prevent this unethical conduct from ever occurring again.” She must ensure that “Justice Department trial lawyers tell the truth — the entire truth”; and 

• Because he believes that whatever the Office of Professional Responsibility at DOJ is doing “has not been effective,” Hanen ordered Lynch to inform him within 60 days of the steps she is taking to “ensure” that OPR “effectively polices the conduct of the Justice Department lawyers and appropriately disciplines those whose actions fall below the standards that the American people rightfully expect from their Department of Justice.”

Hans von Spakovsky's entire analysis of the remarkable order is well worth reading.  Obama's Department of Justice attorneys, charged with representing the American people, put partisan politics above their duty, forsaking it so far as to lie to a court.  Yet again for the Obama Justice Department, politics triumphed over justice. It is encouraging that the courts are willing to keep DOJ in check, fulfilling their role under our system of separation of powers.

AG of Virgin Islands Serves Harassing Subpoena on Non-profit for Climate Change Views

Last week, Attorney General of the Virgin Islands Claude Walker served a subpoena on the Competitive Enterprise Institute ("CEI"), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization "dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty."  General Walker is part of "AGs United for Clean Power," a group of seven state attorneys general and former Vice President Al Gore, that threatens companies, scientists, organizations, and others with criminal investigation and prosecution for opposing or questioning the liberal orthodoxy on climate change.  Walker is investigating ExxonMobil under the Virgin Island's version of a RICO statute.

CEI has promised to fight against this threat to its First Amendment rights of speech and association:

“CEI will vigorously fight to quash this subpoena. It is an affront to our First Amendment rights of free speech and association for Attorney General Walker to bring such intimidating demands against a nonprofit group,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “If Walker and his allies succeed, the real victims will be all Americans, whose access to affordable energy will be hit by one costly regulation after another, while scientific and policy debates are wiped out one subpoena at a time.” 

The subpoena requests a decade’s worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI’s work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information. It demands that CEI produce these materials from 20 years ago, from 1997-2007, by April 30, 2016. 

The Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spakovsky noted the absurdity of the subpoena and underlying investigation:

There are so many things wrong with this that it is hard to know where to start. . . . And ExxonMobil and CEI are being targeted for having taken what these legal barons consider the wrong side of a scientific theory that is being actively debated and questioned. . . . The root of what is going on here appears to be an effort to intimidate, harass, frighten, and possibly imprison or fine anyone who Walker and his fellow warders think is saying the wrong thing . . . . 

This investigation is intended to silence and chill any opposition. It is disgraceful and contemptible behavior by public officials who are willing to exploit their power to achieve ideological ends. As CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman says, “it is an affront to our First Amendment rights of free speech and association.” 

Given the coalition that has been formed by state attorneys general to conduct a grand inquisition against climate change deniers, this subpoena from the Virgin Islands attorney general is probably just the first assault in their quasi-religious war against unbelievers. Researchers, scientists, think tanks, universities, and anyone else who works or speaks in this area should be aware that they may soon become a target of these malicious investigations.

This is likely the first of many attacks by Democrat attorneys general against scientists and organizations for thought crimes, with no regard for the freedom of speech, liberty of thought, or the vigorous debate of ideas upon which America was founded and persists.

Another Attempt to Criminalize Politics Fails as Charges Against Rick Perry Dismissed

Former Governor Rick Perry of Texas has been cleared of charges in yet another partisan witch hunt by Democrats.  District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg's office filed charges against Perry because Perry threatened to veto funding for Lehmberg's office when she refused to resign after she was arrested and convicted for drunken driving.  In a victory for the rule of law: 

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday ruled that courts could not limit veto power and that prosecuting Perry over his action violates “the separation of powers provision of the Texas Constitution” and infringed on his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. . . .

"The court upheld the rule of law and the fundamental right of any person to speak freely without fear of political interference or legal intimidation," Perry said Wednesday at a brief press conference in Austin. "The actions that I took were not only lawful and legal, but they were right."

RNLA's First Vice President Elliot Berke stated:

"This marks an appropriate end to another sad chapter for the Travis County District Attorney's office," said Elliot S. Berke, who served as General Counsel to Majority Leader Tom DeLay during his indictment by the same office.  "While this matter is now over, the citizens of Travis County and all of Texas should remain outraged by this craven attempt to criminalize politics and waste tax payer resources on personal vendettas."

The whole ordeal was simply absurd. It is hard to believe that the allegations that were filed somehow made it out of the trial court. Even now, with the charges dismissed, one cannot help but look back at the events that transpired and wonder what would have happened this election cycle without this black cloud looming over Perry's head.

These groundless allegations were yet another attack on a conservative leader trying to damage his reputation and even imprison him.  Just as happened with Governor Scott Walker, it was shown to be about political vengeance and not the rule of law. 

Vote Fraud is Not a Crime, But Police Uncovering It is

When a Milwaukee Police Task Force on the 2004 Election released the most comprehensive and non-partisan study of vote fraud, the left attacked . . .  the studies release!  They also attacked the police for recommending an end to same day registration as the best way to stop vote fraud or failing that, real photo ID.  The left again did not attack the substance of the police recommendations or factual findings but instead said it was wrong for the police to make policy recommendations or release a report.

And it is happening again. 

Election officials in New York have taken attacking police for exposing vote fraud to a whole new level.  As background remember, undercover police had no problem voting for dead, moved or felons in a recent undercover sting in the latest of a litany of vote fraud problems in New York. 

In response the New York City Board of Elections(BOE):

In fact, the Board thinks investigators who were allowed to cast ballots even though they posed as deceased people and felons should themselves be investigated.

The BOE voted to ask the city’s district attorneys to examine whether the Department of Investigation violated laws in its exhaustive inquiry.

 “We (are) unaware of any color of authority on the part of (DOI) to vote in the identity of any person other than themselves — and our reading of the election law is that such an act constitutes a felony.”

“We believe there is cause to be concerned that the integrity of the ballot has been compromised,” [New Board of Elections Chair] Soumas said.

Yep, to the New York City Board of Elections, vote fraud is not a crime but exposing it is.