The Executive Branch seldom asks for less money, so this raised a red flag. The lawyers in the House asked what gives, and then they figured it out: After Congress denied the funding for Section 1402, the Obama administration decided to pay the insurance companies anyway. The House deemed this spending illegal. Article I of the Constitution provides that “no Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” No appropriation, no money. In Federalist No. 58, James Madison wrote that “this power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon” of Congress to check the executive branch.
On June 25, 2014, Speaker Boehner circulated a memorandum to the House GOP caucus. The Ohioan wrote that “for the integrity of our laws and the sake of our country’s future, the House must act now” to stop the President’s illegal executive actions. In July, Boehner would bring legislation to the floor to authorize the House General Counsel “to file suit in the coming weeks in an effort to compel the president to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country.” On July 30, the House voted along straight party lines — 225 to 201 — to authorize the litigation. (One Republican voted nay.)
The biggest critic of this plan was President Obama. During a speech in Kansas City, Obama mocked the proposed lawsuit. He warned the crowd that Congress planned “to sue me for doing my job.” The audience booed. The President continued, “They have announced that they’re going to sue me for taking executive actions to help people.” He dismissed the litigation as a “political stunt,” as this vote is not actually working to “help you.” President Obama issued an ultimatum to Republicans. “Middle-class families can’t wait for Republicans in Congress to do stuff. So sue me.” They did.
Following the latest in the criminal probe of the Clintons, the probe that deals not only with violations of government secrecy and FOIA statutes, but the clear evidence of “pay to play” and other corrupt, self-enrichment, schemes at The Clinton Foundation? No? Follow along, as a subject and potential witness in this criminal investigation seeks and is granted a private audience with the woman supposedly charged with dispassionately determining whether indictments will be sought…
Keep in mind the crux of the criminal conspiracy – Hillary Clinton’s intentional efforts to keep her activities hidden from government records requirements, activity which put national security at risk. Every statement she has made in connection with the discovery of her unauthorized home-brew server has been demonstrably been proven a lie, as even the Washington Post must acknowledge:
(Clinton) “I have provided all of my work-related emails, and I’ve asked that they be made public, and I think that demonstrates that I wanted to make sure that this information was part of the official records,” she told ABC News last month.
But disclosures over the past several weeks have revealed dozens of emails related to Clinton’s official duties that crossed her private server and were not included in the 55,000 pages of correspondence she turned over to the State Department when the agency sought her emails in 2014.
At least 160 such emails have come to light so far, many of them through public-records lawsuits brought by the conservative group Judicial Watch.
In one email released by Judicial Watch on Monday, Clinton queried aide Huma Abedin and another staffer about how her official records were being maintained. “I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State. Who manages both my personal and official files?” she wrote on March 22, 2009.
A 2010 Clinton email, which was disclosed last month by the State Department’s inspector general but had not been submitted by the former secretary, appears to show that she was concerned about ensuring privacy for her personal emails if she was given an official government account.
“Let’s get separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible,” Clinton wrote.
We also now know that scores of meetings with Clinton Foundation donors and political cronies, many of whom had business before the government, were deleted from Hillary Clinton’s official calendar archives. These entries are supposed to be complete.
We know that one such crony was able to buy his way on to a Sensitive Intelligence Board, despite having no relevant experience. We know that once ABC News was able to make the connection, Clinton’s aides scrambled for two days to try and cover up the cronyism, before the “donor/appointee” abruptly “resigned.
Apparently deciding that the Clintons’ long and close relationship with Attorney General (and Obama appointee) Loretta Lynch, and the president’s multiple statements designed to pressure investigators to not make a criminal finding, might not be sufficient to rig the game, Bill Clinton, himself a likely target of the probe, arranged to have a private, thirty minute, meeting with the AG in Phoenix this week.
Were it not for an intrepid local reporter, the meeting, on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport might not have revealed at all, since FBI agents on hand ordered “no photos, no pictures, no cell phones.”
Upon being found out, Lynch should have immediately recused herself. Instead, she persists in word games designed to give the appearance that she will not stand in the way of the FBI, without actually recusing herself. Calls for a Special Prosecutor, which is the only way an impartial finding can be reached at this point, have gone unheeded by the AG and the administration.
Andrew McCarthy at National Review adroitly sums up where we are now, and why full recusal is the only acceptable option:
Unlike great athletes, attorneys who practice in the American judicial system are bound by a code of ethics. The system’s most important rule is, quite deliberately, very simple and very easy to follow: Lawyers are supposed to avoid the “appearance of impropriety.” Not just impropriety, not just actual misconduct; they are to steer clear of — as opposed to, say, willfully orchestrating — the mere optic of corrupt behavior.T
he rule applies to all lawyers, of course. That makes it especially critical that the system’s highest-ranking lawyers honor it. And no lawyer in the system outranks the attorney general of the United States, who is obliged not only to follow the rule but to affirm it as the ethos of the nation’s principal law-enforcement department.
This prohibition on bad optics in the justice system mirrors the logic of baseball’s aversion to gambling. To justify the lifetime ban, there is no need for baseball’s commissioner to prove that, after betting on baseball games, Pete Rose actually took any action aimed at cashing in on the wager instead of playing to win. The game is rendered a sham by the presumption that a player or manager will act corruptly if, despite the well-known rule against gambling, he has voluntarily bet on the game. Since we can never really know for sure, and since the game cannot afford to be seen as a sham, we assume that someone who willfully puts himself in a compromised position proceeds to act corruptly.
Nothing is more essential to the functioning of a free society than the integrity of the justice system. That is even more important, the most diehard baseball fan must admit, than the integrity of the diamond. The rule of law is the foundation of a free society. There can be no rule of law unless the public is confident that law-enforcement agencies go about their business without fear or favor; that the same rules and procedures apply equally to everyone; that people in power are not putting their thumb on the scales; that outcomes are just.
That means the appearance that everything is on the up-and-up is just as important as the fact that it is. The most critical thing about decisions the system reaches is not that they are right but that we can have confidence they are arrived at in good faith.
The lawlessness of the Obama administration is unparalleled in the history of our Republic, but for outright corruption no one could hope to match the Clintons, who have amassed a fortune in the hundreds of millions of dollars all while “fighting” for “everyday people.”
It makes my blood boil that a serial liar, who put her personal enrichment above protecting government secrets, is thought by so many to be worthy of the Presidency. She is only worthy of shackles and our utter contempt, for she is contemptible.