Category Archives: Federal Court

Hillary Clinton plan and sale of Commerce Department seats for political donations, Court documents and Nolanda Hill testimony, Judge Lamberth: “DOC…destruction of potentially responsive documents in the office of…Secretary Brown”, Hillary lied Ron Brown died

Hillary Clinton plan and sale of Commerce Department seats for political donations, Court documents and Nolanda Hill testimony, Judge Lamberth: “DOC…destruction of potentially responsive documents in the office of…Secretary Brown”, Hillary lied Ron Brown died

“After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats’ loss of Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with Ron, that the trade missions were being used as a fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at the direction of The White House.”…Nolanda Hill Affidavit

“Hillary lied Americans died”…Citizen Wells

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion

 

 

From Citizen Wells earlier today via the House Judiciary Committee Evidentiary Record of December 1998, we learn:

“In January 1998, Judicial Watch uncovered a witness, Nolanda Butler
Hill, a close confidante and business partner of late Commerce
Secretary Brown, with whom Secretary Brown had shared key details about
the campaign-contributions-for-seats-on-trade-missions scheme, as well
as the Clinton Administration’s efforts to stonewall Judicial Watch’s
lawsuit. Secretary Brown had even shown important documents to Ms. Hill
that detailed this unlawful sale of taxpayer-financed government
services. With Ms. Hill’s uncontroverted testimony providing the
capstone to its investigation, Judicial Watch has proven beyond all
reasonable doubt that not only was the Clinton Administration engaged
in an unlawful scheme to sell seats on Commerce Department trade
missions in exchange for campaign contributions, but that a criminal
cover-up was ordered by President Clinton’s top aides to thwart
Judicial Watch’s Court-ordered investigation and to hide the
culpability of the President, Mrs. Clinton, the Clinton Administration
and the DNC for their use of Commerce Department trade missions as a
political fundraising vehicle.

Ms. Hill testified that then White House Chief of Staff Leon
Panetta and Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered Commerce
Secretary Brown to defy Court orders and obstruct the Judicial Watch
suit until after the 1996 federal elections. Ms. Hill’s sworn testimony
implicated the President’s top staff members in obstruction of justice.
Ms. Hill also tied the sale of trade mission seats directly to
President Clinton. In both a sworn affidavit and Court testimony, Ms.
Hill explained that:

The First Lady conceived of the idea to sell the
trade mission seats in exchange for political contributions;
The President knew of and approved this scheme;
The Vice President participated in this scheme;
Commerce Secretary Ron Brown helped implement the
illegal fundraising operation out of the Clinton Commerce
Department;

Presidential White House aides Harold Ickes and (now
Labor Secretary) Alexis Herman helped orchestrate the sale of
the Commerce trade mission seats;

The President’s top fundraisers at the DNC and his
reselection campaign (Marvin Rosen and Terrence McAuliffe)
helped coordinate the selling of these taxpayer resources in
exchange for political contributions;

Presidential Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and Deputy
Chief of Staff John Podesta ordered the cover-up of these
activities; and

The President’s appointees at the Commerce
Department have committed perjury, destroyed and suppressed
evidence, and likely breached our nation’s security.”

https://citizenwells.com/2016/09/05/hillary-clinton-conceived-plan-to-sell-seats-on-commerce-dept-trade-missions-in-exchange-for-political-contributions-panetta-and-podesta-ordered-ron-brown-to-obstruct-justice-judicial-committee-evi/

From court documents related to the FOIA requests of Judicial Watch to the Commerce Department.

Nolanda Butler Hill affidavit.

“Affidavit of Nolanda Butler Hill

I, Nolanda Butler Hill, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. This affidavit is based on my own personal knowledge.

2. I have been a resident of Texas for all of my life and still reside there.

3. Up to the death of Ronald H. Brown, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, I was a business partner and/or close personal confidant for over seven years. During this period, I spoke with Ron, as I used to call him, daily, and frequently several times per day. I was thus intimately knowledgeable about both his personal and professional activities. I also had contact with his family, including his son, Michael, and his daughter in law, Tamara, who worked for me for approximately five years.

4. During the course of my relationship with Ron, I was privy to his activities, and the activities of the people who worked or were in contact with him at Commerce, and elsewhere. Since Ron died on April 3, 1996, I have also been in contact and spoken with many persons who worked or were in contact with him at Commerce, and elsewhere.

5. After the elections of 1992, Ron became Secretary of Commerce. Shortly thereafter, Ron decided that he would focus the majority his activities at Commerce on trade missions.

6. In the fall of 1994, I became aware, through Ron and Jim Hackney, Ron’s Counselor at Commerce – with whom I was and remain close – that a group called Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to obtain information and documentation about the trade missions. Both Jim and I encouraged Ron at the time to give due consideration to the seriousness of these FOIA requests, as there were politically sensitive issues surrounding the trade missions.

7. After the elections of 1994, and the Democrats’ loss of Congress, I became aware, through my discussions with Ron, that the trade missions were being used as a fundraising tool for the upcoming Clinton-Gore presidential campaign and the Democratic Party. Specifically, Ron told me that domestic companies were being solicited to donate large sums of money in exchange for their selection to participate on trade missions of the Commerce Department. Ron expressed to me his displeasure that the purpose of the Commerce trade missions had been and were being perverted at the direction of The White House.

8. In the spring of 1995, when this Court ordered production of documents to Judicial Watch, Ron became very concerned and he thus began to discuss with me the strategy of handling the defense of the Judicial Watch lawsuit.

9. I further learned through discussions with Ron that The White House, through Leon Panetta and John Podesta, had instructed him to delay the case by withholding the production of documents prior to the 1996 elections, and to devise a way not to comply with court’s orders.

10. In late fall 1995, after several rulings or statements by this court, Ron himself became more involved in the defense of the case. Specifically, he told me that he had decided to personally review any documents that might be damaging to the Clinton Administration, or in any way be sensitive. Ron told me that he was very worried about the potential damage of the Judicial Watch case to the Clinton Administration.

11. In early 1996, Ron showed me a packet of documents, about 1 inch thick, which he removed from his ostrich skin portfolio. Ron told me that these documents had been provided to him from Commerce Department files as part of the collection efforts to produce documents to Judicial Watch in this case. I reviewed the top five or six documents, which were on Commerce Department letterhead under the signature of Melissa Moss of the Office of Business Liaison. What I reviewed comprised letters of Ms. Moss to trade mission participants, each of which specifically referenced a substantial financial contribution to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). My response was immediate and decisive. I told Ron he must instruct that production of these documents and all responsive documents be immediate and I advised him to mitigate his own damages by releasing Ms. Moss from her duties and admonishing her for using the offices of the Commerce Department for partisan political fundraising.

