Posted on

73% of Democrats Want ‘A Fresh Face’ As 2020 Nominee

photo Stormy-Daniels

July 24,2018

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are among those touted as serious Democratic presidential contenders in 2020, but three-out-of-four Democrats think their party needs to turn to someone new.

But according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 73% of Likely Democratic Voters believe their party should look for a fresh face to run for president in 2020. Just 16% disagree and think the party should promote a candidate who has already run in the past. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.

By comparison, with Clinton seen as a shoo-in for the 2016 nomination, just 36% of Democrats were calling for a new face in that election, but an unusually high 21% were undecided.

Among all likely voters, 65% say Democrats should find a new face for 2020, while only 19% think it should go with someone who has run for the White House before. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.

Posted on

Gun in Texas attack linked to ‘Fast and Furious’ sting years earlier…

Eric Holder

fmr Attorney Eric Holder

Garland shooter bought pistol through ATF’s controversial gun running sting to track drug cartels

BY NICOLE HENSLEY

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Saturday, August 1, 2015, 5:56 PM

A gunman killed during his attack on an Islamic prophet Muhammad art show in Garland, Texas, reportedly bought a pistol through a botched federal firearm sting.

Nadir Soofi bought a 9-mm pistol at a Phoenix gun shop in 2010, one report said, that sold illegal firearms through ATF’s heavily criticized Operation Fast and Furious to track firearms back to Mexican drug cartels.

The Senate Homeland Security Committee wants to know if that same pistol was used five years later in an alleged Islamic State-sanctioned shootout targeting right-wing blogger Pamela Geller’s event, according to a memo obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

The letter is addressed to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch from Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/garland-gunman-bought-gun-operation-fast-furious-article-1.2311893

Posted on

US Sen. Menendez: ‘I’m not going anywhere’ amid federal investigation

Reorg_theridgewoodblog

Reorg_theridgewoodblog.net_

file photo by Boyd Loving

US Sen. Menendez: ‘I’m not going anywhere’ amid federal investigation
By DAVE PORTER and ERIC TUCKER

NEWARK, N.J. –Amid a federal investigation, U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez insists he has always been honest in his more than 20 years in Congress and says he is “not going anywhere” even as a person familiar with the matter says he’s expected to face criminal charges soon.

The New Jersey Democrat has been dogged by questions about his relationship with a Florida doctor and political donor, whose office was raided by authorities two years ago. Now charges are expected to be filed against Menendez in the coming weeks, according to the person who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the investigation is pending.

Attorney General Eric Holder declined to say whether he has authorized criminal charges against the senator.

At a news conference Friday in his home state, Menendez spoke in English and Spanish, chopping his hand down for emphasis.

“Let me be very clear, I have always conducted myself appropriately and in accordance with the law,” he said. “Every action that I and my office have taken for the last 23 years that I have been privileged to be in the United States Congress has been based on pursuing the best policies for the people of New Jersey and this entire country.”

He said he couldn’t take questions “because there is an ongoing inquiry.”

http://7online.com/politics/us-sen-menendez-im-not-going-anywhere/547869/

Posted on

How Long Will It Take to Repair Damage Holder Has Done at Justice Department?

Obama-Holder1

How Long Will It Take to Repair Damage Holder Has Done at Justice Department?
Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / September 27, 2014

Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement Thursday that he is resigning, effective when his successor is confirmed, is welcome news.

As John Fund and I outline in our recent book, “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department,” every time President Obama has broken, bent, ignored or changed the law, the person at his side advising him how to do it has been Eric Holder.

Mr. Holder is also responsible for spearheading an unprecedented politicization of the Justice Department, which should be of great concern to anyone who cares about the rule of law and the impartial administration of justice.

Why care about who runs the U.S. Justice Department? It matters because Justice is one of the most powerful executive branch agencies in the federal government. It has enormous discretionary power to pursue people accused of breaking the law and to exert major influence over social, economic and national security policies by the enforcement (or non-enforcement) choices made by its top officer.

