THE JUICE WILL SOON BE ON THE LOOSE …
Yesterday, a four-member Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners voted unanimously to parole O.J. Simpson. He could be free as soon as October 1, 2017. OJ Simpson, one of the most polarizing individuals of our time will be let out of prison after serving 9 of 33 years for his involvement in the 2007 robbery at a Las Vegas hotel room. However, where it is right or wrong, pertains to his incarcerated crimes or not, people view Simpson for the heinous crime he got away with in the 1994 double murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. That’s just a fact. For all those yesterday in the news and on sports talk shows who stated we should get over it and that this is was justice, spare us the dribble, you were most likely in diapers when Nicole Brown Simpson nearly had her head cut off.
People will always be livid when it comes to O.J. Simpson, because they know that JUSTICE WAS NOT SERVED.
This is what People remember … A person who got away with murder
O.J. Simpson, the polarizing former football star, seemed to suggest he was ready to recede from the spotlight after succeeding in his quest for freedom after being incarcerated for nine years at a desert prison in northern Nevada.
Simpson, convicted of robbery and kidnapping, was granted parole Thursday — a unanimous vote by the four-member Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners reported instantly by national and international media. He could be free as soon as Oct. 1.
His release, too, is unlikely to go unnoticed. The moment Simpson received his fourth and final vote from the Nevada Board of Parole recommending release, he dropped his head, as if to give a quiet cheer of celebration to himself, before responding, “Thank you.”
Sorry, OJ will always be a pariah and by witness from his past acts, this narcissist will hardly stay out of the spotlight. Maybe now that Simpson is free, he can go back to looking for his former wife’s killer like he had promised to do.
Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for Records on AG Lynch and Bill Clinton’s Tarmac Meeting Last Year Prior to Election
WHAT WOULD WE DO WITHOUT THE FINE WORK OF THOSE AT JUDICIAL WATCH …
Judicial Watch has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice for the records on Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton’s meeting on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport prior to the 2016 presidential election and during the time in which then candidate Hillary Clinton’s email server was supposedly being investigated by the FBI. The FOIA request asks for all records related to the meeting held between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in 2016.
The government watchdog group Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking all records its has on the June 27, 2016 meeting between President Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch in her airplane, a meeting that occurred while the FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, a potential national security crime.
Yeah, no conflicts of interest here or gross appearance of impropriety here, move on.
Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice for records related to the meeting held between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in 2016 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-00421)).
Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the agency failed to respond to a June 29, 2016, FOIA request seeking:
- All records and/or transcripts of a meeting held between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton in June 2016.
- All records of communication sent to or from officials in the Office of the Attorney General regarding the meeting held between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton in June 2016.
- All records of communication sent to or from officials in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General regarding the meeting held between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton in June 2016.
- All references to the meeting held between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton contained in day planners, calendars and schedules in the Office of the Attorney General.
Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton on board a parked plane. The meeting occurred during the then-ongoing investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s email server, and only a few days before she was interview by the FBI. Lynch later admitted that the meeting with Bill Clinton “cast a cloud” over the Justice Department/FBI investigation. Not long afterward, FBI Director James Comey called Hillary Clinton’s actions “extremely careless” but did not recommend charges.
“The infamous tarmac meeting between President Clinton and AG Lynch is a vivid example of why many Americans believe the Obama administration’s criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton was rigged,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Now it will be up to Attorney General Sessions at the Trump Justice Department to finally shed some light on this subversion of justice.”
Judicial Watch requested the Justice Inspector General investigate the tarmac meeting.
Supreme Court Justice of the US Skipped President Trump’s Speech As She Has Done Every GOP President, But Attending Democrat One’s is AOK
ONE HAS TO QUESTION HOW AN INDIVIDUAL THAT IS SO POLITICALLY BIAS CAN ACTUALLY SIT ON THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND … SO MUCH FOR JUSTICE BEING BLIND.
Last night Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a no show for President Donald Trump’s first Address to Congress and it was expected. The 83 year old aging justice, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993 had no issue attending his joint speeches to Congress, nor Barack Obama’s. However, she was a no show for any of President George W. Bush’s speeches and was AWOL last night as well for President Trump’s first Address to Congress. t is one thing for a justice of the SCOTUS to not attend any of the presidential joint speeches to Congress or the State of the Union events, but for a justice to only attend for Democrat presidents and not of the GOP makes one scratch their head as to how their judicial judgements could be considered not politically bias. It is troubling for a justice of the SCOTUS to only skip the joint speeches of a particular party, no matter which party it is.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg always hugged President Barack Obama before his speeches to Congress. She doesn’t even plan to attend President Donald Trump’s first one.
Ginsburg, who called Trump a “faker” during his campaign, intends to skip Tuesday night’s speech, leaving it to five of her colleagues to represent the court.
Chief Justice John Roberts will join Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in attendance, court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg confirmed. All are regulars at the annual event. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito aren’t planning to attend, continuing their past practice.
Alito hasn’t gone to a speech since 2010, the year Obama criticized the justices’ just-issued Citizens United campaign-finance ruling. Obama accused the court of ignoring a century of precedent, a claim that prompted Alito to shake his head and mouth “not true” as Democratic lawmakers directly behind the justices rose to cheer.
Ginsburg, a 1993 appointee of Democrat Bill Clinton, also skipped Republican President George W. Bush’s speeches. She attended all eight of Obama’s.
However, the poetic justice to this partisan justice will be when President Donald J. Trump nominates her successor.
The Court substituted their judgement as to what constitutes a threat of American security for the president’s …
Donald Trump Responds to Appeals Court Ruling on Executive Order on Temp Travel Ban … “SEE YOU IN COURT”
TRUMP RESPONDS …
President Donald Trump responded to the 9th circus ruling to this executive order calling for a temporary travel ban by tweeting, “SEE YOU IN COURT”. And so they will as the 9th Circuit court of appeals has a 80% reversal rate at the United States Supreme Court. One has to wonder why they even have this court of appeals if that many decisions are overturned and reversed. It is obvious that this court is political and operates outside the U.S. Constitution.
“SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” He later said to reporters that the judges had made “a political decision.”
“We have a situation where the security of our country is at stake, and it’s a very, very serious situation, so we look forward, as I just said, to seeing them in court,” he said.