Foreign nationals from 24 countries — including four people with Interpol warrants for their arrests — were among the 105 arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement during a five-day sweep.
The agency announced the arrests Friday in a news release.
“Our focus has been and will continue to be on arrests of illegal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes or those who pose a threat to public safety,” said John Tsoukaris, director of the Newark field office.
The people arrested ranged in age from 18 to 65 years old. The agency said more than 80 percent had either prior convictions or pending charges for a variety of crimes, including sexual assault on a minor, child abuse, possession of narcotics, distribution of narcotics, extortion, DUI, fraud, domestic violence, theft, possession of a weapon, robbery, promoting prostitution, aggravated assault, resisting arrest, endangering the welfare of a child, credit card fraud, insurance fraud, shoplifting, and illegal re-entry.
The agency said the pre-planned sweep targeted criminal aliens, illegal re-entrants, and other immigration violators.
Those arrested who are not already facing deportation will go before an immigration judge for removal proceedings.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Monday, December 10, 2018
Backdoor Lending: The Subprime Work-Around That Could Crush Your Retirement
The housing crash of 2008 is now 10 years in the rearview mirror, but the danger of another crisis lurks despite assurances to the contrary.
We’ve been told that the housing bubble and collapse was about predatory lending and high-risk borrowers who were duped into loans that they couldn’t afford. The massive regulatory response to the subprime crisis meant that banks were no longer allowed to behave badly. So they have chosen to behave differently – and that’s not a good thing, Pamela says.
“The largest source of mortgage lending in the United States is now being done by non-banks – financial entities that offer unsecured personal lending, business loans, leveraged lending, and mortgage services, but do not hold a banking license,” she says.
“As a result, they're not subject to standard banking oversight and can engage in risky lending.”
Where do they get the money to make these loans?
Wells Fargo coughed up $81 billion; Citigroup and Bank of America ponied up $30 billion each; and JP Morgan threw in another $28 billion.
“By funding these ‘shadow’ banks, the big financial players are still in the risky loan business,” Pamela says.
More
We’ve been told that the housing bubble and collapse was about predatory lending and high-risk borrowers who were duped into loans that they couldn’t afford. The massive regulatory response to the subprime crisis meant that banks were no longer allowed to behave badly. So they have chosen to behave differently – and that’s not a good thing, Pamela says.
“The largest source of mortgage lending in the United States is now being done by non-banks – financial entities that offer unsecured personal lending, business loans, leveraged lending, and mortgage services, but do not hold a banking license,” she says.
“As a result, they're not subject to standard banking oversight and can engage in risky lending.”
Where do they get the money to make these loans?
Wells Fargo coughed up $81 billion; Citigroup and Bank of America ponied up $30 billion each; and JP Morgan threw in another $28 billion.
“By funding these ‘shadow’ banks, the big financial players are still in the risky loan business,” Pamela says.
More
Trump: Comey Told 245 Lies During Friday's Congressional Testimony
Republican lawmakers weren't the only ones who were frustrated by former FBI Director James Comey's repeated refusals to answer questions or provide further details - or his assertions that he simply couldn't recall - during his closed-door testimony before members of the House on Friday.
Following the release of the full transcript from Comey's testimony last night, President Trump lashed out against the former FBI director whom Trump summarily fired a few months in to his administration, accusing Comey of lying when he said he couldn't remember certain details or otherwise refused to answer questions (something Comey did, on the advice of a DOJ attorney, 245 times during the course of his marathon testimony). Furthermore, Trump said Comey lied when he said he didn't know Christopher Steele (the former UK intelligence agent who assembled the infamous Steele dossier) and that he didn't know who had signed off on investigations into four unnamed Trump campaign officials.
More
Following the release of the full transcript from Comey's testimony last night, President Trump lashed out against the former FBI director whom Trump summarily fired a few months in to his administration, accusing Comey of lying when he said he couldn't remember certain details or otherwise refused to answer questions (something Comey did, on the advice of a DOJ attorney, 245 times during the course of his marathon testimony). Furthermore, Trump said Comey lied when he said he didn't know Christopher Steele (the former UK intelligence agent who assembled the infamous Steele dossier) and that he didn't know who had signed off on investigations into four unnamed Trump campaign officials.
