BREAKING: Hillary’s Hopes For The Presidency May Now Lie With Obama’s New Attorney General

The scandal surrounding emailgate — then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account managed on a personal server — has just been escalated to a higher level that could prove extremely damaging to Mrs. Clinton’s hopes for the White House.

The New York Times reports that the Justice Department has been asked to open “a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.”

And it’s not a Republican politician or a conservative watchdog group that’s requesting the criminal probe of Mrs. Clinton’s email practices. It’s two inspectors general working for the federal government who have reportedly asked for the inquiry into whether Hillary included classified information — sensitive government secrets — in the emails she sent. Mrs. Clinton has denied that she ever included any classified material in her many thousands of official emails when she was the country’s top diplomat.

However, as The Times article points out, when Mrs. Clinton turned over to the State Department the digital communications she had held and controlled on her private server, the review of those emails raised serious and troubling questions.

In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them.

So now, President Obama’s new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, will have a huge say in whether a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s controversial email practices will be undertaken. Such a criminal probe would almost certainly further damage Mrs. Clinton’s already shaky image for being an honest and trustworthy person.

Just a couple of days ago, Western Journalism reported on a new poll from Quinnipiac that showed Mrs. Clinton losing serious ground to potential Republican challengers in three key swing states. The survey confirmed what other polls have found in recent weeks — the frontrunner for the 2016 Democrat nomination for president is not seen as particularly honest and trustworthy.

Mrs. Clinton recently drew a fair share of snickers and snide comments when she boasted to a CNN interviewer, “People should and do trust me.” Should Obama’s attorney general decide that a criminal probe is warranted into Hillary’s emails and their possibly classified content, even the presidential candidate herself would be hard-pressed to make that statement again with a straight face.

Should a criminal investigation be launched over Hillary Clinton’s controversial email practices? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Confirmed: Obama Is About To Go To A Federal Prison, And The Inmates Will Love To See Him Coming

President Barack Obama announced Monday that he has commuted the sentences of 46 federal prisoners. He has now commuted 89 prisoners’ sentences, surpassing the total of presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush combined.

Obama plans to visit El Reno federal prison in Oklahoma on Thursday to help highlight the plight of prisoners whose incarceration time he believes does not fit the crime. His trip will mark the first time a sitting president visited a federal prison.

Obama is slated to do an interview with VICE News to highlight his criminal justice reform agenda. VICE is shooting a documentary set to air on HBO in the fall about the topic, which the filmmaker said has become “a major…civil rights” issue. The nation’s Chief Executive also plans to address the topic at the annual NAACP conference in Philadelphia on Tuesday.

As reported by the New York Times, the president intends to commute the sentences of more prisoners during the upcoming months. Over 35,000 inmates took up the Obama administration’s offer to apply for a commutation of their sentences. A commutation reduces the prison sentence time; however, it does not erase the criminal record as a presidential pardon does.

According to the Justice Department, Obama has granted 64 pardons since taking office, which is low by historic standards: Reagan granted 393 (over 2 terms); H.W. Bush, 74; Clinton, 396 (2 terms); and W. Bush, 189 (2 terms).

In a video posted on the White House Facebook page Monday, President Obama said that the 46 sentences he commuted were for people who committed drug-related offenses. He noted that, under current sentencing guidelines, nearly all of the prisoners he ordered released would have already served their time.

“These men and women were not hardened criminals,” he said. “But the overwhelming majority had to be sentenced to at least 20 years.” He added: “…I believe that at its heart, America’s a nation of second chances. And I believe these folks deserve their second chance.”

The New York Times reports: “The Center for American Progress, a liberal advocacy organization with close ties to the White House and Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, has teamed up with Koch Industries, the conglomerate owned by the conservative brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch, who finance Republican candidates, to press for reducing prison populations and overhauling sentencing.” Libertarian-minded GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has indicated he supports reform in these areas, as well.

The Washington Post notes that the Obama administration is working with the Clemency Project 2014, a consortium of four groups that is supplying lawyers to work pro-bono to review all the tens of thousands of applicants. For those deemed deserving, petitions will be prepared by the lawyers and sent to the Department of Justice for review, which will then refer those it deems worthy to White House counsel, who will make the final recommendations to the president.

Each of the inmates whose sentence has been reduced receives a letter from the president. In it, Obama indicates only a “small fraction” of the applicants were granted the opportunity they are receiving, encouraging them to use it wisely. He writes:

I am granting your application because you have demonstrated the potential to turn your life around. Now it is up to you to make the most of this opportunity. It will not be easy, and you will confront many who doubt people with criminal records can change. Perhaps even you are unsure of how you will adjust to your new circumstances.

But remember that you have the capacity to make good choices…I believe in your ability to prove the doubters wrong, so good luck and Godspeed.

