Tag: Not

The Democrats’ Likely Nominee Appears To Be A Felon – This Is Not Business As Usual (Andrew C. McCarthy)

The Democrats’ Likely Nominee Appears To Be A Felon… This Is Not Business As Usual – Andrew C. McCarthy

.

.
Competing Democrats debate each other one night. Republican rivals take their shots at each other a couple of nights later. An air of frenetic normalcy sets over primary season: The country is $20 trillion in the red and under heightened terrorist threat, yet pols bicker over the legacy of Henry Kissinger and the chameleon nature of Donald Trump – another liability the mogul is marketing as an asset. It is business as usual.

Except nothing about the 2016 campaign is business as usual.

For all the surreal projection of normalcy, the race is enveloped by an extremely serious criminal investigation. If press reporting is to be believed – in particular, the yeoman’s work of Fox News’s Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne – Hillary Clinton, the likely nominee of one of the two major parties, appears to have committed serious felony violations of federal law.

That she has the audacity to run despite the circumstances is no surprise – Clinton scandals, the background music of our politics for a quarter-century, are interrupted only by new Clinton scandals. What is shocking is that the Democrats are allowing her to run.

For some Democrats, alas, any criminality by the home team is immaterial. A couple of weeks back, The Donald bragged, as is his wont, that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” Trump was kidding (at least, I think he was). Unfortunately, the statement might have been true had it sprung from Mrs. Clinton’s lips.

In a Democratic party dominated by the hard Left, the power Left, what matters is keeping Republicans out of the White House, period. Democrats whored themselves for Bill through the Nineties, seemingly unembarrassed over the lie it put to their soaring tropes about women’s rights, good government, getting money out of politics, etc. They will close ranks around Hillary, too. After all, if she was abusing power while advancing the cause of amassing power – er, I mean, the cause of social justice – what’s the harm?

More-centrist Democrats realize there could be great harm, but they seem paralyzed. The American people, they know, are not the hard Left: If Mrs. Clinton is permitted to keep plodding on toward the nomination only to be indicted after she has gotten it, the party’s chances of holding on to the White House probably disappear. By then, there may not be time to organize a national campaign with a suitable candidate (as opposed to a goofy 74-year-old avowed socialist).

So these Democrats play Russian roulette: hopefully assuming that the FBI won’t dare recommend criminal charges with the stakes so high; that the Obama Justice Department won’t prosecute if charges are recommended; that Obama will figure out a way to intervene with a pardon that won’t do Clinton too much damage, and that the public can be spun into thinking an investigation led by Obama appointees and career law-enforcement officers is somehow a Vast-Right-Wing-Conspiracy plot dreamt up by Republicans.

Many of these Democrats know that the right thing to do for their party – and country – is to demand that Mrs. Clinton step aside. They also know that if they do the right thing, and Clinton wins anyway, there will be vengeance – Hillary being the vengeful sort. So mum’s the word.

Their silence will not change the facts.

To take the simplest of many apparent national-security violations, it is a felony for a person “being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any… information relating to the national defense” to permit that information “through gross negligence… to be removed from its proper place of custody” or to be “delivered to anyone in violation of his trust” (Section 793(f) of Title 18, U.S. Code).

Mrs. Clinton was entrusted with national-defense information and knew that working with such classified intelligence was a substantial part of her duties as secretary of state. Despite this knowledge, she willfully, and against government rules, set up a private, non-secure e-mail communication system for all of her government-related correspondence – making it inevitable that classified matters would be discussed on the system. This was gross negligence at best. And the easily foreseeable result is that classified intelligence was removed from its secure government repository and transmitted to persons not entitled to have it – very likely including foreign intelligence services that almost certainly penetrated Mrs. Clinton’s non-secure system.

The penalty for violating this penal statute is up to ten years’ imprisonment for each individual violation. Mind you, there are already 1,600 reported instances of classified information being transmitted via the Clinton server system, and the latest indications are that at least twelve, and as many as 30, private e-mail accounts are known to have trafficked in our nation’s defense secrets. Many of these account holders were certainly not cleared for access to the information – and none of them was permitted to access it in a non-secure setting.