Justice requires someone who understands that, while the attorney general is a political appointee, he (or she) has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and enforce the law in an objective, non-political manner. For the most part, Eric Holder failed in the execution of that duty.

Mr. Holder is the first attorney general in history to be held in contempt by the House of Representatives. He earned this dubious distinction by refusing to turn over documents related to what may be the most reckless law enforcement operation ever undertaken by the Justice Department: Operation Fast and Furious.

Every time President Obama has broken, bent, ignored or changed the law, the person at his side advising him how to do it has been Eric Holder.

During his tenure, the Justice Department launched more investigations and prosecutions of leaks than all prior attorneys general combined, while studiously ignoring high-level “friendly leaks” by White House officials designed to make the president look tough in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Holder racialized the prosecution of federal anti-discrimination laws and led an unprecedented attack on election integrity laws, thus making it easier for people to commit voter fraud.

His handling of national security issues and his reinstitution of the Clinton-era criminal model for handling terrorists have endangered national security and the safety of the American public.

Mr. Holder has tried to restrict pro-life protesters’ First Amendment right to speak, has prosecuted American companies (under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) for behavior that is routine among government officials, and has on numerous occasions ignored his duty to defend the law and to enforce statutes passed by Congress.

Photo: Christy Bowe/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom

In clear violation of civil service rules, Mr. Holder filled the career ranks of the Justice Department with political allies, cronies and Democratic Party donors.

He treated Congress with contempt and did everything he could to evade its oversight responsibilities by misleading, misinforming and ignoring members of Congress and its committees.

For these reasons and many others, a former career lawyer who served in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations told us that, in his opinion, “Holder is the worst person to hold the position of Attorney General since the disgraced John Mitchell, who went to jail as a result of the Watergate scandal.” This is quite a criticism given that many DOJ veterans believe that the Department reached its nadir under Mitchell.

But in comparison to Holder, Mitchell seems like an amateur in corrupting the law enforcement duties of the Justice Department to carry out the political objectives of President Obama.

The many cases in which judges have accused DOJ prosecutors of engaging in prosecutorial abuse during Holder’s tenure shows, unfortunately, the extent to which this modus operandi has seeped into the lower levels of the Department.

How long it will take to repair the damage that Eric Holder has done to the management and operation of the Justice Department? There is no way to know.

In the end, it is the president who decides on the character, attributes and competence of the individual chosen to be the head of the largest law enforcement organization in the United States.

And it is the president who decides whether his administration – and his attorney general – will fulfill their obligation to “faithfully execute” their duty to enforce the law and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Originally appeared on FoxNews.com.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/27/how-long-will-it-take-to-repair-damage-holder-has-done-at-justice-department/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Posted on

Eric Holder’s 7 Worst Actions as Attorney General

6165936527_4aaf48cf38_o-800x420

Eric Holder’s 7 Worst Actions as Attorney General

Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / September 25, 2014

Attorney General Eric Holder, the first attorney general in history to be held in contempt by the House of Representatives, surprised the political world today when he announced he would be resigning, effective on the confirmation of his successor.

Holder will leave a troubled legacy and many unanswered questions as John Fund and I discovered when we were researching our new book, “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.” The Justice Department veterans we talked to said that Holder has politicized the Department to an unprecedented degree, which should concern everyone who cares about the rule of law.

So what are the top seven worst actions by Eric Holder?

1. Operation Fast and Furious, probably the most reckless law enforcement operation ever carried out by the Justice Department. This gun-running scandal led directly to the death of an American border agent and many Mexican citizens. Holder was held in contempt because of his refusal to turn over information and documentation about this operation gone wrong that he basically claimed he knew nothing about.

2. Holder has waged a war on election integrity and “racialized and radicalized the [Civil Rights] Division to the point of corruption” according to one current Justice employee, embedding “politically leftist extremists in the career ranks who have an agenda that does not comport with equal protection or the rule of law; who believe that the ends justify the means; and who behave unprofessionally and unethically.”