12. I then saw Ron call the Commerce Department and he spoke with Melissa Moss. He told her that he wanted to meet with her later. I do not know if the meeting ever took place and I had no further discussion with Ron, because of his untimely death, about the documents I had reviewed.

13. I have reviewed the deposition video of Melissa Moss and, based on my knowledge, she has not told the truth in response a number of questions concerning Commerce Department trade missions, as well as other representations she has made under oath.

14. I would like to come forward and tell this court everything I know about the failure to produce documents to Judicial Watch and this court. I am concerned, however, that if I do so, the Clinton Administration, and more particularly its Justice Department, will try to retaliate against me. As a result, I look to this court for guidance on how I can come forward and tell all I know in the interest of justice.

15. Because of a fear for my personal and my family’s well-being and safety, I ask that this affidavit be kept under seal and that a mechanism be set up by the court for me to come forward to tell all I know.

 

Sworn to under penalty of law.”http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/4/132.asp

From the Judge Lamberth Memorandum Opinion.

“G. Nolanda Hill

The highest drama in this litigation was supplied by Nolanda
Hill, former business partner and confidante of Secretary Brown:

On January 28, 1998, Hill submitted under seal a sworn
declaration detailing her knowledge of the Department of
Commerce’s handling of Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests,
information that she allegedly obtained through her relationship
with Secretary Brown. Stating that she was concerned about
retaliatory actions by the government, Hill requested that the
Court provide mechanisms for her protection. Pursuant to that
request, the Court ordered that the affidavit be initially kept
under seal and saw to it that her attorney was made aware of the
situation and was willing to represent and protect her interests
in this matter. An evidentiary hearing was then scheduled for
March 23, 1998.

On March 14, 1998, Hill was indicted on criminal charges.
Although an investigation had been underway before Hill offered
to testify in this case, Judicial Watch claims that the
government had represented to Hill that charges would not be
filed, and that the March 14, 1998 indictment was in retaliation
for her cooperation with Judicial Watch.

On March 23, 1998, Hill appeared before this Court and gave
extensive testimony as to her knowledge, gained from
communications with Secretary Brown, relating to this action.6
Upon examination by Mr. Klayman, Hill testified that the
Secretary told her that White House officials had actually
instructed him to delay the production of documents responsive to
Judicial Watch’s requests and to come up with a way to avoid
compliance with this Court’s orders. See Transcript of March 23,
1998 Hearing at 85. Hill vividly recalled the Secretary’s
comment that Leon Panetta (then White House Chief of Staff) had
urged him to “slow pedal” the document search. See id. at 85-86.
According to Hill, this message was conveyed to Secretary Brown
by Panetta and by John Podesta (then White House Deputy Chief of
Staff) on several occasions. See id. at 85-88.

In her role as personal advisor and confidante to Secretary
Brown, Hill allegedly offered to review the most sensitive
documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s request, for the purpose
of finding out precisely what was involved and, according to
Hill, to encourage the Secretary to turn over all responsive
documents. See id. at 88. Hill never did review the material,
however, and she was unable to testify as to whether such a
collection of “the most sensitive” responsive documents was ever
assembled. See id. at 89-90.

Ms. Hill did testify to seeing several unproduced responsive
documents in the Secretary’s possession in 1996, shortly before
the Secretary’s death. According to Hill’s testimony, she met
with Secretary Brown at a hotel early in 1996, and on that
occasion the Secretary showed her a one-inch-thick packet of
documents that he produced from a personal portfolio-type
carrying case. See id. at 38-39. The Secretary told Hill that
the documents had been retrieved from DOC files during the
document search for Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests. See id. at
39. Hill reviewed the top five or six documents, confirming that
they were copies of letters from Melissa Moss to trade mission
participants specifically referencing their donations to the DNC,
clearly responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests. See id. at 40-
41. Needless to say, these documents had not been, and have not
since been, released to the plaintiff. Their current location is
unknown, perhaps unknowable, although Judicial Watch argues that
the evidence supports an inference that the documents were either
destroyed during the flurry of document shredding following the
Secretary’s death, or removed from his office during that same
time period. In any event, Hill’s uncontroverted testimony is
strong evidence that the DOC illegally withheld documents from
Judicial Watch in violation of the FOIA. It is also apparent
that the DOC was aware of this Court’s orders that all responsive
documents be produced, and willfully defied those orders,
according to Ms. Hill’s testimony. This conduct alone would seem
to justify entry of judgment against the DOC, and yet it
simultaneously precludes such judgment until the extent of the
DOC’s unlawful behavior is adequately explored.

Also relevant to this action is the testimony of Ms. Hill
that the deposition of Melissa Moss contained a number of
inaccuracies. See id. at 105 et seq. In addition, revelations
about Moss’s role in the orchestration of the trade missions
casts her deposition testimony in a new light, and also raises
doubts as to how the activities in which she participated could
have produced no documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s
requests. As a whole, the evidence supports an inference that
Moss played an important role in resisting Judicial Watch’s FOIA
requests, and the testimony of Nolanda Hill points in particular
to Moss as directly responsible for knowing violations of this
Court’s orders.7

On April 29, 1998, a superseding indictment was issued
against Ms. Hill. Judicial Watch claims that it was intended as
a further signal to keep quiet.”

“In conclusion, this somewhat tedious narration presents
numerous instances of likely violations of the Freedom of
Information Act and this Court’s orders. On many occasions, the
DOC appears to have engaged in the illegal withholding of
responsive documents, in the removal of such documents from the
DOC, and in the destruction of potentially responsive documents
in the office of the late Secretary Brown and elsewhere, as well
as a great deal of misconduct during the litigation which the
Court leaves for another day’s decision. Upon consideration of
this record, and of the legal issues discussed in Part II, the
Court finds that a new search alone is an insufficient remedy,
and thus the DOC’s motion will be denied, partial summary
judgment will be granted in favor of Judicial Watch ordering the
commencement of the search proposed in the motion, and further
discovery under the supervision of a Magistrate Judge will be
ordered.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20050323205903/http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/95cv133.pdf

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Teneo Clinton Foundation emails involving Hillary Bill Huma Abedin Mills released soon, State Dept. delay motion granted and denied in part, Abedin employee of Teneo while deputy chief of staff to Clinton at State Department, Julian Assange WikiLeaks please release too

Teneo Clinton Foundation emails involving Hillary Bill Huma Abedin Mills released soon, State Dept. delay motion granted and denied in part, Abedin employee of Teneo while deputy chief of staff to Clinton at State Department, Julian Assange WikiLeaks please release too

“State Department is using taxpayer dollars to protect their candidate, Hillary Clinton,”
“The American people have a right to see these emails before the election.”…David Bossie, Citizens United

“By July 1993, the Clintons and their associates had established
a pattern of concealment with respect to the Clintons’ involvement
with Whitewater and the Madison S&L. Because of the complexity
of the allegations of misdeeds involving these institutions, documents
and files are critical to any inquiries into the matter. Yet,
at every important turn, crucial files and documents ‘‘disappeared’’
or were withheld from scrutiny whenever questions were raised.…Senate Whitewater report June 13, 1996

“My Next Leak Will Ensure Hillary’s Arrest”…Julian Assange

 

 

It appears that the emails involving Bill and Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin and  Cheryl Mills with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo may be released soon.

