Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch Was the One Who Let Russian Lawyer into US before She met with Trump Team
HMM, THE PLOT THICKENS … WHY DOES ALL THE CORRUPTION, COLLUSION AND THINGS THAT DON’T SMELL RIGHT COME BACK TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?
Inquiring minds wanted to know how Moscow attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya got into the country, now we know. As reported at The Hill, it was the Obama Justice Department that enabled Natalia Veselnitskaya to enter the country without a visa and provide the intrigue in the Russia-Trump investigation. So was this a set up? Here we have a witch hunt against resident Donald Trump and all people connected to him with regards to Russia, but yet it was the Obama administration who let the fox in the hen house. REALLY? The same Obama administration who knew about the supposed Russian hacking and did nothing about it. Who is beginning to sense a trend?
Maybe we need to investigate the 8 years of Obama and see what they really did and the damage they caused to the United States?
The Russian lawyer who penetrated Donald Trump’s inner circle was initially cleared into the United States by the Justice Department under “extraordinary circumstances” before she embarked on a lobbying campaign last year that ensnared the president’s eldest son, members of Congress, journalists and State Department officials, according to court and Justice Department documents and interviews.
This revelation means it was the Obama Justice Department that enabled the newest and most intriguing figure in the Russia-Trump investigation to enter the country without a visa.
Later, a series of events between an intermediary for the attorney and the Trump campaign ultimately led to the controversy surrounding the president’s eldest son.
That work was a far cry from the narrow reason the U.S. government initially gave for allowing Veselnitskaya into the U.S. in late 2015, according to federal court records.
The Moscow lawyer had been turned down for a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully but then was granted special immigration parole by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the limited purpose of helping a company owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, her client, defend itself against a Justice Department asset forfeiture case in federal court in New York City.
During a court hearing in early January 2016 as Veselnitskaya’s permission to stay in the country was about to expire, federal prosecutors described how rare the grant of parole immigration was as Veselnitskaya pleaded for more time to remain in the United States.
“In October the government bypassed ?the normal visa process and gave a type of extraordinary ?permission to enter the country called immigration parole,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Monteleoni explained to the judge during a hearing Jan. 6, 2016.
OBAMACARE IS A JOBS KILLER … HAS COST ABOUT 250,000 JOBS.
It is not a matter whether or not Obamacare has to be repealed, we have no choice. Obamacare is a lie when it comes to healthcare coverage and it is a jobs killer. Democrats have whined that Americans will lose healthcare coverage if Obamacare is repealed. Honestly America, we have no choice but to rid ourselves of this terrible law. It was not only a lie to the American people by Barack Obama, but a major jobs killer. We can’t afford to continues with this ironically named Affordable Healthcare Act when it is all but and in a death spiral. Thanks to Obama and the Democrat party, the hiring the 50th full-time employee effectively costs another $70,000 a year on top of the normal salary and benefits. Also, as Instapundit reminds us, it doesn’t save lives either.
In partnership with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, in March 2017 I was able to commission Hanover Research to survey small businesses nationwide regarding their hiring and compensation practices. The result was a sample of 745 small businesses, representing every major industry and together employing almost 50,000 people.
We asked managers (almost evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans) how many people each business employed and whether it offers health insurance. Many businesses, when they do not offer coverage, keep their payrolls just below 50 full-time employees and thereby narrowly escape the ACA’s penalty. This pattern is not visible among businesses that offer coverage.
When we followed up, the businesses employing just fewer than 50 often said the ACA caused them to hire less and cut hours below the full-time threshold. The penalty caused payrolls to shrink or prevented them from growing.
Nationwide, we estimate the ACA-inspired practice of keeping payrolls below 50 has cost roughly 250,000 jobs. This does not count jobs lost when businesses close (we didn’t survey closed businesses) or shrink because of other ACA incentives.
The tally of lost jobs is bound to grow because the penalty itself automatically grows and the IRS is still learning how to enforce it.
From The Liar in Chief: Barack Obama urges ‘Political Courage’ to save Un-Affordable Care Act & His Legacy
THE AUDACITY OF A LIAR!!!
Last night, Barack Obama called for members of Congress not to repeal his dismal and failed legacy as he called on them to exercise “political courage.” REALLY, political courage? You mean the political courage it took Obama to lie to the American people to get his failed healthcare law passed? You all remember that you would be able to keep your doctor and health insurance coverage if you wanted to. You remember that it would lower insurance premiums. How did that work our for you America? You mean it takes political courage to lie? Because America, that is what Obama and Democrats did to pass Obamacare. Don’t buy the lies. Obamacare is doomed to failure and would collapse upon itself had nothing been done.
Politifact Lie of the Year: ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’
OBAMA LIES … IF YOU LIKE YOUR HEALTHCARE PLAN YOU CAN KEEP IT
Barack Obama on Sunday night called on members of Congress to exercise the “political courage” to not repeal Obamacare — his first public comments about the law since the House voted to repeal it on Thursday, and a rare entry into the current political debate since leaving office.
“I hope they understand that courage means not simply doing what’s politically expedient, but doing what, deep in our hearts, we know is right,” Obama said, in a speech here at the John F. Kennedy Library accepting the Profiles in Courage award in honor of what would have been Kennedy’s 100th birthday.
“I expect to be busy, if not with a second career, at least a second act,” Obama said, promising more involvement.
Citing those who lost their seats after voting for the healthcare law in 2010, Obama described his “fervent hope” that current members “recognize it takes little courage to aid those who are already powerful, already comfortable, already influential — but it takes some courage to champion the vulnerable and the sick and the infirm, those who often have no access to the corridors of power.”
Obama: We will lower your premiums $2500 per family per year
Now the Democrat talking point lie is that Obamacare gave 21 million people healthcare coverage. Hmm, how many of those people had insurance coverage they liked and were forced off it and forced on to Obamacare?
WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA.
Former Obama Administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice Declines to Testify Before Senate Subcommittee
OF COURSE SUSAN RICE HAD NO PROBLEM GOING ON CNN AND DISCUSSING THE ISSUES …
As reported at Politico, Former Obama administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice on Wednesday declined a request to testify next week before a Senate subcommittee, citing separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches and the fact that the invitation was not bipartisan. SERIOUSLY? If the allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes is absolutely false, then why is former Obama administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice ducking the U.S. Senate subcommittee? Me thinks you have much to hide. Honestly, how does Susan Rice think that declining the request to testify on Russian hacking not make her look guilty as sin? So much for the most transparent administration ever.
Former Obama administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice on Wednesday declined a request to testify next week before a Senate subcommittee, citing separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches and the fact that the invitation was not bipartisan.
Rice’s decision to decline the invitation to testify on Russia’s election meddling came in a letter from her lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
The letter, first reported by CNN, notes that the invitation to testify came only from Graham and that Whitehouse “has informed us by letter that he did not agree to” the request, which Ruemmler calls “a significant departure from the bipartisan invitations extended to other witnesses.”
“Moreover,” Ruemmler writes, “Chairman Graham’s invitation was extended only after the hearing was noticed, less than two weeks before the hearing was scheduled to occur, and without consultation with Ambassador Rice, a professional courtesy that would customarily be extended to any witness.”
The Judiciary subcommittee is holding a hearing next Monday that will feature testimony from former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
Former Obama Administration National Security Adviser Susan Rice had no prob;em going on the lap dog media to discuss the issues but then declines to testify for a Senate subcommittee on Russian hacking. Watch the video below of the liberal MSM trying to defend the unmasking of names. So it is ok to go on the friendly bias MSM, but hell no to Senate where she would be sworn in.
MY PERSONAL BELIEF IS THAT ALL GOVERNMENT PENSIONS EXCEPT THOSE IN MILITARY SHOULD BE DONE AWAY WITH, INCLUDING CONGRESS …
Following Barack Obama’s $400,000 speech, Congress may pass legislation to cap presidential pensions. A bill like this had been previously introduced in 2016 in the House by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and in the Senate by Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa. However, with no opposition last year in the Senate or House or threat of presidential veto, at the last minute Obama vetoed the bill. Imagine that. Talk about self-serving. Why would Obama have vetoed such a bill? Hopefully this will pass the Congress once again and President Trump will sign it. If not, the American tax payers will be providing a pension to a billionaire by law.
Of course Congress should pass a similar bill on themselves as well.
And I am still bleeding the tax payer …
Last year, then-president Barack Obama vetoed a bill that would have curbed the pensions of former presidents if they took outside income of $400,000 or more.
So now that former president Barack Obama has decided to accept $400,000 for an upcoming Wall Street speech, the sponsors of that bill say they’ll reintroduce that bill in hopes that President Trump will sign it.
“The Obama hypocrisy on this issue is revealing,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and sponsor of the 2016 bill. “His veto was very self-serving.”
Chaffetz and Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, the sponsor of the companion Senate bill, say they will re-introduce the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act this month. The bill would cap presidential pensions at $200,000, with another $200,000 for expenses. But those payments would be reduced dollar-for-dollar once their outside income exceeds $400,000.
The issue isn’t a partisan one — or at least, it wasn’t last year. The bill passed both the House and Senate with no opposition, and no veto threat had come from the White House.
So when Obama’s veto came one Friday night last July — on the last day for him to sign or veto the legislation — it took lawmakers by surprise. It was the 11th of Obama’s 12 vetoes.
My personal belief is that all pensions should be done away with, except for the men and woman of our military. It is a means of payment that is long since obsolete. If presidents want to go on the speaking tour and some company is ignorant enough to pay $400K, so be it. However, the American people should never have to foot the bill of a pension of millionaires. That goes for Congress also. These positions were never intended to be a full time job forever. That is never what The Founders envisioned.
“The basic premise here is, if they want to go fishing in Utah for the rest of their lives, they can do that. They will be well compensated for the rest of their lives,” Chaffetz said. “If they’re going to make millions of dollars, the taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize them.”
Why are the American people paying pensions to millionaires? Who honestly thinks this makes any sense, no matter what political party the former president belongs to. Who thinks the Bush’s are hurting for money? How about the Clinton’s?
Under the Former Presidents Act, the nation’s five living former presidents — Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama — get a pension equal to the salary of a current cabinet secretary: $207,800 in 2017. They also get $150,000 to pay staff, and “suitable office space, appropriately furnished and equipped.”
In 2015, the entire benefit package ranged from $430,000 for Carter to $1.1 million for George W. Bush.
With Obama joining the club as of Jan. 20, the 2017 spending bill approved by the House Wednesday contained nearly $3.9 million for all the former presidents through Sept. 30 — a $588,000 annual increase.