Archive for 2015

WELL, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS NOT AMUSING: “Judge Grows Irritated with State Department Foot-Dragging on Clinton Emails.”  The federal judge presiding over Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit seeking Hillary Clinton’s emails while Secretary of Stat has denied DOJ’s motion to delay a hearing to explain DOJ’s obstinance:

President Obama’s administration asked a federal judge for a one-week delay of a hearing convened to discuss why the State Department hasn’t been more forthcoming about Hillary Clinton’s e-mails. The motion was denied, but the judge moved the hearing back an extra hour, making clear that the move was his prerogative and not State’s. “Due to the Court’s calendar, the status hearing will take place at 1:00 p.m. on August 20, 2014 in Courtroom 24A, rather than 12:00 p.m. as originally scheduled,” U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote Tuesday afternoon. . . .

“The Department does not believe that a reasonable search for records responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA request requires a search of former Secretary Clinton’s server,” administration officials wrote in a status report to the judge.

The State Department also demurred when ordered to find out if there were other servers that might hold work-related records created by Clinton or two of her top aides, saying they were “not currently aware of any personal computing devices issued by the Department to former Secretary Clinton, Ms. Abedin, or Ms. Mills that may contain responsive records.”

That wasn’t good enough for Judicial Watch or, apparently, Judge Sullivan. “Taking this sworn statement on its face, it appears as though the declarant made no effort whatsoever to find out what electronic devices the former head of the agency and two of her closest advisors used to conduct official government business for four years and where these electronic devices may be located or if they are still in existence,” the group wrote in its request for the new hearing.

It’s not just foot-dragging. It’s obstruction of justice, providing Clinton with plenty of time to play hide-and-scrub. The Administration has been wildly successful at avoiding Congress’s investigations like the plague but is finally being held accountable by the courts. Congress is ineffectual and afraid of its own shadow. Federal judges, not so much; they don’t take kindly to being ignored or played.

J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS: Coverup: Federal Appeals Court Blasts DOJ Misconduct in Police Prosecution. “A Federal appeals court has blasted misconduct by Justice Department lawyers in a civil rights prosecution against New Orleans police officers. The case arose in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s grant of a new trial because Justice Department lawyers – including those responsible for protecting the civil rights of the defendant police officers – engaged in an anonymous blogging campaign to taint the defendants during the trial. The court noted that Justice Department lawyers stoked a “mob mentality” against police officers. The federal appeals court took note that one of the Civil Rights Division lawyers responsible appears to have gone unpunished.”

Accountability is for the little people, not for government lawyers with $157,000 compensation packages.

MEGAN MCARDLE: Walker and Rubio Health Reform Plans Hint At GOP Direction.

The Republican plan is, in fact, a program for the middle class. As such, it will be much less generous toward the poor. It will redistribute money upward, from those struggling very hard to ordinary Joes who are not rich, but not quite so desperate either. Don’t get me wrong: It will also do other things, and there’s a lot to like about regulating more lightly and putting more power into consumers’ hands. But this redistribution is one of the obvious effects, and it is the ideological divide over which the battle will be fought.

In this debate, you can see the shape of where our politics may go over the next 20 years. Many Republicans would like a much smaller entitlement state; some Democrats would like a much bigger one, with Sweden-style universal coverage of virtually everything, crib to grave. Neither one is going to get what they want, because Americans are not prepared to give up their Social Security checks, or 60 percent of their paychecks either — and no, there is not enough money to fund these ambitions, or even our existing entitlements, by simply taxing “the rich.”

There are a lot of ways this could play out, but the Republican proposals for a post-Obamacare world sketch a very plausible one: Republicans become the party of universal, but lean, benefits that won’t be enough to lift people out of poverty, while Democrats become the party of generous benefits for the poor, redistributing money and benefits downwards from the middle class while paying lip service to middle-class problems. Who wins that debate will tell us a lot about what kind of government we’ll have in 50 years.

Democrats can’t run a Swedish-style redistributive state because they’re not nearly as honest as the Swedes.

ANOTHER TRANS-BLACK ACTIVIST? Did Black Lives Matter Organizer Shaun King Mislead Oprah Winfrey By Pretending To Be Biracial? “An investigative blogger has accused Shaun King, a key figure in the Black Lives Matter movement, of misleading media icon Oprah Winfrey by pretending to be biracial in order to qualify for an ‘Oprah scholarship’ to historically black Morehouse College. The blogger says King is white and has been lying about his ethnicity for years.” He does look pretty white in those pictures. But hey, if he self-identifies as black. . . .

FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMED: United States Drops In Overall Freedom Ranking. “A new report on the freedom of countries around the world ranks the United States 20th, putting countries like Chile and the United Kingdom ahead of the U.S. Last year, the U.S. was ranked 17th, but a steady decline of economic freedom and ‘rule of law’ has dropped the level of freedom, according to the Cato Institute, Fraser Institute and the Swiss Liberales Institut, which created the study together.”

SEN. BOB MENENDEZ (D-NJ): “My proposal for a better Iran deal.”  Writing in today’s New York Post, Menendez–a vocal critic of the Iran deal and consequently a thorn in the side of the Obama Administration–lays out his case:

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly said that the choice is between this Iran nuclear agreement and war. I reject that proposition.