More
Comey transcript released: Ex-FBI boss claims not to know, remember key details in Russia case
Former FBI Director James Comey claimed “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember” in response to dozens of questions concerning key details in the Russia probe, according to a lengthy transcript released Saturday of his closed-door interview with congressional lawmakers.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., published the 235-page transcript as a part of an agreement with Comey.
The former bureau boss frustrated GOP lawmakers during Friday’s session, in large part because his lawyers urged him not to answer numerous questions. Comey is expected to return later in the month for another round, though blasted Republicans on his way out for what he called a “desperate attempt to find anything that can be used to attack the institutions of justice investigating this president.”
READ THE COMEY TRANSCRIPT
But while Comey insisted in the interview that “we never investigated the Trump campaign for political purposes,” the transcript shows he claimed ignorance or memory lapses in response to questions concerning key details and events in the Russia investigation, which some GOP lawmakers continue to claim was improperly conducted.
The transcript reveals lawmakers’ frustration with his lack of specifics.
Asked if he recalled who drafted the FBI’s “initiation document” for the July 2016 Russia investigation, Comey said, “I do not.” He again claimed not to know when asked about the involvement in that initiation of Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump texts later got him removed from the special counsel’s probe.
When asked if the FBI had any evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired to hack the DNC server, Comey gave a lengthy answer referring to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation as to why he couldn’t answer.
“Did we have evidence in July of (2016) that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired to hack the DNC server?” Comey asked rhetorically. “I don't think that the FBI and special counsel want me answering questions that may relate to their investigation of Russian interference during 2016. And I worry that that would cross that line.”
More
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., published the 235-page transcript as a part of an agreement with Comey.
The former bureau boss frustrated GOP lawmakers during Friday’s session, in large part because his lawyers urged him not to answer numerous questions. Comey is expected to return later in the month for another round, though blasted Republicans on his way out for what he called a “desperate attempt to find anything that can be used to attack the institutions of justice investigating this president.”
READ THE COMEY TRANSCRIPT
But while Comey insisted in the interview that “we never investigated the Trump campaign for political purposes,” the transcript shows he claimed ignorance or memory lapses in response to questions concerning key details and events in the Russia investigation, which some GOP lawmakers continue to claim was improperly conducted.
The transcript reveals lawmakers’ frustration with his lack of specifics.
Asked if he recalled who drafted the FBI’s “initiation document” for the July 2016 Russia investigation, Comey said, “I do not.” He again claimed not to know when asked about the involvement in that initiation of Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump texts later got him removed from the special counsel’s probe.
When asked if the FBI had any evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired to hack the DNC server, Comey gave a lengthy answer referring to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation as to why he couldn’t answer.
“Did we have evidence in July of (2016) that anyone in the Trump campaign conspired to hack the DNC server?” Comey asked rhetorically. “I don't think that the FBI and special counsel want me answering questions that may relate to their investigation of Russian interference during 2016. And I worry that that would cross that line.”
More
The Speeding Exemption
In Orwell’s other book – Animal Farm – we read about a mutiny against the farmer by the livestock, who draw up a kind of Declaration of Rights premised on the idea that all animals are equal. This is painted on the side of the barn for all to admire.
Over time (and in the dead of night) caveats and exemptions are inserted – by the pigs – culminating in the new idea that some animals are more equal than others. The pigs begin wearing clothes, sleep inside the farmhouse – while the other animals sleep outside or in the unheated barn.
When it comes to driving fast, some two-legged animals are without doubt regarded by themselves as more equal than others.
And by the law, too.
If an armed government worker is in a hurry, it is justifiable (as he sees it – and as the law regards it) for him to drive very fast, indeed. As fast as he likes, really – there being no defined limit he must abide by.
“Too fast” is judged on a case-by-case basis – according to such doctrines as exigent circumstances, the exigence and the circumstance being subjective and interpreted by the armed government workers themselves – or by their higher-ups.
More
Over time (and in the dead of night) caveats and exemptions are inserted – by the pigs – culminating in the new idea that some animals are more equal than others. The pigs begin wearing clothes, sleep inside the farmhouse – while the other animals sleep outside or in the unheated barn.
