As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Category Archives: Scandals

Obama Improperly Tries to Influence Women’s Soccer Suit

After a while, people just get used to this kind of thing, and nobody cares. Presidential abuse of power, when not stopped early in its tracks, just gets worse and worse, as we have seen time and again with President Obama.

The mainstream press has mostly mitigated the egregiousness of this stuff – executive actions that end-run Congress, wars waged overseas without Congress even weighing in, appointments that require congressional approval made without congressional approval, etc., etc., etc., – because of course, Obama is just trying to do what’s right for people. So he’s allowed.

Most recently, he’s been weighing in on the Hillary email scandal, suggesting it just ain’t a big deal. And then of course Attorney General Loretta Lynch will make her own decision about whether to prosecute should the FBI have the guts to recommend such a thing.

Tuesday, Obama took sides in a wage discrimination suit filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by five members of the U.S. women’s soccer team, who complain that they are paid less than the male soccer players and it’s because they are women.

Now guess whose side he took?

Obama womens soccer

Men are paid more because men’s soccer generally takes in more money, last year being an exception since the women won the World Cup. The men are faster, more skilled and more exciting to watch. Oh God, did I just say that? You know you can’t speak the truth, I mean, this is journalism, right?

However, the women do something a lot the men don’t do as much of, and that is win. But until 2015, that still hasn’t translated into a better bottom line. If they keep winning, and keep earning more, then they will be able to negotiate better salaries. But why wait for all that when you can take legal action?

But I digress. It’s a suit, and they have a right to sue. And the U.S. Soccer Federation, which they are suing, has a right to defend itself before the EEOC, a bipartisan, independent agency that is supposed to be beyond the influence of crass politicians like the president.

The same president who said Tuesday:

Equal pay for equal work should be a fundamental principle of our economy.  It’s the idea that whether you’re a high school teacher, a business executive, or a professional soccer player or tennis player, your work should be equally valued and rewarded, whether you are a man or a woman.

Uh oh. Just threw that soccer stuff in, I guess. Just like, for example.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest gets that there’s a problem, and so he was trying to spin away the president’s clear suggestion about how the EEOC should rule:

I think the point of the President’s remarks today was just to acknowledge the facts of that specific situation.  What sort of ruling is handed down by the EEOC is something that the commissioners there will have to conclude on their own.  I think the President is just sort of acknowledging the paid disparity that exists in a variety of professions, including when it comes to the best soccer players in the world.

Now that’s some good spinnin’. In reality, Obama’s point of view on the case is clear.

So, you’re on the EEOC. The EEOC, though independent and bipartisan, is appointed by the president. What do you think you should do now?

Oh, those sexist U.S. Soccer Federation bastards! Pay those poor women!

White House Appears to Censor Hollande Saying “Islamist Terrorism”

The White House, which admits there is such a thing as terrorism but thinks there is no such thing as “Islamist terrorism,” appears to have edited out audio of French President Hollande using the term at this week’s nuclear summit in Washington.

According to MRCTV:

After MRCTV reported that the White House posted video muting out audio of French Pres. Francoise Hollande and his translator saying the words, “Islamist terrorism,” the White House posted an explanation claiming “a technical issue with the audio during the recording” caused the lost audio – but, then, somehow, posted a link a version of the video without the recording “technical error.”

Here’s some video of the Nixonian deletion. What are the odds there was a “technical glitch for just the moment someone said “Islamist terrorism.” So the White House appears to be guilty of both censorship and lying.

Former Top Prosecutor: Email Suggests Crime by Hillary

The latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department early Friday contain what may be the smoking gun that forces the Justice Department to charge the former secretary of state with a crime, according to former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova.

“This is gigantic,” said diGenova. “She caused to be removed a classified marking and then had it transmitted in an unencrypted manner. That is a felony. The removal of the classified marking is a federal crime. It is the same thing to order someone to do it as if she had done it herself.”

On the June 17, 2011, email chain with senior State Department adviser Jake Sullivan, Clinton apparently asked Sullivan to change the marking on classified information so that it is no longer flagged as classified.

Clinton, using her private email server, asks for “the TPs,” apparently a reference to talking points being prepared for her. Sullivan, who is using his official State Department email, responds, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.” Clinton responds, “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w[ith] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

It’s not clear if Sullivan actually followed through on Clinton’s orders. But if he did, it may expose Clinton to serious legal jeopardy.

“This makes it impossible for the bureau not to recommend charges,” diGenova said of the FBI. “This makes it impossible not to go forward, and it certainly ties the hand of the attorney general.”

Some have speculated that while the FBI may recommend charges, Attorney General Loretta Lynch might try to avoid doing so for political reasons.

The revelation also appears to put to the lie Clinton’s claim that she never handled classified information on her server.

“I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time,” she has claimed. By instructing her aide to send her material marked classified, it is clear that she not only may have received classified information, but that it was indeed “classified at the time.”

“This means that when she said, ‘I never received anything marked classified,’ she in fact did,” diGenova said.

David Bossie, president of the watchdog group Citizens United, said the email could become the emblem of Hillary’s email scandal.

“It proves that Hillary Clinton affirmatively instructed senior staff to send classified data to an unsecured server,” he said. “With that, it cements into history, much like the famous Bill Clinton finger wag.”

The post also appears in LifeZette.