3. Failure to conduct a real, criminal investigation of the IRS targeting of conservative organizations and to enforce the contempt citation issued by the House of Representative against Lois Lerner.

Lois Lerner (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Newscom)

4. Reinstituting the Clinton-era model for handling terrorists that endangers the national security and safety of the American people and going after journalists in leak investigations while ignoring leaks coming out of the White House from high-level administration officials.

5. Failing to advise President Obama against taking actions that violate the Constitution and federal law, refusing to enforce or defend federal laws and trying to persuade state attorneys general to engage in the same type of behavior of refusing to defend laws passed by their state legislatures.

6. Engaging in collusive “sue and settle” lawsuits with advocacy organizations and political allies of the president in order to implement regulations and new requirements without public notice or participation in order to use taxpayer money to fund the budgets of liberal groups.

7. Treated Congress with contempt and did everything he could to evade its oversight responsibilities by misleading, misinforming and ignoring members of Congress and its committee.

There is no telling how long it will take to repair the damage that Holder has done to the Justice Department. History will not be kind to his legacy. As one former Justice Departmentemployee told us, in his opinion, “Holder is the worst person to hold the position of attorney general since the disgraced John Mitchell, who went to jail as a result of the Watergate scandal.”

Eric Holder’s 7 Worst Actions as Attorney General

Posted on

GOP on Holder’s exit: ‘Good riddance’

holdereric09252014getty_0

GOP on Holder’s exit: ‘Good riddance’

By Peter Sullivan

The announcement of Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation on Thursday brought a fiery reaction from Republican lawmakers who wished him “good riddance.”

GOP lawmakers quickly took to Twitter to voice their dislike for Holder, with whom they clashed frequently..

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/218886-republican-lawmakers-tell-holder-good-riddance

Posted on

The Supreme Court Vs. Eric Holder

13850315124_523382756e_k-1260x650

The Supreme Court Vs. Eric Holder

John Fund / Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / July 13, 2014 

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative.

If Eric Holder were a baseball player, he’d have been benched long ago — if not kicked off the team. His batting average before the Supreme Court is abysmal, losing again and again in his efforts to undermine the Constitution.

This term featured four big strike downs.

First was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, in which the Supremes tossed out ObamaCare’s contraceptive abortion mandate and upheld the First Amendment rights of several family-owned businesses to make their living in conformance with their religious beliefs.

Although the government was not party to another case, Harris v. Quinn, the Justice Department filed an amicus brief on the side of Illinois and the SEIU, arguing that unwilling home health-care workers could be forced into unions (and made to pay compulsory dues) simply because their services are paid for through Medicaid.

Fortunately, the Court ruled against Illinois’s heavy-handed attempt to help bolster its political allies, public sector unions.

On June 26, in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning, all nine Justices ruled that President Obama’s “recess” appointments to the NLRB violated the Constitution.

Not only did Obama’s own judicial appointees vote against him (including his former solicitor general), but the majority opinion was written by Stephen Breyer, a liberal stalwart of the Court.

The Administration also lost United State v. Wurie, in which the Holder Justice Department claimed that the police and federal authorities did not need a search warrant to seize all of the information stored in the cellphone of someone who had been arrested.

Once again, the administration lost all nine justices.

The basic invasion of privacy and violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures represented by the administration’s position is in line with its frightening view of governmental power over its citizens.

Canning and Wurie are only the latest losses of the administration in which all nine Supreme Court justices ruled against the government.

In fact, there have been 20 such cases during this administration — and even more if you include cases in which the administration filed an amicus brief, such as in McCullen v. Coakley, the free-speech case that was handed down the same day as the recess appointments case.

The Obama administration filed an amicus brief in that case supporting the Massachusetts law in question and helped argue the case before the Supreme Court.