When it comes to driving fast, some two-legged animals are without doubt regarded by themselves as more equal than others.
And by the law, too.
If an armed government worker is in a hurry, it is justifiable (as he sees it – and as the law regards it) for him to drive very fast, indeed. As fast as he likes, really – there being no defined limit he must abide by.
“Too fast” is judged on a case-by-case basis – according to such doctrines as exigent circumstances, the exigence and the circumstance being subjective and interpreted by the armed government workers themselves – or by their higher-ups.
More
CLINTON NIGHTMARE! Chief Financial Officer of Clinton Foundation Turns Government Informant on Crime Family!
Donations to the Clinton Foundation plummeted by 90% over a three-year period since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election to President Donald Trump.
But that may be the least of the her worries.
John Solomon from The Hill dropped another bombshell that will keep the Clintons up at night.
The former Chief Financial Officer of the Clinton Foundation has turned on the crime family and is now working as a government informant.
This could spell doom for the Clinton Crime Family.
More
But that may be the least of the her worries.
John Solomon from The Hill dropped another bombshell that will keep the Clintons up at night.
The former Chief Financial Officer of the Clinton Foundation has turned on the crime family and is now working as a government informant.
This could spell doom for the Clinton Crime Family.
More
Reminder: Rod Rosenstein Cleared Clintons in the Past - His Wife Lisa Barsoomian Represented Clintons in the Past!
Here’s a reminder on how conflicted the “acting” Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is and should be removed from office.
Senator Lindsey Graham sent a letter in June to Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about whether Rosenstein should recuse himself from the Mueller investigation due to his obvious conflicts with the case.
Graham should also request information about Rosenstein’s wife who represented the Clintons in the past.
According to sources as reported at FOX News –
Top Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is pressing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on whether the Justice Department official should recuse himself from the Robert Mueller investigation due to his own connections to the case. In a letter obtained by Fox News, Graham, R-S.C., asked Rosenstein whether he considers himself a “potential witness” in the Mueller probe in connection with the firing of FBI Director James Comey.
“If so, should you recuse yourself from further interactions with and oversight of the Mueller investigation?” Graham asked.
More
Senator Lindsey Graham sent a letter in June to Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about whether Rosenstein should recuse himself from the Mueller investigation due to his obvious conflicts with the case.
Graham should also request information about Rosenstein’s wife who represented the Clintons in the past.
According to sources as reported at FOX News –
Top Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is pressing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on whether the Justice Department official should recuse himself from the Robert Mueller investigation due to his own connections to the case. In a letter obtained by Fox News, Graham, R-S.C., asked Rosenstein whether he considers himself a “potential witness” in the Mueller probe in connection with the firing of FBI Director James Comey.
“If so, should you recuse yourself from further interactions with and oversight of the Mueller investigation?” Graham asked.
More
Comey Testimony Released: Fired FBI Director Contradicts His Previous Testimony on Gen. Michael Flynn!
In a March 2017 briefing then-FBI Director James Comey had with the House Intel Committee, he told membersthat the FBI agents who interviewed General Flynn “saw nothing that indicated to them that [General Flynn] knew he was lying to them.”
Grassley also revealed Joe Pientka was the second FBI agent who joined Peter Strzok on January 24th, 2017 in an ambush style interview to take down General Flynn.
More
Flashback: Podesta Brothers Tipped Off to File DOJ Disclosures Weeks Before Manafort Arrested for Same Crime!
It is now clear that there is one set of rules for Republicans and the working man — And there is another set of rules for crooked Democrats
In October 2017 The Gateway Pundit reported that the Podesta Group with exact timing somehow managed to file forms with the federal government that were 5 or more years overdue that Paul Manafort was charged for not filing.
Who tipped them off?
Mike Cernovich reported in February that John Podesta now seems as frightened as a little school girl when confronted with questions about the Podesta Group’s activities before the 2016 election –
How nervous are the Podestas?
Here is how John Podesta answered when asked about his brother Tony’s work for for foreign governments, in the now shut down Podesta Group. pic.twitter.com/QuGN0QpHeB
— Mike Cernovich 🇺🇸 (@Cernovich) February 19, 2018
Cernovich also notes that the Podesta’s filed forms in 2017, more than 5 years after they were due!