However, Julian Assange and Wikileaks, if you have these emails, please release them now for the good of the US and the world.

From The Daily Caller June 30, 2016.

“EXCLUSIVE: State Department Won’t Release Clinton Foundation Emails for 27 Months

If the court permits the delay, the public won’t be able to read the communications until October 2018, about 22 months into her prospective first term as President. The four senior Clinton aides involved were Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, Ambassador-At-Large Melanne Verveer, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin.

David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United, which requested the documents under the Freedom of Information Act, called the delay “totally unacceptable” and charged that “the State Department is using taxpayer dollars to protect their candidate, Hillary Clinton.”

“The American people have a right to see these emails before the election,” Bossie told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, a President Obama-appointed judge, had previously ordered the State Department to release the requested documents by July 21. But Department of Justice lawyers informed Contreras Wednesday night that “the [State] department discovered errors in the manner in which the searches had been conducted in order to capture documents potentially responsive to plaintiff’s request.” The motion was filed by Justice Department attorney Joseph Borson on behalf of the State Department.

Borson also provided new details about how few resources the State Department has devoted to answering 106 separate Freedom of Information Act requests that are pending before it, many of them ordered by federal judges. Only 71 “part-time” retired foreign service officers are being used to review all of the pending FOIA requests.”

Read more:

EXCLUSIVE: State Department Won’t Release Clinton Foundation Emails for 27 Months

On July 25, 2016 Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled on the motion.

“For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for an extension of time to complete production (ECF No. 12) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the following schedule shall govern Defendant’s processing of the approximately 12,515 outstanding pages that Defendant must still process, see Status Report 1, ECF No. 17:

1. Defendant shall process 2000 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before August 22, 2016;

2. Defendant shall process 3000 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before September 21, 2016;

3. Defendant shall process 4000 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before October 21, 2016;

4. Defendant shall process 1600 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before November 4, 2016.

5. Defendant shall process 1915 pages and produce any non-exempt responsive material to Plaintiff on or before November 21, 2016.

SO ORDERED.”

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-2927-db8a-a57f-69e73b240001

Some background:

From Judicial Watch April 30, 2015.

Teneo & The Clinton Machine

“Then there is Teneo Holdings, a global consulting firm with deep Clinton connections. Teneo serves as a kind of private-enterprise satellite to Clinton Inc. Doug Band, Mr. Clinton’s right-hand man for many years, is a Teneo founder. Huma Abedin, Mrs. Clinton’s right-hand woman for many years, was a senior advisor to Teneo at the same time she held a top position as part of Mrs. Clinton’s inner circle at the State Department. Bill Clinton was both a paid adviser to Teneo and a client. Secretary of State Clinton’s former Economic Envoy to Northern Ireland, Declan Kelly, is a Teneo co-founder and CEO.

Teneo boasts of a vast reach across international arenas, partnering “exclusively with the CEOs and senior leaders of many of the world’s largest and most complex companies and organizations.” In a Clintonian claim of cosmic proportions, Teneo says the firm addresses a “range of financial, reputational and transformational challenges and opportunities by combining the disciplines of strategic communications, investor relations, investment banking, financial analytics, executive recruiting, digital analytics, corporate governance, government affairs, business intelligence, management consulting and corporate restructuring on an integrated basis.”

Got that? In fact, Teneo is rather shadowy, with only a few known corporate clients. It is best known for its relation with the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation. Journalists so far have seemed unwilling or unable to penetrate much further into Teneo. But that appears to have changed with Mrs. Clinton’s formal entry into the presidential race and the dawning realization among media types that the Clinton Foundation, Teneo and the disappearing State Dept. emails really do signal that some sort of gigantic sleazy game is afoot.

Still, the task is daunting. Where to begin? The Clinton Method of old, honed in the media wars of the 1990s, was a relentless parry of deny, deflect and defame. Today, most mainstream journalistic organizations do not have the patience or the money for the kind of sustained journalistic digging that is needed for serious investigative reporting. Advantage, Clintons.

But the wild card here, of course, is the new media. This isn’t your mama’s 1990s-style Fourth Estate. Times have changed. Today, social media can create a story tsunami in a matter of hours, even minutes. No one can control it. The legacy media still plays a critical role, but the fact is, it’s the Wild West out there, with thousands of independent operators, including serious investigative reporters, many with little more institutional support than a laptop and a website.

Reporter Ron Brynaert is one example of this new breed of investigative gunslinger. A former executive editor for Raw Story, Brynaert has been digging deep into the Teneo connection and publishing his findings at his blog, “-gate news” and on Twitter. While the media focus on former Clinton aide Doug Band as the key Teneo founder, Brynaert has explored the extensive Clinton ties of Declan Kelly, the Teneo co-founder and CEO. Based on Brynaert’s reporting, Kelly seems to be the real brains behind the operation.”

“As for Abedin, her dual roles have attracted the attention of Senator Chuck Grassley, who wrote the State Department in June 2013 requesting clarification. The State Department and Abedin did not provide Grassley with “a single document,” the senator later said, complaining that a “stone wall” had been put up. Abedin did not reply to Grassley, but wrote State Department officials that “I was not asked, nor did I undertake, any work on Teneo’s behalf before the State Department (and I should note that it is my understanding that Teneo does not conduct business with the Department of State). I also was not asked, nor did I provide, insights about the Department, my work with the Secretary, or any government information to which I may have had access.”

In her letter to State Department officials, linked by Brynaert, Abedin notes that from June 2012 to February 2013, her paying jobs included: work at the State Department as “a part-time consultant;” assisting Secretary Clinton “in her personal capacity…prepare for transition from public service;” work for the Clinton Foundation assessing programs and helping plan for Mrs. Clinton’s “post-State philanthropic activities;” and work for Teneo Holdings providing “strategic advice and consulting services.”

Thus, at the time of the December 2012 event in Belfast, Brynaert notes, Abedin was simultaneously employed by “the State Department, Teneo, the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton” in a personal capacity.

Citing possible misconduct and misrepresentation, Judicial Watch has asked a federal judge to reopen a Freedom of Information lawsuit that sought records related to Abedin’s multiple roles at the State Department and with Teneo.”