But all nine justices found the Massachusetts law, which created a 35-foot “buffer” zone around abortion clinics, violated the First Amendment by restricting speech in public areas “that have historically been open to the public for speech activities.”

It is no surprise that the administration supported a law that restricted the voice of pro-life supporters.

That is in accord with its general attack on the political speech and activities of disfavored conservative advocacy organizations through the IRS and other government agencies. The positions taken by this administration in the other 9-to-0 cases are just as overbroad.

In 2012’s Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, DOJ displayed an open hostility to religious freedom by claiming that the federal government had the right, as the Supreme Court termed it, to “interfere” in a church’s employment decisions on the hiring and firing of its ministers and religious teachers.

The Supreme Court was clearly astounded at the arguments being made by the Justice Department and unanimously rejected it.

In Sackett v. EPA, the administration tried to prevent a family from defending itself in court and contesting a punitive order from EPA bureaucrats imposing a fine of $75,000 a day for trying to develop a lot in a residential neighborhood which the EPA considered a wetland. The administration lost.

In US v. Jones, just like in the Riley/Wurie cases, the administration claimed that law enforcement could attach a GPS device to your car without a warrant or even any suspicion of criminal activity.

The Court unanimously rejected this position and, in a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the administration was trying to invade “privacy interests long afforded, and undoubtedly entitled to, Fourth Amendment protection.”

Typically, the Justice Department does very well before the Supreme Court. Holder has made that a losing record.

That’s because, as legal scholar Ilya Shapiro says, the administration has “relied on outlandish legal theories that pushed a constitutional interpretation of extreme federal power.”

Holder and Obama have argued that we as Americans don’t have the right to free speech, the right to privacy, the right to due process or the freedom of religion.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court has become the last defense for those who still believe in those rights.

Originally posted on the New York Post.

Posted on

Eric Holder: No Plans at DOJ to Investigate Secret Waiting Lists and Veteran Deaths at VA Hospitals

480px-Eric_Holder_official_portrait

Eric Holder: No Plans at DOJ to Investigate Secret Waiting Lists and Veteran Deaths at VA Hospitals

3:07 PM, MAY 13, 2014 • BY JOHN MCCORMACK

Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that the Department of Justice doesn’t have any plans to investigate allegations that veterans placed on secret waiting lists at VA hospitals died while waiting for care.

“Well, obviously these reports if they’re true are unacceptable, and the allegations are being taken very seriously by the administration. But I don’t have any announcements at this time with regard to anything that the Justice Department is doing,” Holder told reporters at a press conference.

“This is something on our radar screen at this point, but there is an investigation being done by the [VA] inspector general, and we’ll see what happens as a result of that inquiry and other information that comes to light in some form or fashion,” Holder added.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/eric-holder-no-plans-doj-investigate-secret-waiting-lists-and-veteran-deaths-va-hospitals_792719.html

Posted on

Holder: State Laws That Bar Felons From Voting Are ‘Too Unjust to Tolerate’

b50bc003c4504fb6a17a4a76c4f50667

Holder: State Laws That Bar Felons From Voting Are ‘Too Unjust to Tolerate’
February 12, 2014 – 7:11 AM
By Susan Jones

(CNSNews.com) – Three days after announcing that the U.S. Justice Department will recognize same-sex marriages in all legal matters, even in states that forbid it, Attorney General Eric Holder took a swipe at states that don’t allow felons to vote.

“In many states, felony disenfranchisement laws are still on the books. And the current scope of these policies is not only too significant to ignore — it is also too unjust to tolerate,” Holder told a criminal justice forum at Georgetown University Law Center.

Holder urged lawmakers “to stand together in overturning an unfortunate and outdated status quo.” And he called on the American people “to join us in bringing about the end of misguided policies that unjustly restrict what’s been called the ‘most basic right’ of American citizenship.”

– See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/holder-state-laws-bar-felons-voting-are-too-unjust-tolerate#sthash.nu3SbENf.R0D5CHx2.dpuf