Fox has also reported that the FBI has expanded its investigation to possible public-corruption offenses – the cozy connections between the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, and Clinton-connected businesses; the question whether Clinton Foundation donors received favorable treatment in government contracts. Such allegations could fill a book. Indeed, investigative journalist Peter Schweizer has written just such a book: Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

It’s a hair-raising story, but corruption cases are tough to prove. Comparatively, classified-information offenses are straightforward: There is a paper trail and secret intelligence either ended up someplace it was not supposed to be or it didn’t. Corruption cases, by contrast, can involve complex transactions and the gray area between grimy political deals and actionable quid pro quo. They hinge on proving the state of mind of the players, which can be challenging.

So I want to pass over that for now and think about something rarely mentioned in the Clinton caper: the unknown e-mails. What has been revealed about Mrs. Clinton’s disclosed e-mails has been so shocking that we often forget: There are 30,000 other e-mails that she attempted to destroy. We do not know what’s in them, so it is only natural that we have focused instead on what is knowable – the e-mails that have been disclosed. But there have been media reports that the FBI, to which Mrs. Clinton finally surrendered her private servers some months ago, has been able to retrieve many of the “deleted” e-mails, perhaps even all of them.

Mrs. Clinton told us she destroyed these e-mails because they were private and unrelated to government business. Basically we are to believe that one of the busiest, highest-ranking officials in our government had time to send tens of thousands of e-mails that were strictly about yoga routines, her daughter’s bridesmaids’ dresses, and the like. This, from the same Mrs. Clinton who looked us in the eye and insisted that none of her e-mails contained classified information.

Anyone want to join me in indulging the possibility that many of the deleted e-mails involve government business?

I ask because, wholly apart from any classified information crimes, there is another penal law defining an offense that is very easy to prove: the federal embezzlement statute (Section 641 of Title 18, U.S. Code). This provision targets anyone who, among other things,
.

embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use…, or without authority… conveys or disposes of any record… of the United States or of any department or agency thereof…; or …conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use… knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted.

.
As with the afore-described crime of mishandling classified information, the penalty for violating this statute is up to ten years’ imprisonment for each instance of theft.

To the extent Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails involved government business, they were not private – they were government records. When she left the State Department, however, she took these government records with her: She didn’t tell anyone she had them, and she converted them to her own use – preventing the government from complying with lawful Freedom of Information Act disclosure demands, congressional inquiries, and government-disclosure obligations in judicial proceedings, as well as undermining the State Department’s reliance on the completeness of its recordkeeping in performing its crucial functions.

I believe that Clinton has already violated the embezzlement law with respect to the 30,000 e-mails she finally surrendered to the State Department nearly two years after leaving. But for argument’s sake, let’s give her a pass on those. Let’s consider only the 30,000 e-mails that she withheld and attempted to destroy but that the FBI has reportedly recovered. Does anyone really doubt that this mountain of e-mail contains State Department-related communications – i.e., government files?

In a better time, responsible Democrats would already have disqualified Mrs. Clinton on the quaint notion that fitness for the nation’s highest office means something more than the ability to evade indictment for one’s sleazy doings. But now we have a candidate who may not – and should not – be able to meet even that lowly standard. No self-respecting political party would permit her to run. Obviously, a plea to do the right thing is not a winning appeal to today’s Democrats. But what are we left with if appeals to self-interest also fall on deaf ears?

.

.

Obama State Department Admits Iran Didn’t Even Sign Nuke Deal, And It’s Not Legally Binding

State Dept Admits Iran Didn’t Even Sign Iran Deal And It’s Not Legally Binding – Right Scoop

Just when you think Obama’s Iran deal couldn’t get any worse, his own State Dept. reveals that Iran didn’t sign the deal nor is it ‘legally binding’. It’s just a set of ‘political commitments’ or something:
.

NRO – President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter. Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement.

Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.