Read more:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/teneo-the-clinton-machine/

From the Free Thought Project July 1, 2016.

“Bossie asserted the “State Department is using taxpayer dollars to protect their candidate, Hillary Clinton,” and told the Caller, “The American people have a right to see these emails before the election.”

But perhaps most indicative of possible favoritism, if not outright corruption, the announcement of the delay came just two days after Bill Clinton’s already controversial private meeting with Lynch — though email hijinx might not have been the sole outcome of the rendezvous.

Bill Clinton might have been seeking some protection of his own.

Former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova exclusively told the Daily Caller the former President “is at least a witness in two criminal investigations, probably a subject in two criminal investigations. He is a person of interest officially to the Department of Justice.”

And as DiGenova emphasized, because both Bill and Hillary stand at the heart of several criminal and corruption probes, the private meeting with Lynch actually violates DoJ policy.

“It’s very important to realize this isn’t just a question of her judgment,” the former U.S. Attorney told the Caller. “The question is the Department of Justice policy on communicating with a side in a case.”

DiGenova explained the DoJ and Lynch have strict obligations to maintain impartiality — and Bill Clinton’s ‘legal status’ as a party to federal investigations should put him off limits for such unofficial and off-the-record meetings.
Read more:

After Bill Clinton Met With Attorney General, DOJ Delays Release of Clinton Emails — 2 Years

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

 

 

 

 

 

Trump will debate Ted Cruz when federal judge rules him eligible, Cruz is an arrogant fool for not addressing this earlier, Trump campaign manager sent message

Trump will debate Ted Cruz when federal judge rules him eligible, Cruz is an arrogant fool for not addressing this earlier, Trump campaign manager sent message

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Obama and Ted Cruz went to Harvard Law School.

That speaks volumes.

Ted Cruz should have gotten a ruling on his eligibiilty to be president as a natural born citizen many months ago.

Ted Cruz is an arrogant fool for not doing so.

From the Daily Mail January 29, 2016.

“Trump campaign manager to Ted Cruz: We’ll debate you one-on-one as soon as a judge says you’re eligible to be president!”

“Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Friday said his campaign will debate his closest rival for the party’s nomination head-to-head – but only if a federal judge says so.

Trump, the New York real estate tycoon who boycotted Thursday night’s presidential debate because of a long-running personal feud with one of the network’s reporters, signaled Friday that he would be happy to debate Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

DailyMail.com asked Trump if he was serious about resisting Cruz until a court decides on his presidential electability.

‘Well, I think you’ve got a real problem. I think Cruz has a real problem… I would do that. I would absolutely do that. But they’ve got to rule. He’s got to go for a declaratory judgment,’ Trump said aboard his private jet on the tarmac in Des Moines, Iowa.”

“Trump went on to joke that he would debate Cruz in Canada – ‘to give him home-field advantage,’ before pledging to attend next Saturday’s Republican debate in Manchester, N.H.

But already Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, had dismissed Cruz’s proposal as nothing more than a ‘publicity stunt.’

‘What we’ve said to Ted Cruz: Go into court, seek a declaratory judgment to find out if you’re even legally eligible to run for president of the United States,’ he said Thursday in a Boston radio interview.

‘That’s the first thing. Once you’ve gotten that ruling from the federal judge and you’re the last man standing in this presidential contest next to Donald Trump, we’ll be happy to have a debate with you one-on-one, anywhere you want, because that’s the way the system works,’ Lewandowski said.

‘But, as it stands right now, we don’t even know if Ted Cruz is legally eligible to run for president of the United States.'”

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3422990/Trump-campaign-manager-Ted-Cruz-ll-debate-one-one-soon-judge-says-eligible-president.html

 

Blagojevich appeal ruling update July 22, 2015, Retrial not likely, Judge James Zagel likely to resentence, Attorney Len Goodman ruling didn’t address many of the issues that were raised in appeal, “This is pure politics”, Wiretaps still hidden

Blagojevich appeal ruling update July 22, 2015, Retrial not likely, Judge James Zagel likely to resentence, Attorney Len Goodman ruling didn’t address many of the issues that were raised in appeal, “This is pure politics”, Wiretaps still hidden

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

Do not forget. Obama controls the US Justice Dept.

From ABC 7 Chicago July 21, 2015.

“An appeals court vacated five convictions and threw out the sentence of former Ill. Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Tuesday afternoon. The rest of Blagojevich’s convictions were affirmed by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.”

“”My advice to the governor is he should fight on,” said Leonard Goodman, Blagojevich appellate attorney.

If Blagojevich chooses to appeal, he must tell the court within the next two weeks. But with five counts thrown out, the former governor will at some point be re-sentenced, and his attorneys will argue that his 14 years be dramatically reduced.

“Most people would look at this and say ‘Wow, if a quarter of his counts were reversed, and so a quarter of his sentence should be taken off’ – but that’s not the way that it works,” said Lauren Kaeseberg, Blagojevich attorney.

Trial Judge James Zagel could reduce the sentence, but guidelines also would permit him to leave it unchanged. The Blagojevich family hopes the former is the case.”

“If the prosecutor elects to drop the vacated charges, the district court could proceed directly to re-sentencing on the remaining 13 convictions only, according to the court document USA v. Rod Blagojevich.”

“Prosecutors have not said if they will retry Blagojevich, who is currently serving time in a Colorado prison. However, experts say it’s unlikely.

“They have two choices. They can retry the counts or just go to sentencing. And when you look at the three prosecutors that led this charge: two of them have already left the office… the last one just got appointed a state judge the other day. So it’s safe to say they’re not going to retry those counts,” former prosecutor Jeff Cramer said.

Resentencing Blagojevich, who has maintained he was engaged in legal, run-of-the-mill politics, will fall to Judge James Zagel. In the appeal, Blagojevich blamed Judge Zagel for a litany or errors.”

“”Time has passed. And Judge Zagel is a fair man. And I would expect that having those counts thrown out will cause the judge to reconsider the sentence,” Goodman said.”

http://abc7chicago.com/politics/blagojevich-sentence-5-convictions-vacated/869717/

From the Chicago Tribune July 21, 2015.

“Blagojevich’s appellate attorney, Leonard Goodman, said the long-awaited ruling didn’t address many of the issues that were raised in the former governor’s appeal.

“And the ones it does address it gets it wrong,” Goodman said. “So it’s shocking to me that after a year and a half this could be the result of the court’s work.”

Goodman said his advice to Blagojevich will be to continue to fight the case.

“The evidence that would have acquitted him was excluded at trial, and my advice to the governor is that he should fight on,” Goodman said.

Some Rod Blagojevich convictions tossed; wife tells him disappointing news
Goodman said he had not yet spoken to his client so he wasn’t sure about the next course of action, but he said he has options, including trying to get the case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Exactly the order of the proceedings will be up to the governor,” Goodman said.