If the P5+1 had not achieved an agreement, would we be at war with Iran? I don’t believe that. For all those who have said they have not heard — from anyone who opposes the agreement — a better solution, they’re wrong. . . .

And I believe we could still get a better deal and here’s how: We can disapprove this agreement, without rejecting the entire agreement.

We should direct the administration to re-negotiate by authorizing the continuation of negotiations and the Joint Plan of Action — including Iran’s $700 million-a-month lifeline, which to date have accrued to Iran’s benefit to the tune of $10 billion, and pausing further reductions of purchases of Iranian oil and other sanctions pursuant to the original JPOA. . . .

A continuation of talks would allow the re-consideration of just a few, but a critical few issues, including:

First, immediate ratification by Iran of the Additional Protocol to ensure we have a permanent international arrangement with Iran for access to suspect sites.

Second, a ban on centrifuge R&D for the duration of the agreement to ensure that Iran won’t have the capacity to quickly break out, just as the UN Security Council Resolution and sanctions snapback is off the table.

Third, close the Fordow enrichment facility. . . .

Fourth, the full resolution of the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s program. We need an arrangement that isn’t set up to whitewash this issue. . . .

Fifth, extend the duration of the agreement. One of the single most concerning elements of the deal is its 10-15 year sunset of restrictions on Iran’s program, with off-ramps starting after year eight. . . .

And sixth, we need agreement now about what penalties will be collectively imposed by the P5+1 for Iranian violations, both small and midsized, as well as a clear statement as to the so-called grandfather clause in paragraph 37 of the JCPOA, to ensure that the US position about not shielding contracts entered into legally upon re-imposition of sanctions is shared by our allies.

At the same time we should: Extend the authorization of the Iran Sanctions Act, which expires in 2016, to ensure that we have an effective snapback option; consider licensing the strategic export of American oil to allied countries struggling with supply because Iranian oil remains off the market; immediately implement the security measures offered to our partners in the Gulf Summit at Camp David, while preserving Israel’s qualitative military edge. . . .

Yep. Menendez is only the second Senator from the Democratic Party to announce opposition to the Iran deal (the other being Charles Schumer (D-NY)). The Washington Post reports that “[s]o far, 23 of the 34 senators needed in the Senate to block an override of an Obama veto have announced their support for the deal.”  The House may have the necessary two-thirds’ opposition to reject the Iran deal, with a vote on a disapproval resolution expected in September.

DOUBLE STANDARDS: University dismisses male student’s harassment claim.

How are male and female students treated differently under the anti-discrimination law Title IX? Not only are men accused of sexual assault denied due process or the assumption of innocence, but male accusers are often ignored.

Case in point: A male student from Northwestern University brought forward sexual harassment claims against a male microbiology and pathology professor but had them dismissed by the school. Now, the male student waited two years to report the sexual harassment, which allegedly occurred between 2007 and 2010. The male student reported the harassment to his adviser in 2012, who then reported it to the school’s Title IX coordinator.

Setting aside the merits of the case and my initial skepticism, the university dismissed the student’s accusation, claiming Title IX required reporting to be done within 180 days of the alleged harassment. The timing claim, however, applies to filing Title IX lawsuits with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, not to filing claims with schools.

Regardless, the male student tried again one year later, this time by appealing to the Title IX coordinator directly. The adviser acknowledged that comments made by the professor to the male student were “ill-advised and unwelcome,” but maintained that they did not rise to the level of sexual harassment.

The student had accused the professor of “making suggestive comments” and “ogling.” He also claimed he was once invited to the professor’s room to have his hair cut and that the professor asked other students about the accuser’s sexual orientation.

Now imagine, as the College Fix does, what would have happened had a female student made similar allegations against a professor.

Related: Prosecutors support more due process for accused students.

THE HILL: Walker shakes up GOP field with plan to replace ObamaCare.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is jump-starting a debate on ObamaCare with the hope of getting out in front of his GOP rivals on one of the party’s toughest topics.

Walker on Tuesday became the first leading presidential candidate to put forward a detailed replacement plan for the healthcare reform law, a move that will put pressure on his rivals to release their own plans. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), who has trailed in the polls, is the only other candidate with a full plan, which focuses on grants to states.

The move could give Walker an edge with conservative voters in Iowa, where he needs a strong result in February’s caucus votes to solidify his campaign. A few weeks ago, Walker polled as the favorite in Iowa, but his lead in polls has evaporated as Donald Trump pulls ahead.

“Certainly, any time a presidential candidate comes out with a real plan, it creates pressure on other campaigns to do the same. And that is a very good thing,” said Dan Holler, communications director for the conservative group Heritage Action.

Repealing ObamaCare remains a top priority for grassroots conservatives. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) released the outline of a three-point plan but has not provided details. Other candidates have not yet made clear their positions on healthcare policy.

The GOP field reacted to Walker’s proposal cautiously, with only Jindal offering a statement.

He blasted Walker’s proposal, arguing that he is merely setting up a new entitlement program to replace ObamaCare.

Well, at least they’re arguing policy.

AMMUNITION: The Collected Unwisdom And Nitwittery Of Bernie Sanders.  I shudder that this is needed.  I shudder at everyone who is taking this crackpot seriously.  But I learned from 08 that no candidate is too ridiculous for the left to push.