“The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose – and ramp up – our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments,” Frifield wrote to Pompeo.

.
Of course we couldn’t trust Iran in the first place, but for Obama, who touted this deal as the only way to keep Iran from getting nukes, to not even get their signatures attesting to their ‘commitment’ to this so-called deal seems ludicrous. And for his State Department to then say it’s not legally binding? Just what assurances did Obama think he was getting from the Iranians to even make the guarantees he made and his numerous statements defending this deal?

Here’s the letter obtained by the NRO:

.

.

.

.

Sundance Over At The Conservative Treehouse Is Apparently Not A Megyn Kelly Fan

Murdoch’s Little Princess Retreats To The Hills – Amid Backlash Megyn Kelly Takes 1.5 Week Vacation

Last night on Megyn Kelly’s Fox TV show she announced a 1.5 week vacation returning on 8/24. Lil Miss stated she hadn’t taken a vacation in six months. Of course the 8-day memorial day break, and 6-day July Fourth break, don’t count as vacation for the intense 4 day work-week schedules of a princess pundit, or something.

.

.
However, given the scope of the fallout from Megyn’s intentional set-up of candidate Donald Trump, and the severity of the backlash therein, it’s not difficult to see why the outline of this NY Magazine article is essentially correct.

Unfortunately for Ms. Kelly, the reality of her position has slapped her in the face like a cold fish

NY Mag […] Having backed down to the GOP front-runner and all but sacrificed one of his biggest stars to appease the conservative base – a.k.a. Fox viewers – Ailes has set a dangerous precedent. The message is clear: Fox reports, but the audience decides. (link)

LOL, only in the mind of a progressive publication would listening to your customer be considered “a dangerous precedent“; I digress. Alas, ego’s the size of Princess Megyn need respite, from the fish. And princesses never eat crow.

For those who have followed the story, which began weeks prior to the debate, the attack by Megyn Kelly was entirely predictable. A full week before the debate itself, we warned of Kelly’s transparently obvious intentions toward Donald Trump – HERE July 30th.

Kelly actually had a plan to begin the attack on Monday August 3rd, three nights before the debate. What she planned was to lay the groundwork for a sexist narrative, and then follow up with the attack on debate night. Kelly is nothing, if not predictable.

Somehow, Team Trump caught wind of the set-up, and while Mr. Trump was in Scotland his team cancelled the Monday appearance. However, it is highly doubtful Trump actually knew the severity of what was planned.

Perhaps the cancellation contributed to the even more severe vitriol viewed by over 25 million debate watchers three nights later. Everything about it was planned by Megyn, for Megyn – the center of her own condescendingly self-important universe.

.

.
As the days ticked down to the confrontation, the severity of her tone increased – the objective was brutally evident, again, in an interview with Ted Cruz. on the Monday Trump cancelled. Again, we warned x 2.

Post Debate – When you get the cold fish slap, you have two decisions to make.

#1 You can: a.) Admit your intentions, b.) Ask for forgiveness, and c.) put forth your humility.

~ OR ~

#2 You have to surround yourself with sycophants, hide in your bunker, and refuse to take responsibility.

Kelly chose the latter. Essentially removing the last vestiges of credibility, diminishing herself more, and broadcasting the transparency of guilt. Public cold fish-slaps, which you try to hide, never end well – everyone sees them.

However, on the positive side, and thanks to the assistance from the go-to punditry (Dana “Baby Bush” Perino), Kelly and Co. used neon orange paint on the next tripwire.

In an effort to wipe away the remaining fish scales, Megyn and Perino set up the next Rupert pro-Bush strategy a little more obviously than last time. [ie. the advancement of Ben Carson.]

.

.
LOL, Carson, Kasich and Bush even sounds like a group of republican lawyers.

Now they will go all back-door on Trump by going with the “temperament” narrative. The only acceptable Republican is one who comes bubble wrapped for safety.

Kaisch, Bush and the ever soft-spoken Carson will be sold as temperate and comparative candidates to the grossly vulgarian Trump.