Goodman took issue with the court, saying it made serious errors in its decision. He said the court was wrong when it supported the trial judge’s decision to exclude testimony from Blagojevich that he believed his actions were lawful.
“That is not the law. The Supreme Court just ruled this term that guilty knowledge is an element of proof for any criminal offense and this is no exception,” Goodman said. “This is pure politics. What he did was try to raise campaign cash, which is his job as governor.””

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-patti-blagojevich-reaction-met-20150721-story.html

The wiretaps remain sealed.

Why?

Of the approx. 2 % that were released, we learn.

From Citizen Wells March 12, 2014.

The protection of Obama in the Blagojevich “prosecution” continues.

From the NY Times March 11, 2014.

“Illinois: Wiretaps of Ex-Governor Stay Sealed”

“An appellate court in Chicago ruled Tuesday that transcripts of F.B.I.wiretaps not played at former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s corruption trials should remain sealed, at least for now. The decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit came as it considered Mr. Blagojevich’s appeal, which asks the three-judge appellate panel to throw out his convictions.”

“The wiretaps are among those Judge James B. Zagel of Federal District Court barred the defense from playing to jurors. ”

Read more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/us/politics/illinois-wiretaps-of-ex-governor-stay-sealed.html

From Citizen Wells February 3, 2014.

Only about 2 percent of the total wiretap transcripts used as evidence were revealed during the Blagojevich trials.

Blagojevich defense lawyers want all of the wiretap transcripts made transparent.

From the Belleville News-Democrat February 3, 2014.
“Blagojevich transcripts at issue in appeal”

“Prosecutors and attorneys for Rod Blagojevich disagree over unsealing wiretap transcripts that are part of the imprisoned former governor’s appeal of his conviction.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals had said it would open the records Monday.

But citing privacy, prosecutors want them to stay sealed. In a response filed Monday, defense lawyers say transparency should trump other concerns.”

“The defense says a lower court barred jurors from hearing certain wiretaps that could have helped Blagojevich. Transcripts of recordings not played at trial were recently submitted to the appellate court, and are the records in dispute.”

Read more:

http://www.bnd.com/2014/02/03/3037364/blagojevich-transcripts-at-issue.html

Privacy?

Obama’s corrupt past?

For example.

https://citizenwells.com/2014/03/12/15656/

 

 

 

Ted Cruz poll natural born citizen ruling, FEC and/or US Supreme Court, Cruz born in Canada with 1 US citizen parent, Advisory opinion and/or court ruling, Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

Ted Cruz poll natural born citizen ruling, FEC and/or US Supreme Court, Cruz born in Canada with 1 US citizen parent, Advisory opinion and/or court ruling, Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

 

Whereas:

  • Ted Cruz was born in Canada with 1 US Citizen parent.
  • The US Constitution states: “no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .”
  • The US Supreme Court has not settled the definition of natural born citizen.
  • Despite what you may have read, there is much disagreement among legal scholars about the definition and as to whether or not Cruz is eligible.
  • Some media reports say he is and others he is not.
  • The country does not need another presidential election cycle with this question not being settled.
  • Ted Cruz and other candidates need to know where they stand.
  • PolitiFact stated: “That lack of precision has given rise to controversy and legal challenges, but has never resulted in a definitive determination by the U.S. Supreme Court. For that reason and others, the Ohio researchers called Cruz’s eligibility legally unsettled.”
  • The US Supreme Court must do their job. Marbury v Madison: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.”
  • Ted Cruz can request an advisory opinion from the FEC. Example: HASSAN v. FEC, October 1, 2012. “Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.”

Obama FEC scandal, Ellen Weintraub commissioner since December 2002, Former Perkins Coie attorney, Robert Bauer Weintraub conflict of interest, Natural born citizen ruling, Can we expect a fair advisory opinion?

Obama FEC scandal, Ellen Weintraub commissioner since December 2002, Former Perkins Coie attorney, Robert Bauer Weintraub conflict of interest, Natural born citizen ruling, Can we expect a fair advisory opinion

“What if the country held an election and there was no one to make sure that candidates played by the rules — no agency that could issue regulations, write
advisory opinions or bring enforcement actions against those breaking the law?”
“The six-person FEC — three members from each party — enforces the rules it writes about how Americans are permitted to participate in politics. You
thought the First Amendment said enough about that participation? Silly you.”
“Four Senate Democrats decided to block the Republican, Hans von Spakovsky.”
“The Post wants von Spakovsky confirmed only to keep the FEC functioning. He is being blocked because four senators have put “holds” on his nomination. One of those four who might be responsible for preventing the FEC from being able to disburse taxpayer funds to Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John Edwards is . . . Barack Obama.”…George Will, Washington Post December 11, 2007

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Obama FEC scandal.

Why is this so important?

Forget for a moment the other bias and chicanery associated with the FEC ( hard drive from IRS, etc. )

To the best of my knowledge, the FEC is the only federal government agency since 2008 to address the natural born citizen requirement for presidency in the US Constitution.

In Hassan v FEC they established that just being a US citizen is not enough. Hassan is a naturalized citizen and not eligible for matching federal funds.

They did not prohibit his running since they are only responsible for the monetary aspect.

What is significant about Ellen Weintraub being a commissioner?

1. She is a former Perkins Coie employee. You know, the law firm that made hundreds of thousands of dollars off of the Obama campaign, helped Obama keep records hidden via attorney Robert Bauer ( husband of Anita Dunn ) and requested an advisory opinion from the FEC in 2007 regarding Obama’s matching fund options.

2. Weintraub was a FEC commissioner in 2007 when the FEC provided the advisory opinion.

3. Weintraub was a commissioner in 2008 when the FEC rejected Philip J Berg’s plea for a ruling on Obama’s natural born citizen status.

4. Weintraub has been a commissioner since December 2002 despite her tenure of 6 years being exceeded.

5. Weintraub is a liberal Democrat.

6. Weintraub’s participation as a commissioner with the Perkins Coie ties to Obama is troubling.

7. Numerous articles have been written about Obama not replacing commissioners on the FEC, despite their terms running out, but I have found none other than my own questioning Ellen Weintraub being retained.

8. Why did Wikipedia make it appear like Weintraub began as a commissioner in 2008?

“Commissioners

Current

Name Position Appointed By Sworn In Term Expires
Lee E. Goodman Chair Barack Obama September 2013 April 30, 2015[7]
Ann M. Ravel Vice Chair Barack Obama September 2013 April 30, 2017[8]
Ellen L. Weintraub Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008 Expired — serving until replaced
Matthew S. Petersen Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008 Expired — serving until replaced
Caroline C. Hunter Commissioner George W. Bush June 2008 Expired — serving until replaced
Steven T. Walther Commissioner George W. Bush June 27, 2008 Expired — serving until replaced

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission

From the FEC.