Do you agree with President Obama’s plan to release these prisoners? Please leave your comments below. 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

New Docs Just Revealed What The DOJ, IRS, And FBI Had In Store For Obama Opponents

Documents obtained by the government accountability group Judicial Watch reveal that the Lois Lerner IRS scandal is worse than originally believed, extending beyond the walls of the agency into the Department of Justice.

Judicial Watch sued both the IRS and the DOJ when both failed to comply with FOIA requests. What the newly released documents confirm is that the Obama administration not only targeted tea party and other conservative organizations for increased scrutiny, improper questioning (including lists of donor names), and delayed approval for their applications in the lead-up to the 2012 presidential elections–but also sought ways to criminally prosecute them.

To this end, an email reveals that Lois Lerner, then head of the IRS’ tax exempt organization unit, coordinated to have 21 discs containing 1.25 million pages of confidential tax information of these groups transmitted to the DOJ, for criminal investigation purposes.

According to a letter from then-House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, “This revelation likely means that the IRS – including possibly Lois Lerner – violated federal tax law by transmitting this information to the Justice Department.”

The DOJ apparently took the initiative to look into the criminal prosecution angle. Judicial Watch reports:

the new IRS documents include a October 11, 2010 “DOJ Recap” memo sent by IRS Exempt Organizations Tax Law Specialist Siri Buller to Lerner and other top IRS officials explaining an October 8 meeting with representatives from the Department of Justice Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and “one representative from the FBI” to discuss the possible criminal prosecution of nonprofit organizations for alleged political activity.”

“These new documents show that the Obama IRS scandal is also an Obama DOJ and FBI scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a press release. “The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his reelection. And this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information. How can the Justice Department and FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?”

“No wonder the Department of Justice under Eric Holder [did] no serious investigation of the Obama IRS scandal,” Fitton claimed in an earlier statement. “These new documents dramatically show how the Justice Department is up to its neck in the IRS scandal and can’t be trusted to investigate crimes associated with the IRS abuses that targeted Obama’s critics,” he said. “Richard Nixon was impeached for less.”

Judicial Watch reports: “The DOJ documents also include a July 16, 2013, email from an undisclosed Justice Department official to a lawyer for IRS employees asking that the Obama administration get information from congressional witnesses before Congress does.”

One last issue. If any of your clients have documents they are providing to Congress that you can (or would like to) provide to us before their testimony, we would be pleased to receive them. We are…authorized and I can connect you with [the Treasury Department’s Inspector General] to confirm; we would like the unredacted documents…

“Following Judicial Watch’s lead, the House also found out about the IRS transmittal of the confidential taxpayer information to the FBI. Because of this public disclosure, the FBI was forced to return the 1.25 million pages to the IRS.”

When the IRS scandal originally broke in May, 2013, President Obama said: “I have now had the opportunity to review the Treasury Department watchdog’s report on its investigation of IRS personnel who improperly targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. And the report’s findings are intolerable and inexcusable. The federal government must conduct itself in a way that’s worthy of the public’s trust, and that’s especially true for the IRS.”

However, several months later in an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, he said that the notion that conservative groups were targeted is “absolutely wrong.” Rather, the IRS officials were confused about how to implement the law governing tax-exempt groups. “There were some bone-headed decisions,” Obama conceded. Asked whether corruption was in play, he responded: “…not even a smidgen of corruption.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

WARNING: This Sort Of Shock Video Could Become Commonplace With More Police Body Cams

ADVISORY: THE VIDEO ACCOMPANYING THIS STORY CONTAINS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IMAGES AND MAY BE DISTURBING TO SOME. VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.

Ever since the shooting death of Michael Brown by Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson, there’s been an increasing number of calls for the use of body cameras by law enforcement in big cities as well as small towns. Only a few weeks ago, the Obama administration began a program to study the impact of having officers routinely wear body cams to record interactions with the public, especially with people suspected of crimes or those with whom the officer may have a controversial encounter.

As reported by USA Today, the Justice Department is putting up tens of millions of dollars toward the purchase of some 50,000 body-worn video cameras.

“Body-worn cameras hold tremendous promise for enhancing transparency, promoting accountability and advancing public safety for law enforcement officers and the communities they serve,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said.

However, as the video associated with this report graphically shows, what those police body cams capture can also hold the tremendous potential for exposing the public to shocking, even horrifying, scenes.

The New York Daily News reports that a 47-year-old Texas man was caught on body-mounted cameras worn by two police officers as he pulled a gun on the cops, who then dropped the man in a hail of bullets. It all happened on May 31st, starting inside a restaurant in Palestine, Tx., then moving outside, where the man is seen drawing a gun that turned out to be a BB pistol.

Identified as James Bushey of Elkhart, Tx., the man was supposedly wanted for questioning in connection with the theft of beer from a nearby store. What appeared at first to be an incident-free detention of the suspect in the restaurant’s bathroom quickly escalated into a fatal confrontation.