It’s that reachy-over-the-aisle narrative, with an intellectual high-brow MSM twist.

Think: crust-less cucumber and mayonnaise sandwiches on wonder bread, along with a side of rice cakes and Perrier w/ lime. Mmmm mmmm safe and delicious, swear. Just ask George Will and Charles Krauthammer, they’ll tell you all about it.

Full disclosure. I ate, well, sort of, one of those rice cakes once, just once. Flippin’ thing tasted like I’d bitten into a Styrofoam coffee cup. As far as palates go, it was profoundly typical – and brutally similar to – what I envision a professional republican would taste like. Never again, and never since.

.

.
Of course they’ve already got iCarly kick-started to take lead on the “Trump is Sexist” angle; and God please, I hope Trump has the opportunity in debate #2 to compare his immensely smart and successful daughter Ivanka, to the brutally inept and scripted talking point that calls herself Fiorina.

The narrative collapses when you think about Trump being so sexist he puts his daughter in charge of his Empire.

Actually, I shouldn’t publicly write that wish because I’ll just be giving a head’s up to the target of it. Oh well… I was, after all, previously speaking of cold fish.

Nuf said.

Time for some sorbet:

.

.

.

Nuclear Iran Update: Obama Regime Claims Two Secret Side Deals Are Not Secret Side Deals

WH Says 2 Secret Side Deals Are Not ‘Secret Side Deals’ – Sweetness & Light

.

.
These deals are literally secret and they are certainly on the side from the main agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations. So what else is the White House lying to us about?

From The Hill:

White House: Iran-IAEA pacts are not ‘side deals’

By Jordan Fabian | July 23, 2015

Agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are not secret “side deals” to the main nuclear pact between Tehran and six world powers, the White House said Thursday. “This does not represent some sort of side deal,” press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

They are separate deals from the agreement between the P5+1 nations and they are secret. So they are secret side deals. Why try to lie about it? And if the White House is willing to lie to us about this, what else are they about?]

Republicans have seized on the existence of what they call “side deals” between Iran and the IAEA to build support against the deal in Congress…

It’s not just Republicans. Several Democrats have also expressed concerns about these secret side deals. Including Democrat Senator Ben Cardin (Md.), who, along with Senator Corker, sent a letter to Kerry demanding the text of these two side deals.

Earnest dismissed those concerns, saying lawmakers have all the information necessary to judge the deal, which limits Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

“I know there has been a suggestion by some Republicans [sic] that there are some agreements that were cut off to the side,” Earnest said. “The fact is, this is a critical part of the agreement.”…

So Earnest admits these deals are a critical part of the Iran agreement. Even though they were not negotiated by the US. And, in fact, the US will not eve be allowed to see the deals between the IAEA and Iran.

Earnest acknowledged that information regarding the Iran-IAEA pacts was not provided to lawmakers Wednesday during classified briefings for House and Senate members held by Secretary of State John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

And never mind that on Wednesday Susan Rice has specifically promised that Congress would be given that information at that classified briefing. From The Hill: “Rice said the documents between Iran and the IAEA are not public, but the administration has been informed on their contents and will share details with members of Congress in a classified briefing on Capitol Hill.”

But Earnest pledged that lawmakers will receive classified briefings on the bilateral pacts. “Our negotiators will, in a classified setting, have a conversation with those members of Congress about what exactly the IAEA is seeking,” he said.

Some day.

.

.

Leftist Nightmare Update: IRS Might Not Refund $38M In Overpaid ObamaCare Fines

IRS Might Not Refund $38M Overpaid ObamaCare Fines – Sweetness & Light

.

.
Fines? What fines? Those are ‘shared responsibility payments.’

From the Washington Free Beacon:

300,000 Taxpayers Overpaid Obamacare Fine by $38 Million, IRS May Not Return Money

By Morgan Chalfant | July 15, 2015

Approximately 6.6 million U.S. taxpayers paid a penalty for not having health insurance imposed this year under Obamacare, and hundreds of thousands of them overpaid the fine.