“Ellen L. Weintraub took office as a Member of the United States Federal Election Commission (FEC) on December 9, 2002.  After an initial recess appointment, her nomination was confirmed by unanimous consent of the United States Senate on March 18, 2003.  Commissioner Weintraub has twice served as Chair of the Commission, for calendar years 2003 and 2013.

Prior to her appointment, Ms. Weintraub was Of Counsel to Perkins Coie LLP and a member of its Political Law Group. There, she counseled clients on federal and state campaign finance and election laws, political ethics, nonprofit law, recounts, and lobbying regulation. During the election contest arising out of the 1996 election of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ms. Weintraub served on the legal team that advised the Senate Rules Committee. Her tenure with Perkins Coie represented Ms. Weintraub’s second stint in private practice, having previously practiced as a litigator with the New York law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel.”

http://www.fec.gov/members/weintraub/weintraubbio.shtml

 

From Citizen Wells December 21, 2012.

“From the FEC December 20, 2012.

“FEC ELECTS WEINTRAUB AS CHAIR FOR 2013;
McGAHN TO SERVE AS VICE CHAIRMAN

WASHINGTON – At its open meeting today, the Federal Election Commission elected Ellen L. Weintraub as Chair and Donald F. McGahn II as Vice Chairman for 2013.

Commissioner Weintraub took office on December 9, 2002, after receiving a recess appointment. She was renominated and confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on March 18, 2003. Commissioner Weintraub previously served as Chair in 2003. Commissioner McGahn was nominated and confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on June 24, 2008. He was elected Chairman on July 10, 2008 and served in that capacity until December 31 of that year.

Prior to her appointment to the Commission, Commissioner Weintraub was Of Counsel to Perkins Coie LLP and a member of its Political Law Group. Commissioner Weintraub had previously practiced as a litigator with the New York firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel.

Before joining Perkins Coie, Commissioner Weintraub was Counsel to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the U.S. House of Representatives (the House Ethics Committee). There, Commissioner Weintraub focused on implementing the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.  She was Editor in Chief of the House Ethics Manual and a principal contributor to the Senate Ethics Manual.

Commissioner Weintraub received her B.A., cum laude, from Yale College and her J.D. from Harvard Law School.

Commissioner McGahn took office on July 9, 2008. Prior to his appointment to the Commission, Commissioner McGahn served as head of McGahn & Associates PLLC, a Washington-based law practice specializing in election law. Commissioner McGahn also served as General Counsel to the National Republican Congressional Committee and as Counsel for the Illinois Republican Party.

Before joining the NRCC, Commissioner McGahn practiced law at Patton Boggs LLP in Washington, DC. Commissioner McGahn has been recognized for his significant pro bono work for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Prior to Patton Boggs LLP, Commissioner McGahn served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Charles R. Alexander of the Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania.

Commissioner McGahn attended the United States Naval Academy, the University of Notre Dame, Widener University School of Law and the Georgetown University Law Center.”

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20121220newofficers.shtml

From Citizen Wells January 23, 2012.

WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 4

Obama, attorneys and Democrats control FEC

The devil himself could not have come up with a more devious plan.

Robert Bauer, of Perkins Coie, on February 1, 2007 requested an advisory opinion to keep Obama’s option for matching funds open. Bauer knew full well that Obama, not being a natural born citizen, was not eligible for matching funds. The FEC advisory opinion from March 1, 2007 responded in the affirmative.Ellen L. Weintraub, former staff member at Perkins Coie, was a Democrat appointee of the FEC at that time. She remained well beyond her scheduled tenure with the help of Barack Obama.
Obama, Robert Bauer, Democrats interaction with FEC timeline.
February 1,2007

Advisory Opinion Request: General Election Public Funding

From Obama attorney Robert Bauer to FEC

“This request for an Advisory Opinion is filed on behalf of Senator Barack Obama and the committee, the Obama Exploratory Committee, that he established to fund his exploration of a Presidential candidacy. The question on which he seeks the Commission’s guidance is whether, if Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party’s nominee.”

“cc: Chairman Robert Lenhard
Vice Chair David Mason
Commissioner Michael Toner
Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky
Commissioner Steven Walther
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub

Note, in the above advisory opinion request, Robert Bauer was a Perkins Coie attorney and Ellen Weintraub was a former Perkins Coie staff member.
March 1, 2007

FEC advisory opinion

From Robert D. Lenhard to Robert Bauer

“The Commission concludes that Senator Obama may solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election without losing his
eligibility to receive public funding if he receives his party’s nomination for President, if he (1) deposits and maintains all private contributions
designated for the general election in a separate account, (2) refrains from using these contributions for any purpose, and (3) refunds the private
contributions in full if he ultimately decides to receive public funds.”
December 11, 2007

George Will in the Washington Post writes.

“Paralyze The FEC? Splendid.”

“What if the country held an election and there was no one to make sure that candidates played by the rules — no agency that could issue regulations, write
advisory opinions or bring enforcement actions against those breaking the law?”

“The six-person FEC — three members from each party — enforces the rules it writes about how Americans are permitted to participate in politics. You
thought the First Amendment said enough about that participation? Silly you.

The FEC’s policing powers may soon be splendidly paralyzed.

Three current FEC members, two Democrats and one Republican, are recess appointees whose terms will end in a few days when this session of Congress ends –
unless they are confirmed to full six-year terms.

Four Senate Democrats decided to block the Republican, Hans von Spakovsky. Republicans have responded: “All three or none.” If this standoff persists until
Congress adjourns, the three recess appointments will expire and the FEC will have just two members — a Republican vacancy has existed since April. If so,
the commission will be prohibited from official actions, including the disbursement of funds for presidential candidates seeking taxpayer financing.”

The Post wants von Spakovsky confirmed only to keep the FEC functioning. He is being blocked because four senators have put “holds” on his nomination. One of those four who might be responsible for preventing the FEC from being able to disburse taxpayer funds to Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and John Edwards is . . . Barack Obama.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121001559.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
June 19, 2008.

“Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election”

“In a web video to supporters — “the people who built this movement from the bottom up” — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.”

“In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”
Obama wrote:

“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party
candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/06/obama-to-break/

June 24, 2008

Senate confirms FEC Nominees.

From the Wall Street Journal.

“The Senate confirmed five new members to the Federal Election Commission, ending a bitter political battle that had hobbled the elections watchdog for
months.

But the Senate action came with a final twist: Republicans accused Democrats of delaying the confirmation vote one day to allow the Democratic National
Committee to file a lawsuit against the presidential campaign of Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

The six-member elections agency had been without a quorum since December as Democrats objected to Republican nominee Hans Von Spakovsky for what they said was his partisan handling of voting-rights matters in his former job as a Department of Justice attorney. The dispute prevented the two parties from reaching an agreement to vote on any of the nominees.”

“Other commissioners confirmed Tuesday included Democrats Steve Walther and Cynthia Bauerly. The new Republican commissioners are Mr. Petersen, Don McGahn and Caroline Hunter. They join sitting commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat. The commission needs at least four members to take official action on election complaints, new campaign-financing rules and requests from campaigns for legal guidance.”

http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7BAC81D4FF-0476-4E28-B9B1-7619D271A334%7D&DE=%7B620D20F2-742F-4979-B8D6-6597558A6716%7D

From Fox News.

“Since the beginning of the year, the commission has only had two members: Republican Chairman David Mason and Democrat Ellen Weintraub.”

August 18, 2008

From Citizen Wells FEC FOIA request.

The individual, redacted, is requesting an advisory opinion from the FEC on Obama’s eligibility to be president. An email was sent with the request. The
email provides information on why Obama is not eligible. It begins with

“It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president, after all, for the following reason:”

It ends with

“Interesting! Now what? Who dropped the ball or are we all being duped? Who do you know whom you can forward this to who might be able to help
answer this question?”
August 21, 2008

Philip J Berg files lawsuit in Philadelphia Federal Court

Defendants: Obama, DNC, FEC

Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore ineligible to be President.
August 22, 2008

From Citizen Wells FEC FOIA request.

An email from David Kolker, FEC counsel, to Rebekah Harvey is certainly interesting. Rebekah Harvey was the assistant to Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub . Prior to being appointed to the FEC, Weintraub was on the staff of Perkins Coie LLP and a member of it’s Political Law Group.

“Victory in Berg v. Obama”

August 27, 2008

Complaint served on the U.S. Attorney for DNC and FEC

August 27, 2008

From Citizen Wells FEC FOIA request.

FEC response to advisory opinion dated August 18, 2008.

“The Act authorizes the Commission to issue an advisory opinion in response to a complete written request from any person about a specific transaction or
activity that the requesting person plans to undertake or is presently undertaking.”

“your inquiry does not qualify as an advisory opinion request.”
November 11, 2008

“Obama to Most Likely Avoid FEC Audit”

“The Federal Election Commission is unlikely to conduct a potentially embarrassing audit of how Barack Obama raised and spent his presidential campaign’s record-shattering windfall, despite allegations of questionable donations and accounting that had the McCain campaign crying foul.

Adding insult to injury for Republicans: The FEC is obligated to complete a rigorous audit of McCain’s campaign coffers, which will take months, if not
years, and cost McCain millions of dollars to defend.

Obama is expected to escape that level of scrutiny mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign that automatically triggers an
audit and because the sheer volume of cash he raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Another factor: The FEC, which would have to vote to
launch an audit, is prone to deadlocking on issues that inordinately impact one party or the other – like approving a messy and high-profile probe of a
sitting president.

So, by declining public funding, Obama decreased the odds of an audit. And the FEC may not investigate due to political party affiliations of the FEC
commission members.”

http://obamashrugged.com/?p=267

May 1, 2009

“At midnight Thursday, the terms of Federal Election Commissioner Donald F. McGahn II (a Republican) and FEC Chairman Steven T. Walther (a Democrat) expired. Combined with Democrat Ellen L. Weintraub’s seat — she remains on the commission even though her term expired two years ago — President Obama has the opportunity to make his first three appointments to the six-member commission. Though FEC terms are set for six years, members are free to stay on until replacements are selected by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.”

“Josh Zaharoff, deputy program director for Common Cause, argues that, short of complete overhaul, such a proposal would be the best way to ensure real
enforcement of election laws. The long-standing existing practice “ensures that the commissioners are likely to be loyal to their political party rather than
to election laws and the American people as a whole.”

After seven months without a quorum, the restocked FEC has drawn significant criticism from campaign-finance-reform advocates for its lack of serious,
independent enforcement. There have been a series of 3-3 deadlocks on key issues, resulting in a significant increase in the percentage of dismissed cases.”

http://www.iwatchnews.org/2009/05/01/2875/president-obama%E2%80%99s-opportunity-mold-fec
April 4, 2011

“More FEC Terms Expire, But Replacements Unlikely”

“The terms of Chairwoman Cynthia Bauerly (D) and Commissioner Matthew Petersen (R) expire at the end of April. The terms of Donald McGahn (R) and Steven Walther (D) expired almost two years ago.

The longest-serving commissioner is Ellen Weintraub (D), whose term expired almost four years ago. The only commissioner who will be serving an unexpired term at the end of the month is Republican Caroline C. Hunter, whom Bush nominated in 2008, for a term that expires in April 2013.

Further complicating the confirmation process is a large list of pending issues before the FEC that will affect Obama’s own re-election campaign.
One of the biggest issues is how the FEC will write new rules in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, which would set boundaries for how
hundreds of millions of dollars can be spent by third parties in the presidential election and Congressional campaigns. The issue was so important to Obama
that he admonished the Supreme Court a few days after its decision in the case during his 2010 State of the Union address.”

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_105/-204592-1.html?zkMobileView=true
April 16, 2011

“FEC Launches Audit Of Obama’s 2008 Campaign”

“The FEC’s decision to audit the campaign is not surprising, given that it was the largest federal campaign in history, raising more than $750 million in
receipts. If Obama’s campaign were not audited, it would have been the first presidential nominee’s campaign to escape such scrutiny since the public
financing system was created in 1976.

The potential for the FEC’s audit became increasingly more likely as the FEC questioned some of Obama campaign filings. In all, the FEC wrote 26 letters to
Obama for America warning the campaign that if it did not adequately respond to the agency’s questions that it “could result in an audit or enforcement
action.””

“As of the end of March, Obama for America had spent nearly $3 million on legal fees since the 2008 election. In all, the president’s campaign spent three
times more on lawyers after Election Day than in the two years preceding it.

The lion’s share of Obama’s legal spending went to Perkins Coie, a well-known Democratic legal and accounting firm. Perkins Coie is representing the Obama
campaign in all major legal matters, including seven of the FEC’s known investigations involving the White House bid. In each of these cases, the FEC voted to dismiss the case or found “no reason to believe” that the Obama for America or related committees had violated any laws.

