Daily Archives: 3 June 2016

Of Course She Does

Posted on by
2

Recall the blatant dishonesty of Department of Justice lawyers.

Now Attorney General Loretta Lynch has chosen to fight District Judge Andrew Hanen’s order that her lawyers actually undergo documented ethics training—training that any pre-law pupil might undergo.

In filings Tuesday, the department said the order would “far exceed the bounds of appropriate remedies” and would cost the department millions.

Because requiring lawyers to understand the ethics of their profession is unreasonable for a DoJ lawyer.  Sure.

The Department of Justice responded in the court filing Tuesday, saying that it “emphatically” disagrees with the judge’s ruling, claiming that none of its lawyers intended to deceive.

Now Lynch is adding to the deliberate lies.  Of course her lawyers intended to deceive when they made representations to Hanen’s court that they knew were inaccurate or false.  Words are a lawyer’s stock in trade.  Lynch’s lawyers knew exactly what they were saying at the time they said those things, and they said them anyway.

The filing requests Hanen’s order be put on hold so federal lawyers can review.

No need to put Hanen’s order on hold.  It can be part of the lawyers’ ethics training plan.

In Tuesday’s filing, the DOJ estimated that the ethics training mandated would cost upwards of $7.8 million.

The convenience of the government is not relevant to whether the government’s lawyers should be sanctioned or to the nature of the sanction.  Inconvenience, in fact, is a necessary part of sanctioning.  On the other hand, to the extent this is an unreasonable cost for the government to bear, it would be entirely reasonable to require the misbehaving lawyers pay for their own training.

Compounding matters, the sanctions imposed by this Court…unjustifiably impose irreparable injury on…thousands of innocent third parties[.]

This is plain nonsense.  The only damage done thousands of innocent third parties was done by Lynch’s dishonest lawyers.  As this concerns Lynch’s beef that Hanen’s order is inappropriate, Lynch’s involvement of thousands of innocent third parties is nothing but a cynically dragged red herring.

How dare a mere judge question the Department of Justice?  Why, the nerve of that man.

Lies of the Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Chairman John Podesta:

What she thought would be a convenient way to communicate with family, friends and colleagues—by using one email account for both her work related and personal emails….

Which we know to be a lie, and that was confirmed in testimony by Clinton’s senior aid Cheryl Mills was compelled to provide (compelled because she didn’t have the integrity to testify voluntarily, as Clinton’s “promise” of full disclosure and transparency pressed her to do) to Judicial Watch:

Mills also testified under oath that the server existed before Clinton became secretary of state in 2009.

“President Clinton had established a server for the purposes of his own staff office, and…her email was subsequently put on that,” Mills said….

Podesta also had this on behalf of Clinton:

She believed she was following the practices of other Secretaries and senior officials.

That was another lie:

The IG report released last week found Clinton did not seek permission to use her personal account for official business as secretary of state—and would not have been approved to do so had she asked.

And

[T]he report stated that Condoleezza Rice did not use personal email for government business.  It said Colin Powell used personal email to connect with people outside the department—but he did not have a private server.

And here’s another lie:

Had Secretary Clinton known of any concerns about her email setup at the time, she would have taken steps to address them[.]

However,

The IG report also found that repeated warnings about cybersecurity were ignored and that staffers who expressed their concerns were told “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”

And this [emphasis added]:

Clinton consistently has claimed nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time. While technically correct, this distinction also appears misleading.  A January 2009 non-disclosure agreement signed by Clinton confirms her understanding that “classified information is marked or unmarked.”

Rather, it is the content and source that determine classification.

Elections have consequences.