Bloomberg reported Wednesday that the number of taxpayers paying the fine, which was put in place to encourage Americans to enroll in health coverage, exceeded the Obama administration’s initial estimate by 10 percent.

Funny how all of the ‘bad stuff’ about Obama-Care was underestimated. What are the odds?

According to a new report from the National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent organization within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the average fine paid by taxpayers was $190. The penalty, however, can reach up to 1 percent of one’s income.

The report also discovered that about 300,000 taxpayers, most of whom should have been deemed exempt because of low income, overpaid the fine by $35 million. The average amount overpaid by each individual was $110.

So Obama-Care even fined the poor. What a surprise.

The IRS has yet to decide whether or not it will return the funds to those who overpaid…

According to the report, approximately 10.7 million U.S. taxpayers filed for exemption from the penalty…

And never mind that most of these people getting exemptions are the very people Obama-Care was supposed to get to pay their ‘shared responsibility.’

.

.

Obama’s Insane Nuke Deal Causes Russians To Lift Ban On Missile Sales To Iran – Israelis Not Happy Campers

Israel Slams Russia Decision To Lift Iran Missile Ban – Yahoo News

.

.
Israel on Monday denounced Russia’s decision to lift a ban on supplying Iran with sophisticated S-300 air defence missile systems as proof of Tehran’s newfound “legitimacy” following nuclear talks.

“This is a direct result of the legitimacy that Iran is receiving from the nuclear deal that is being prepared, and proof that the Iranian economic growth which follows the lifting of sanctions will be exploited for arming itself and not for the welfare of the Iranian people,” Israeli Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said in a statement.

Moscow’s decision to lift the ban comes after a major breakthrough in talks between world powers and Iran over its disputed nuclear programme, which saw the parties agreeing on a framework deal on April 2.

The emerging deal, which is to be finalised by June 30, would see Iran curtail its nuclear activities in exchange for relief from punishing economic sanctions, sparking a welter of harsh criticism from Israel.

“As Iran disavows clause after clause of the framework agreement… the international community has already begun implementing easing measures,” he railed.

“Instead of demanding that Iran stop its terrorist activity in the Middle East and the world, it is being allowed to arm itself with advanced weaponry that will only increase its aggression.”

Russia is a key supplier of arms to the Arab world, including governments which do not recognise the Jewish state, and its weapons exports have long been of concern to Israeli leaders who have sought to persuade Moscow to scale down its cooperation Iran and Syria.

The S-300 batteries are advanced ground-to-air weapons that can take out aircraft or guided missiles.

The decree, signed by President Vladimir Putin on Monday, ends a ban on the deliveries of S-300 missiles to Iran which was put in place in 2010 after the United Nations slapped sanctions on the Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme, including barring the sale of hi-tech weaponry.

.

.

Federal Judge Not A Happy Camper After Being Lied To About Executive Amnesty By Obama Regime

Federal Judge Admonished DOJ Over Apparent Deception: ‘I Was Made To Look Like An Idiot’ – Breitbart

.

.
The U.S. Government lied to a federal judge, misrepresented facts and illegally gave 100,081 illegal aliens immigration status despite a pending lawsuit and an injunction. That is the argument that attorneys representing Texas and more than two dozen other states made.

During the heated court hearing Andrew Hanen, a U.S. District Court Judge, said that the apparent violation had made him look like an idiot since he initially believed the U.S. Government.

In a heated court hearing Angela Colmonero from the Texas Attorney General’s office stated that Texas had acted promptly in November 2014 upon learning of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty and had followed all the timelines set forth with a sense of urgency.

“This was done to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable damage to the state,” Colmonero said referring to the cost that the individuals would bring and to the incentive for further illegal immigration. “You can’t put toothpaste back in the tube.”

During the hearings leading to an injunction handed down by Judge Hanen, attorney’s with the Department of Justice claimed that if an injunction was filed nothing would be done. That wasn’t the case, the Texas attorney said.

“The defendant did the exact opposite and gave 100,000 renewals for a term of three years under the expanded DACA,” Colmonero said. “The defendant didn’t inform the court until March 3 – 15 days after the injunction was filed.”

According to Colmonero’s statements, the program known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) was implemented in 2012; however in November 2014 it was expanded, changing the time of the permits from two years to three years. Therefore the permits issued by the U.S. Government are a violation.

The coalition of states asked the court to give them early access as to the defendant’s documents and files since they couldn’t be taken at their word, Colmonero said.

DOJ attorney Kathleen Hardeck appeared nervous as she stuttered her response saying it was the terminology used that led to confusion, but once they saw that things could be misinterpreted they had tried to notify the court.

“When I asked you what would happen and you said nothing I took it to heart,” Hanen said. “I was made to look like an idiot. I believed your word that nothing would happen.”

During the hearing Hanen talked about possible penalties if, in fact, the evidence proved that the government had lied. He said it would probably not be financial since the taxpayer would be footing the bill over damages already made to them.

After hearing the arguments from both sides Hanen said he would issue a ruling in the near future.

.

.

*VIDEO* AlfonZo Rachel: Opposing Socialism Does Not Make You A Racist


.

.

Traitor John Kerry Now Says Obama Regime “Not Negotiating A Legally Binding Plan” With Iran

Kerry Now Says They Are “Not Negotiating A Legally Binding Plan” With Iran – Weasel Zippers

.

.
=============================================
Josh Rogin
@joshrogin

Kerry: “We are not negotiating a legally binding plan” with Iran.

11:20 AM – 11 Mar 2015
=============================================

The leader of the “treasonous” Republicans takes a victory lap:

=============================================
Tom Cotton
@SenTomCotton

Important question: if deal with Iran isn’t legally binding, then what’s to stop Iran from breaking said deal and developing a bomb?

11:37 AM – 11 Mar 2015
=============================================

.

.

Fox 5 News In San Diego Reports That Barack Obama Will Not Be Charged With Rape (Video)

Local TV Station Airs A Picture Of President Obama… But The Mistake Is Impossible To Miss – The Blaze

No, the president of the United States was not facing rape allegations.

While covering the story of a rape suspect having charges against him dropped on Friday, San Diego TV station KSWB-TV made a painful error: The station aired a picture of President Barack Obama with the story, complete with a “no charges” caption under his photo, the Times of San Diego reported.

.

.
“Yeah, there was an accident when they had an over-the-shoulder” display, KSWB assignment editor Mike Wille told Times of San Diego. “It wasn’t on purpose.”

The Times noted that KSWB did not note or apologize for the error during its newscast.

Watch the segment below:

.

.

.

HHS Report: 1.3 Million Obamacare ‘Enrollees’ May Not Even Be American Citizens

1.3 Million Obamacare ‘Enrollees’ May Not Even Be American Citizens, Admits HHS Report – Daily Sheeple

Trouble is brewing in Washington as those who still consider legitimate the national healthcare takeover known as Obamacare try to figure out which enrollees are even eligible for coverage. A new report issued by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) admits that nearly 1.3 million Obamacare enrollees, or about 16 percent of the overall total, cannot be verified for legal status in the U.S. – in other words, most, if not all, of them are illegal immigrants rather than American citizens.

.

.
The shocking figures can be found on page 11 of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report, entitled Marketplaces Faced Early Challenges Resolving Inconsistencies with Applicant Data. According to the figures, 1,295,571 “inconsistencies” – this is a politically correct way of implying missing or fraudulent data – found on Obamacare applications involved issues of citizenship, national status or lawful presence in the U.S., meaning applicants did not or could not verify this important information.

“The Federal marketplace was generally incapable of resolving most inconsistencies,” admits the report, noting that a large percentage of these faulty applications will likely never be resolved, at least not until the eligibility verification system becomes operable. “Without the ability to resolve inconsistencies in an applicant’s eligibility data, the marketplace cannot ensure that an applicant meets each of the eligibility requirements for enrollment in a [Qualified Health Plan] and when applicable, eligibility for insurance affordability programs.”