Ater an investigation by police and prosecutors, the two officers involved in the fatal shooting were cleared of wrongdoing and the recording of their actions was released. You can watch what happened by clicking on the video above.

ADVISORY: THE VIDEO ACCOMPANYING THIS STORY CONTAINS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IMAGES AND MAY BE DISTURBING TO SOME. VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED.

What do you think? Is it good that the footage from police body cams is released to the public so we can all see just what happened in cases like this? Weigh in on the conversation by commenting below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

FIFA Indicted – Clinton Foundation Should Be Next!

It was not much of a surprise to some to see the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) bring corruption charges against the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) this past week. After all, the granting of World Cup hosting rights to Russia (2018) and Qatar (2022) appeared highly suspect, along with several other apparent “pay to play” coincidences. Considering the nature of the charges against FIFA, it seems only logical to wonder if, or when, such charges will be levied against Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton Foundation.

The DOJ indictment alleges that FIFA officials “abused their positions of trust to acquire millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks,” according to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The graft is alleged to have influenced World Cup host nation selection, marketing rights for sports marketing companies, and broadcast rights for television coverage of FIFA events.

Prima facie, it doesn’t appear that FIFA did anything more legally dubious than did the Clinton Foundation. According to Hillary Clinton last year, the First Family of the 1990’s left the White House “dead broke” in 2001. They made up for their White House poverty years from 2001-2006, when, according to Mrs. Clinton’s Senate disclosures, the couple made $87.3 million, from book deals to speaking fees. As long as none of those paydays bought influence, that’s just fine, unless of course one’s ideology requires disdain and class-envy of those who are financially successful–for the Clintons are clearly “one per centers.”

The Clintons’ financial waters become much more murky when their Foundation is brought into the picture. The Clinton Foundation is classified under IRS Code 501(c)(3) as a “non-profit” foundation, comprising several separate “initiatives,” or areas of focus, including health, economic opportunity, and climate issues. In just over 13 years, the Foundation has raised nearly $2 billion from U.S. corporations (especially Wall Street firms), political donors, and foreign governments.

The nebulous financial arrangement and political nature of the Foundation was of sufficient concern to the Obama administration that Mrs. Clinton was required to sign a disclosure agreement with the White House before her nomination as Secretary of State in 2009. According to the Washington Post, Obama required her “to disclose all contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and that there be a process to vet donations that were coming in. They violated that agreement almost immediately. They took multi-million dollar donations from foreign businesses that had interests before the State Department. Those were never disclosed.”

According to Bloomberg earlier this month, there was a lot of non-disclosure going on at the Foundation. “There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, [Clinton Foundation board member Frank] Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents.  ‘All of the money flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,’ he says.”

But even that raises significant issues, since according to the Foundation’s own tax filings, only 10% of their donations ultimately make it to “charitable grants” for their professed causes. That’s a whole lot of donations that go for expenses (34%), salaries and benefits (33%), travel (10%), office supplies (6%), and rent (5%). And don’t forget the 2% that goes to IT (information technology); for that’s where all of Hillary’s emails were stored, in two separate email accounts, until they were erased.

That’s likely where much of the hard evidence alleged in Peter Schweitzer’s book, “Clinton Cash,” would have been found. Absent the hard evidence, most of the public evidence is circumstantial. Charges that official State Department policy toward countries like Libya, Saudi Arabia, and India was altered or softened after contributions by those countries to the Foundation certainly raise serious questions of paying for influence, not unlike those leveled against FIFA officials this week.

The most serious, however, is well documented. As explained by the New York Times, a Canadian businessman was purchasing up to 1/5 of the U.S. uranium assets, while making millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation. The Canadian firm, Uranium One, was then sold to Russia’s atomic energy agency, Rosatom, which was celebrated in Russia’s Pravda with the headline, “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.” An acquisition of this size and nature had to be approved by the U.S. State Department, which was easily done with Mrs. Clinton at the helm.

To make this even more salacious, a Kremlin-linked bank that was promoting the stock of Uranium One paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speaking engagement. But the contribution went not to the former president, but to the Clinton Foundation, as many of the speaking fees are funneled for non-taxable reporting purposes.

The Clinton Foundation meets all of the criteria for a money-laundering entity: placement, layering, and integration, while enjoying the benefit of tax-exemption. They collect millions in donations (placement). Then through layering (or structuring), distance is created between the donation and the source, to obscure the audit trail. And finally is the integration stage, which in the Foundation’s case is the returning of favors and influence to donors.

Operationally, the Clinton Foundation functions as a shell corporation for the Clintons, and the pass-through conduit for buying influence and tax avoidance. Thanks to the IT staff at the Foundation, and Hillary’s obfuscation, we may never fully grasp the breadth and reach of the corruption. No wonder only 38% of us believe Hillary is honest.

If FIFA bribery and corruption is worth investigating, certainly the similar practices of the Clinton Foundation are as well. After all, the implications are much greater.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth