AG Sessions Unwinds Obama’s Marijuana Policy

Oregon, one of the first states to push back:

SALEM, Ore. — An Oregon congressman who is one of a chief backer of legalized marijuana is urging a fight against U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session’s plan to open the gates to federal enforcement of laws against marijuana.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat who co-sponsored an amendment that prevents the Justice Department from interfering with states’ medical marijuana programs, called the move outrageous. He said anyone who cares about this issue should mobilize and push back strongly.

“One wonders if Trump was consulted—it is Jeff Sessions after all—because this would violate his campaign promise not to interfere with state marijuana laws,” he said in a prepared statement.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said rolling back federal marijuana policy, which has been largely non-interventionist, will disrupt the state’s economy. She said over 19,000 jobs have been created by the marijuana market in Oregon, which was the first state to decriminalize personal possession in 1973, legalized medical marijuana in 1998, and recreational use in 2014.

“The federal government must keep its promise to states that relied on its guidance,” she said in a statement. “My staff and state agencies … will fight to continue Oregon’s commitment to a safe and prosperous recreational marijuana market.”

More here.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday rescinded a policy begun under Democratic former President Barack Obama that had eased enforcement of federal marijuana laws, saying it would be up to federal prosecutors across the country to prioritize any such drug cases.

The Obama administration’s guidelines had “created a safe harbor for the marijuana industry to operate in these states and … there is a belief that that is inconsistent with what the federal law says,” a Justice Department official told reporters, referring to states that have legalized the drug.

***

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs

Thursday, January 4, 2018

Justice Department Issues Memo on Marijuana Enforcement

The Department of Justice today issued a memo on federal marijuana enforcement policy announcing a return to the rule of law and the rescission of previous guidance documents. Since the passage of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in 1970, Congress has generally prohibited the cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana.

 

In the memorandum, Attorney General Jeff Sessions directs all U.S. Attorneys to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to follow well-established principles when pursuing prosecutions related to marijuana activities. This return to the rule of law is also a return of trust and local control to federal prosecutors who know where and how to deploy Justice Department resources most effectively to reduce violent crime, stem the tide of the drug crisis, and dismantle criminal gangs.

 

“It is the mission of the Department of Justice to enforce the laws of the United States, and the previous issuance of guidance undermines the rule of law and the ability of our local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement partners to carry out this mission,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “Therefore, today’s memo on federal marijuana enforcement simply directs all U.S. Attorneys to use previously established prosecutorial principles that provide them all the necessary tools to disrupt criminal organizations, tackle the growing drug crisis, and thwart violent crime across our country.”

What Goes on in Sanctuary California Wont Stay in California

Image result for sanctuary california photo

Federal dollars going to California could or should be considered foreign aid. Why? Read on…

The federal government spends some $367.8 billion a year on California. That’s an average of about $9,500 for every woman, man and child in the state.

In truth, the money isn’t spread out evenly. About 56 cents of every federal dollar spent in California, according to the analysis, goes to health or retirement benefits — Social Security, Medicare and money for low-income residents’ health care through the Medi-Cal program.

Defense contracts are the next biggest slice of the pie, followed by paychecks to military and civilian government employees. From there, federal spending gets sprinkled among a number of programs run by the state government. Gov. Jerry Brown’s recent budget plan pegged those funds at a total of $105 billion, equivalent to about 58% of state taxpayer dollars to be spent in the fiscal year that begins on July 1.

A detailed report is here.

So, now that California is officially a sanctuary state under SB54, effective January1, 2018, those illegals, felons and those plotting threats with regard to national security can freely travel anywhere, this is not just a California problem.

Last year, when President Donald Trump issued an executive order to cut funding from counties that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities, Santa Clara County stood to lose $1.7 billion in federal funding. After fighting the order, a federal judge ruled in favor of the county. Now that the entire state is following the same guidelines, some leaders argue it could strengthen their position in future legal battles.

Not everyone is onboard, however. Some California sheriff’s departments have criticized the new sanctuary state law, saying it will lead to broad roundups that could lead to collateral arrests. More here.

Image result for sanctuary california photo

There is a key word in this new law, it is ‘prohibits’.

BILL SUMMARY

  • Prohibits state and local law enforcement from holding illegal aliens on the basis of federal immigration detainers, or transferring them into federal custody, unless they’ve been convicted in the last 15 years for one of a list of 31 crimes, or are a registered sex offender: if not, they may only be held with a warrant from a federal judge.
  • Prohibits state and local law enforcement from asking anyone about their immigration status.
  • Prohibits state and local law enforcement from sharing any information with federal immigration authorities that is not available to the general public.
  • Prohibits state and local law enforcement from using any of their money or personnel to “investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes”.
  • Prohibits state and local law enforcement from allowing federal immigration authorities to use space in their facilities.
  • Limits how and when state and local law enforcement can contract with federal immigration authorities.
  • Grants discretion to state and local law enforcement to cooperate even less with federal immigration authorities than the bill authorizes them to, but not more
  • Is near-universally recognized and described by both its supporters and opponents as a sanctuary state bill: protects illegal aliens at the expense of citizens, will increase illegal immigration to California, and sends the message that illegal aliens are welcome everywhere in the state.