More
In October 2017 The Gateway Pundit reported that the Podesta Group with exact timing somehow managed to file forms with the federal government that were 5 or more years overdue that Paul Manafort was charged for not filing.
Who tipped them off?
Mike Cernovich reported in February that John Podesta now seems as frightened as a little school girl when confronted with questions about the Podesta Group’s activities before the 2016 election –
How nervous are the Podestas?
Here is how John Podesta answered when asked about his brother Tony’s work for for foreign governments, in the now shut down Podesta Group. pic.twitter.com/QuGN0QpHeB
— Mike Cernovich 🇺🇸 (@Cernovich) February 19, 2018
Cernovich also notes that the Podesta’s filed forms in 2017, more than 5 years after they were due!
More
REVEALED: Deep State FBI Plotted to Remove Trump Before Mueller Witch Hunt
Opened Secret Obstruction Case Against US President BEFORE Special Counsel
These Bastards are more corrupt than we thought!
The Deep State Shadow Government plotted to remove President Donald Trump before dirty cop Robert Mueller was assigned as special counsel.
These rogue agents at the FBI and DOJ were determined to destroy President Trump by any means necessary.
More
These Bastards are more corrupt than we thought!
The Deep State Shadow Government plotted to remove President Donald Trump before dirty cop Robert Mueller was assigned as special counsel.
These rogue agents at the FBI and DOJ were determined to destroy President Trump by any means necessary.
More
Kamala Harris insists she doesn't know anything, again, and again, and again
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., doesn’t know anything — and that’s her best defense.
When news broke that the California Department of Justice settled a $400,000 sexual harassment settlement involving one of her longtime staffers, Larry Wallace, Harris was supposedly stunned.
The senator didn’t know that Wallace preyed on a female executive at the California Department of Justice while Harris was attorney general in 2016. The senator was similarly oblivious to the fact that Wallace was still a defendant in a lawsuit the next year when she decided to bring him to Washington to serve as a senior adviser.
More
When news broke that the California Department of Justice settled a $400,000 sexual harassment settlement involving one of her longtime staffers, Larry Wallace, Harris was supposedly stunned.
The senator didn’t know that Wallace preyed on a female executive at the California Department of Justice while Harris was attorney general in 2016. The senator was similarly oblivious to the fact that Wallace was still a defendant in a lawsuit the next year when she decided to bring him to Washington to serve as a senior adviser.
More
Victoria Toensing: Why has Mueller ignored Obama administration crimes?
The matter of Gen. Michael Flynn began with criminal conduct. But it was not committed by Flynn. The crimes were leaking the contents of classified telephone conversations between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and revealing the identity of Flynn as a party to the conversations.
The sorry saga began with a January 12, 2017 column about the Flynn/Kislyak conversations by The Washington Post’s David Ignatius, who described his source as a “senior U.S. government official,” i.e., an Obama administration functionary. Whoever told Ignatius the fact of and substance of the eavesdropped conversations committed a felony by leaking classified information.
The second crime is publicly revealing a U.S. citizen’s identity as being a party to those conversations. When there is authorized intelligence collection of foreign officials, the identity of the U.S. person who is incidentally picked up during that collection is to be minimized (not disclosed), even within the U.S. government. Instead of the party’s name, the document substitutes “[U.S. Person].” There is a process for “unmasking”—obtaining the name of the undisclosed person--when the government official determines knowing the name is important to national security. A written request must be made to the collecting agency that is responsible for the document. Only a handful of officials are given that authority, e.g. NSA has only 20. Perhaps there was a valid need for an Obama official to know Flynn’s identity. That issue is irrelevant. Providing it to Ignatius was a crime.
In his column, Ignatius questioned whether Flynn violated The Logan Act, opining that Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak might have “undercut the U.S. sanctions.” Enacted in 1799 and last used over 150 years ago, The Logan Act prohibits (probably unconstitutionally) unauthorized U.S. citizens from negotiating with a foreign government. At the time, Flynn had been named President Trump’s national security advisor and was receiving checks as a member of the transition team. One hopes that in addition to talking to Kislyak he would also have been talking to officials from Canada, Israel, Mexico, and so on. Any thought that Flynn would be legally considered “unauthorized” to talk with foreign countries is risible.
More
The sorry saga began with a January 12, 2017 column about the Flynn/Kislyak conversations by The Washington Post’s David Ignatius, who described his source as a “senior U.S. government official,” i.e., an Obama administration functionary. Whoever told Ignatius the fact of and substance of the eavesdropped conversations committed a felony by leaking classified information.
The second crime is publicly revealing a U.S. citizen’s identity as being a party to those conversations. When there is authorized intelligence collection of foreign officials, the identity of the U.S. person who is incidentally picked up during that collection is to be minimized (not disclosed), even within the U.S. government. Instead of the party’s name, the document substitutes “[U.S. Person].” There is a process for “unmasking”—obtaining the name of the undisclosed person--when the government official determines knowing the name is important to national security. A written request must be made to the collecting agency that is responsible for the document. Only a handful of officials are given that authority, e.g. NSA has only 20. Perhaps there was a valid need for an Obama official to know Flynn’s identity. That issue is irrelevant. Providing it to Ignatius was a crime.
In his column, Ignatius questioned whether Flynn violated The Logan Act, opining that Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak might have “undercut the U.S. sanctions.” Enacted in 1799 and last used over 150 years ago, The Logan Act prohibits (probably unconstitutionally) unauthorized U.S. citizens from negotiating with a foreign government. At the time, Flynn had been named President Trump’s national security advisor and was receiving checks as a member of the transition team. One hopes that in addition to talking to Kislyak he would also have been talking to officials from Canada, Israel, Mexico, and so on. Any thought that Flynn would be legally considered “unauthorized” to talk with foreign countries is risible.
More
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/victoria-toensing-why-has-mueller-ignored-obama-administration-crimes
‘Doctors Without Borders’ Permanently Cancels Migrant Ferry Operations
The NGO announced the cancellation of their so-called “rescue” operations on Thursday, saying that due to government pressure they could not continue to operate the Aquarius vessel off the coast of Libya.
“This is the result of a sustained campaign, spearheaded by the Italian government and backed by other European states, to de-legitimize, slander and obstruct aid organizations providing assistance to vulnerable people,” the group claimed.
More here
Judicial Watch Victory: Court Orders Discovery into Clinton Email Scandal
I have said all along that, in their delaying, blocking, and obfuscating our attempts to get to the truth about Hillary Clinton’s email, the Justice and State Departments have been acting in bad faith by defending the evasion of the Freedom of Information Act and other email misconduct by Hillary Clinton.
Now, a federal judge is questioning their motives, as well, and ordering them to join us in rectifying this miscarriage of justice.
In a ruling excoriating both the U.S. Departments of State and Justice, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth has ordered both agencies to join us in submitting a proposed schedule for discovery into whether Hillary Clinton sought to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a private email system and whether the State Department acted in “bad faith” by failing to disclose knowledge of the email system.
The decision comes in our FOIA lawsuit related to the Benghazi terrorist attack.
Specially, Judge Lamberth ruled:
… the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer to plan discovery into (a) whether Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA; (b) whether the State Department’s attempts to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and (c) whether State has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests.
Terming Clinton’s use of her private email system, “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency,” Judge Lamberth wrote in his MEMORANDUM OPINION:
… his [President Barack Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart this lofty goal [Obama announced standard for transparency]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching – and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case?
***
At best, State’s attempt to pass-off its deficient search as legally adequate during settlement negotiations was negligence born out of incompetence. At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.
Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, the Court wrote:
Now, a federal judge is questioning their motives, as well, and ordering them to join us in rectifying this miscarriage of justice.
In a ruling excoriating both the U.S. Departments of State and Justice, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth has ordered both agencies to join us in submitting a proposed schedule for discovery into whether Hillary Clinton sought to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a private email system and whether the State Department acted in “bad faith” by failing to disclose knowledge of the email system.
The decision comes in our FOIA lawsuit related to the Benghazi terrorist attack.
Specially, Judge Lamberth ruled:
… the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer to plan discovery into (a) whether Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA; (b) whether the State Department’s attempts to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and (c) whether State has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests.
Terming Clinton’s use of her private email system, “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency,” Judge Lamberth wrote in his MEMORANDUM OPINION:
… his [President Barack Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart this lofty goal [Obama announced standard for transparency]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching – and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case?