Nearly Half Of Total Obamacare Enrollees Cannot Be Verified As Eligible

What this implies is that the entire Obamacare program is nothing but a giant free-for-all, with absolutely no checks or balances in place to ensure that abuse and fraud don’t run rampant. Between abnormalities with income, employment verification and legal status in the U.S., it appears as though the bulk of Obamacare enrollees are either criminals, deadbeats or illegal aliens who don’t even belong in the country.

Of the roughly 8 million applicants who have signed up for Obamacare as of this writing, nearly 3 million of them cannot be verified by the current system as eligible, according to the HHS. And at this point in time, there is no way to ever verify them, as admitted by the Inspector General, further proving the massive swindle that has been levied on the American people by the Usurper-in-Chief who, ironically, has his own eligibility inconsistencies.

Four State-Run Exchanges Admit They Have No Way Of Verifying If Obamacare Enrollees Are Legal Citizens

Beyond the federal debacle, at least four state-run Obamacare exchanges are also incapable of verifying applicant eligibility. The HHS report explains that four of the 15 state marketplaces – Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon and Vermont – haven’t figure out a way to resolve their “inconsistencies,” either. Much of this is due to their enrollment systems never having been designed with the capacity to verify applicants, a major oversight (or, perhaps, a deliberate design flaw).

Three other states – Hawaii, Colorado and Minnesota – have also had problems with inconsistencies. But these states sloughed the mess onto their state Medicaid offices, which are now having to individually verify each application by hand.

“One year ago, conservatives warned that the Obama administration’s decision to use the so-called ‘honor system’ for income eligibility was merely a backdoor way to get as many individuals on the public dole as possible,” wrote Wynton Hall for Breitbart about the ongoing dilemma. “The Office of Inspector General determined that ‘the federal marketplace was generally incapable of resolving most inconsistencies.’”

.

.

Leftist Nutbag Pat Leahy: Forging Up To Two Passports Not A Crime Under Senate Amnesty Bill

Leahy: Senate Immigration Bill Says Forging Two Passports Is Not A Crime – CNS

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) admitted Wednesday that under the Senate immigration bill, forging up to two passports is not a crime, adding that the bill leaves the decision whether to charge someone with passport fraud up to the discretion of prosecutors.

.

On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, CNSNews.com asked Leahy, “One of the provisions has to do with passports, that’s an important component. Do you know how many passports someone is able to forge before it’s a crime?”

Leahy said, “Well, it depends upon which interpretation is being used. You could have one form which is two, but then there are other criminal conduct that would be involved with that.”

“Cause you give prosecutors a certain amount of discretion, you have two or three different crimes you have committed, so then it’s [up to] prosecutorial discretion which one they will charge. I mean, I spent eight years as a prosecutor. One of things you learn [is] the importance of that.”

Leahy made the remarks in an interview with CNSNews.com after he was asked how many passports someone could forge before it was a crime under Senate Bill 744, which passed on a 68-to-32 vote June 27. All Senate Democrats and 14 Republicans voted for the bill.

While not a member of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” group of senators who sponsored the bill, Leahy was a staunch supporter and voted for passage.

“With this legislation, we honor our American values,” Leahy said in a press release on the day the bill cleared the Senate.

“We honor the search of our forbearers for freedom, for prosperity, and for the promise that America has held out to so many for so long. Today is a good day for the Senate, and for the country. Today, with the help of many Senators, we will address a complex problem that is hurting our families, stifling our economy and threatening our security.”

In June, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Ia.) introduced three amendments “that would tighten criminal laws that are being weakened in the comprehensive immigration bill being debated by the Senate,” but amendment #45 regarding passport fraud was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee on an 8-10 vote. Title 18, Section 1541 of the U.S. Code provides for fines and imprisonment up to 25 years for granting, issuing, or verifying “any passport” without proper authority.

But Section 3707 of the nearly 1,200-page Senate immigration bill amends that section to impose criminal penalties only after a person fabricates “three or more” phony passports. (See S 744.pdf)

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.