NYTs: Obama Curbing Power of Watchdogs

The openness administration is curbing the ability of agency inspectors general to investigate Obama officials, writes the right wing, rabidly anti-Obama, pro-Ted Cruz New York Times.

According to the Times:

“The bottom line is that we’re no longer independent,” Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, said in an interview.

The restrictions reflect a broader effort by the Obama administration to prevent unauthorized disclosures of sensitive information — at the expense, some watchdogs insist, of government oversight.

Justice Department lawyers concluded in a legal opinion this summer that some protected records, like grand jury transcripts, wiretap intercepts and financial credit reports, could be kept off limits to government investigators. The administration insists there is no intention of curtailing investigations, but both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have expressed alarm and are promising to restore full access to the watchdogs.

I’m sure the press will be just as outraged as it would have been had the nefarious George W. Bush done the same thing.

White House: Hillary Cherry-Picked Emails? No Problem!

Here’s how to think of the Hillary Clinton email saga.

It’s difficult, in a way, because emails are not tangible things. They’re a form of organized electricity. Lighter than air. Like thoughts that can float away, or in this case, be erased in an instant.

To better understand what she did, let’s go back to a time before there were emails. Let’s go back to the Reagan administration. And let’s imagine if Reagan’s first Secretary of State, Al Haig, instead of archiving written memos sent to him by other administration officials, brought them all home. And then, when someone found out about it, he went through them and turned over 30,000. And then he got his fireplace roaring and burned 30,000 others, claiming they had nothing to do with official business.

What would Democrats, and many Republicans, be saying about that?

Mrs. Clinton had no particular reason to erase her email server. It’s a piece of electronic hardware. It doesn’t start to bulge and take up more space around the house if it has emails on it. The only reason to erase it is that she didn’t want people to see what was on it.

Now we find out that she didn’t, as you might have expected, turn over all the work-related emails. What’s more, some were edited by her staff

None of this, somehow, is any problem at all for the Transparency White House.

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

Kevin Corke of Fox News, who in his short time at the White House has already established himself as one of the best cross examiners in the briefing room, wasn’t letting White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest get away Monday with the usual buck-passing to Hillary’s staff. The conversation made for some great TV.

One sample will show you why Corke presents a problem for the White House:

CORKE: “While she worked for the president, those emails were public record. They’re supposed to be maintained. All of them. Turns out they weren’t. They were on a private server. Which was against what the president asked her to do. And then after the fact we all find out she had her team, or her staff, pick and choose which ones that she said were available. Can’t you see how that’s a problem?”

EARNEST: “No.”

Here’s the full exchange.

What is the Openness Administration Hiding?

It seems to be hiding a lot of things in a lot of places.

In what must be the most under-reported story of the past year, some two thirds of the inspectors general in the government think the administration is stonewalling their lawful efforts to oversee government activities.

Three of them testified Tuesday before the House Oversight Committee, newly chaired by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). Many others were in the room.

In an August 2014 letter to Congress, 47 Inspectors General from across the administration – including major agencies like the Department of Commerce, the Department of HUD, the Department of Labor, and NASA -supported specific complaints by their fellow IGs in the Peace Corps, EPA and DOJ about foot dragging and lawyer-driven end-runs, and suggested the practice is pervasive.

We have learned that the Inspectors General for the Peace Corps, the Environmental Protection Agency (in his role as Inspector General for the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board) and the Department of Justice have recently faced restrictions on their access to certain records available to their agencies that were needed to perform their oversight work in critical areas. In each of these instances, we understand that lawyers in these agencies construed other statutes and law applicable to privilege in a manner that would override the express authorization contained in the IG Act. These restrictive readings of the IG Act represent potentially serious challenges to the authority of every Inspector General and our ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner.

the issues facing the DOJ OIG, the EPA OIG, and the Peace Corps OIG are not unique. Other Inspectors General have, from time to time, faced similar obstacles to their work, whether on a claim that some other law or principle trumped the clear mandate of the IG Act or by the agency’s imposition of unnecessarily burdensome administrative conditions on access. Even when we are ultimately able to resolve these issues with senior agency leadership, the process is often lengthy, delays our work, and diverts time and attention from substantive oversight activities. This plainly is not what Congress intended when it passed the IG Act.

Can anyone imagine if the Bush administration were accused of such stonewalling, what a firestorm there would be?

Here is panel member Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) discussing the problem last night with Greta Van Sustern.

“I think in some instances, they are hiding things” said Gowdy, who said agencies that don’t cooperate with their IGs should have their budgets cut.

Holder Rejects Whitaker Racism Charge

In an uncomfortable turn of events, outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, a close Obama friend, rejected a charge by Chicagoan Eric Whitaker, a close Obama friend, that a federal corruption case involving former Whitaker associates was tinged by racism. “Almost everybody who’s been indicted or scrutinized has been African American,” Whitaker said last week, suggesting that the U.S. prosecutor,… Continue Reading

Obama Buddy Eric Whitaker “Stonewalling” Investigators

Longtime Obama friend Eric Whitaker is said by prosecutors to be stonewalling an investigation into a Chicago corruption case and is in danger of being labeled a “hostile witness,” according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Whitaker served as director of the Illinois Department of Public Health from 2003 until 2007. He has not been charged with wrongdoing, but taxpayer money… Continue Reading