***
At best, State’s attempt to pass-off its deficient search as legally adequate during settlement negotiations was negligence born out of incompetence. At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.
Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, the Court wrote:
Obama Admin. Approved Over $310M Offering Services to Illegal Immigrants
Former President Barack Obama’s administration approved multiple contracts totaling more than $310 million to a nonprofit organization offering legal advice to illegal immigrants during his final two full years in office, according to a report from the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI).
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Obama awarded the contracts to the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) for the “purpose of providing legal representation to unaccompanied alien children (UACs),” IRLI noted on Thursday.
The contracts ensured that Vera would provide “direct legal representation” to these UACs and connect them with sponsors.
Christopher Stone, one of Vera’s former directors, also has served as a president of liberal billionaire activist George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.
The Obama administration, however, appeared to overlook one key factor:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Obama awarded the contracts to the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) for the “purpose of providing legal representation to unaccompanied alien children (UACs),” IRLI noted on Thursday.
The contracts ensured that Vera would provide “direct legal representation” to these UACs and connect them with sponsors.
Christopher Stone, one of Vera’s former directors, also has served as a president of liberal billionaire activist George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.
The Obama administration, however, appeared to overlook one key factor:
Six Things to Know About AG Nominee William Barr
William Barr is a former U.S. attorney general, an advocate of investigating Hillary Clinton, and a bagpipe player for 60 years.
President Donald Trump announced Friday that he would nominate Barr, 68, to serve again as attorney general.
He previously served in the position from November 1991 to January 1993 under President George H.W. Bush, who died Nov. 30 and was laid to rest Thursday.
In confirming to reporters outside the White House that he would nominate Barr, Trump called the lawyer and former business leader “one of the most respected jurists in the country,” a “highly respected lawyer,” and “a terrific man, a terrific person, a brilliant man.”
Already, some Democrats are criticizing Barr for comments he has made in media interviews and op-eds.
If confirmed by the Senate, Barr would succeed acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who took over after Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
“I did not know him until recently when I went through the process of looking at people, and he was my first choice from Day One,” Trump said of Barr. “Respected by Republicans and respected by Democrats, he will be nominated for the United States attorney general.”
Here are six things to know about the president’s pick to run the Justice Department.
President Donald Trump announced Friday that he would nominate Barr, 68, to serve again as attorney general.
He previously served in the position from November 1991 to January 1993 under President George H.W. Bush, who died Nov. 30 and was laid to rest Thursday.
In confirming to reporters outside the White House that he would nominate Barr, Trump called the lawyer and former business leader “one of the most respected jurists in the country,” a “highly respected lawyer,” and “a terrific man, a terrific person, a brilliant man.”
Already, some Democrats are criticizing Barr for comments he has made in media interviews and op-eds.
If confirmed by the Senate, Barr would succeed acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who took over after Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
“I did not know him until recently when I went through the process of looking at people, and he was my first choice from Day One,” Trump said of Barr. “Respected by Republicans and respected by Democrats, he will be nominated for the United States attorney general.”
Here are six things to know about the president’s pick to run the Justice Department.
No way out for Clinton, Inc. corruption this time
Clinton Inc. criminal defense lawyers trying to hide behind the word “intent” won’t work because the Clintons were previously warned early and often about improper compliance:
.. internal legal reviews that the foundation conducted on itself in 2008 and 2011.
Those reviews flagged serious concerns about legal compliance, improper commingling of personal and charity business and "quid pro quo" promises made to donors while Hillary Clinton was secretary of State.
There is a great line in the fun movie, National Treasure, spoken by the accomplished, former Marine, Harvey Keitel, who was playing a very solid FBI Special Agent: “Someone has to go to prison Ben.”
One of the elements of a crime is that the criminal behavior has to be documented as being undertaken knowingly and purposefully, which is exactly what the whistleblower documents prove.
More
Groom Loses It When He Turns To See His Best Friend During 'First Look'
Brianne says it was Timmy's idea to surprise her husband, David, during the first look.
"She was all about having a serious wedding, but I was like, 'We gotta do it'," Timmy told Yahoo.
It didn't take long for him to convince the bride to get on board. Then she roped the photographer into the scheme too.
Video
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)