Perkins Coie may be also representing Obama for America in the FEC’s spending investigation of a Republican National Committee complaint. A few weeks before the election, the RNC alleged that Obama’s campaign accepted donations from foreign nationals, received contributions that had exceed limits and submitted fictitious donor names to the agency. The status of this investigation is unknown, though the FEC confirmed it received the complaint.”

http://www.rollcall.com/news/FEC-Launches-Obama-Campaign-Audie-205014-1.html
Jan 12, 2012

“Election Watchdogs Assail Obama on FEC Appointments”

“The groups are demanding that Obama shake up the board of commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, the only agency able to enforce campaign laws.
They say political divisions among the agency’s panel of six leaders have rendered it toothless.

“The bottom line is nothing can happen to change the commission unless the White House names new commissioners, and they are refusing to do so,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan advocacy group. “The result is going to be an election with no enforcement.””

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/election-watchdogs-assail-obama-on-fec-appointments/

Why would Obama, as we know him, replace the FEC board. Since early 2007, Obama has been shielded by Robert Bauer and Ellen Weintraub. That’s right, as you read above, Weintraub is still on the FEC board, four years after her term expired. And don’t forget, after Obama secured the White House, he hired Robert Bauer as general counsel. Bauer has since returned to Perkins Coie to continue helping Obama keep his records hidden.

This is a clear conflict of interest!!!

And what about attorney ethics?

As stated above, Robert Bauer knew about Obama’s natural born citizen deficiency in February of 2007 and yet he filed a request for an advisory opinion on Obama’s behalf regarding Federal Matching Funds. This is fraud!

From Citizen Wells June 2, 2011.

“From the American Bar Association.

“A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent””

“Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession
Rule 8.4 Misconduct”

“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional
Conduct or other law; or

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/ellen-l-weintraub-elected-fec-chair-former-perkins-coie-counsel-robert-bauer-obama-2007-matching-funds-advisory-opinion-obama-controls-fec/

 

Obama corruption trial witnesses Blagojevich and Rezko still in prison, Blagojevich appeal drags on, Rezko from Syria remains quiet, One year anniversary of prosecution response

Obama corruption trial witnesses Blagojevich and Rezko still in prison, Blagojevich appeal drags on, Rezko from Syria remains quiet, One year anniversary of prosecution response

Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells

“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich

 

“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011

 

 

Stranger than fiction.

Unbelievable as a novel without an understanding of Chicago pay to play politics and the efforts made to protect Obama.

With our involvement in Syria the past several years, I couldn’t help but wonder if that is why Tony Rezko helped Obama get elected and then kept his mouth shut. Never called as a witness.

The two people who could nail Obama on the witness stand, Tony Rezko and Rod Blagojevich are still in prison.

Tony Rezko refused to rat on his friend Obama.

Blagojevich, who came under federal investigation by at least late 2003, is still awaiting a decision on his appeal.

It has been one year since the prosecution responded to the appeal filed on JUly 15, 2013.

From Citizen Wells November 13, 2013.

The prosecution of Blagojevich drags on and protects Obama.

From Fox News Illinois November 13, 2013.

“Prosecutors respond to Blagojevich appeal”
“Prosecutors have filed a response to Rod Blagojevich’s corruption conviction appeal. The 169-page government filing submitted late Tuesday urges the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reject the imprisoned former governor’s request for a new trial. Defense lawyers filed the appeal on the Illinois Democrat’s behalf in July. It asks the Chicago-based appellate court to toss his convictions or at least reduce his 14-year prison sentence.”

Read more:

http://www.foxillinois.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.il/26fb71b1-www.foxillinois.com.shtml#.UoN2XPl4z90

From Citizen Wells July 16, 2013.

“Blagojevich appeals convictions, stiff sentence”

“Lawyers for Rod Blagojevich filed an appeal Monday challenging the imprisoned former Illinois governor’s corruption conviction and stiff, 14-year prison term.

The lengthy filing with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago comes more than two years after the Chicago Democrat’s retrial and 16 months after he entered a federal prison in Colorado.

Jurors convicted Blagojevich, 56, of engaging in wide-ranging corruption, including that the two-term governor sought to profit from his power to appoint someone to the U.S. Senate seat that Barack Obama vacated to become president.

The appeal cites a juror who allegedly expressed a bias against Blagojevich who was seated despite the objections of defense attorneys. It also raises longstanding claims that Judge James Zagel barred FBI wiretap evidence that might have aided the defense and argues the judge miscalculated the appropriate prison term.

The appeal was filed about 30 minutes before a midnight deadline to do so.

In June, Blagojevich’s attorneys requested permission to file a longer-than-usual appeal, noting the trial produced 12,000 pages of transcripts. “The issues for appeal are numerous and complicated,” they wrote. The court agreed to let them file the equivalent of about 100 pages, which is what they did.

Blagojevich was convicted on 18 counts over two trials, jurors in the first deadlocking on all but one count. Taking the stand in the second, decisive trial in 2011, Blagojevich insisted his talking about wanting to sell Obama’s seat was just that — talk.

At his sentencing hearing later in 2011, an uncharacteristically deferential Blagojevich asked Zagel for mercy and said he accepted responsibility. He told the court in a hushed voice, “I caused it all.”

Despite those words, Zagel imposed a lengthy prison term, telling Blagojevich he had abused voters’ trust and undermined the democratic process “to do things that were only good for yourself.”

Many observers at the time said Blagojevich’s best hope on appeal wasn’t that a higher court would overturn his convictions but that appellate judges would agree his sentence was too harsh.”

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2013/07/16/news/doc51e4d91045f9d865437288.txt?viewmode=fullstory

The appeal.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/154180774/Blagojevich-Appeal

The response.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/183864545/Blagojevich-Appeal-Response-Prosecutors-oppose-new-trial

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/blagojevich-appeal-prosecutor-response-november-13-2013-169-page-plea-to-reject-new-trial-request-us-court-of-appeals-seventh-circuit-blagojevich-prosecution-drags-on-obama-protected/

From Citizen Wells October 26, 2014.

“The administration of Rod Blagojevich came under FBI scrutiny beginning in late 2003.

Yet, with all the harm Blagojevich et al were doing to the citizens of Illinois, he was not arrested until just after the 2008 election.

His arrest and the timing of his prosecution were clearly coordinated to have the least impact on Barack Obama.

That protection of Obama continues.

The 2010 election cycle has passed.

The 2012 election cycle has passed.

The 2014 election cycle is about to pass.

We have 6 sessions of the US Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit left before the November 4, 2014 elections.

If the decision comes before the election, I predict that Blagojevich will get a reduced sentence.

If not, it is entirely possible that Obama will pardon Blagojevich.

I believe that they have a deal.

ObamaBlagoNov2008

Blagojevich “prosecution” history.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/blagojevich-appeal-prediction-reduced-sentence-or-obama-pardon-6-seventh-circuit-appeals-court-sessions-before-nov-4-obama-protection-continues-obama-rezko-ties-blagojevich-fall-guy/