***

State Senate Leader Kevin de Leon, the author of the bill, has argued that public safety will be undermined if the law isn’t passed. It is estimated that more than 2 million undocumented people live in California — with hundreds of thousands from Asia as well as Latin America — and advocates say many will be scared to interact with official institutions if they fear that will put them on federal immigration agents’ radar. They say individuals might not report violent crimes to police, might not send their kids to school or might not seek medical care at the local hospital. And there is some evidence to back that up: Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Police Department said that Latino communities were reporting fewer instances of sexual assault and domestic violence because of concerns about deportation under Trump. More here.

***

California Democratic state Senate president Kevin de León intends to enter California’s 2018 Senate race against Sen. Dianne Feinstein, three sources with knowledge of his plans say.

De León has begun calling labor leaders and elected officials to inform them of his plans, the sources said, and is expected to soon announce his campaign against Feinstein, a giant of California Democratic politics who has held the office since 1992.
The 50-year-old de León, who represents Los Angeles and is seen as a leading Latino voice in Democratic politics, is likely to campaign aggressively against President Donald Trump. He began signaling he could oppose Feinstein in late August, after she said Trump could “be a good president” and that he “can learn and change.” Feinstein later clarified that she is “under no illusion that it’s likely to happen and will continue to oppose his policies.” More here.
So who is this de Leon character? That is a challenge to determine and he has not been fully forthcoming on his own history. Check it out here. 
We also had this sexual harassment case, where de Leon was the roommate. Hummm. He was also a college dropout.

De León was the first and only person in his family to graduate from high school and attend college. He started out at the University of California Santa Barbara, but it was a challenge. He had moxie but no organizational skills, no practice at taking notes or studying for a test. He didn’t last long.

He couldn’t go back home and tell his mother of his failure. Instead, he went to work for One Stop Immigration Center, a nonprofit in Los Angeles that helps undocumented immigrants fill out paperwork and teaches them English, history and organizing.

Then, the Attorney General for California is Javier Beccera.  He is a loyal and dedicated supported of the Dream Act and will defend all cases against California becoming a sanctuary state. Meanwhile, remember that whole Pakistani IT case in Congress under Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

Enter again Javier Beccera.

Now-indicted former congressional IT aide Imran Awan allegedly routed data from numerous House Democrats to a secret server. Police grew suspicious and requested a copy of the server early this year, but they were provided with an elaborate falsified image designed to hide the massive violations. The falsified image is what ultimately triggered their ban from the House network Feb. 2, according to a senior House official with direct knowledge of the investigation.

The secret server was connected to the House Democratic Caucus, an organization chaired by then-Rep. Xavier Becerra. Police informed Becerra that the server was the subject of an investigation and requested a copy of it. Authorities considered the false image they received to be interference in a criminal investigation, the senior official said.

On Jan. 24, 2017, Becerra vacated his congressional seat to become California’s attorney general. “He wanted to wipe his server, and we brought to his attention it was under investigation. The light-off was we asked for an image of the server, and they deliberately turned over a fake server,” the senior official said.

“They were using the House Democratic Caucus as their central service warehouse … It was a breach. The data was completely out of [the members’] possession. Does it mean it was sold to the Russians? I don’t know,” the senior official said.

Capitol Police considered the image a sign that the Awans knew exactly what they were doing and were going to great lengths to try to cover it up, the senior official said. The House Sergeant-at-Arms banned them from the network as a result.

The senior official said the data was also funneled offsite via a Dropbox account, from which copies could easily be downloaded. Authorities could not immediately shut down the account when the Awans were banned from the network because it was not an official account. More here.

One last item…don’t forget to keep Eric Holder in the whole mix regarding California.

The California Senate is throwing its support behind Chicago in a lawsuit against the Justice Department over its plan to withhold federal money from “sanctuary cities,” which limit collaboration between state and local authorities with federal immigration agents.

Former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. and his firm, Covington & Burling, on Thursday filed a friend-of the-court brief on behalf of the state Senate in the federal case, saying sanctuary jurisdictions have policies consistent with federal law.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions, Holder says, does not have the constitutional authority to mandate that cities, counties or states participate in federal immigration efforts as a condition to receive their federal public safety awards.

The lawsuit, filed last month by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and city officials, asks a judge to block the Trump administration from enforcing three new conditions it included in petitions for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant money. The city uses the grant to buy police cars and other equipment, and to fund an anti-violence program.

Holder, who was said to have filed the brief pro-bono, was temporarily hired by the Senate and Assembly to serve as outside counsel to offer advice on the state’s legal strategy against the incoming administration. On Friday, a Covington & Burling spokeswoman said the firm remains “engaged with the California Senate on an ongoing basis.”

In the brief, Holder said the California Legislature has a particular interest in the Chicago case as it weighs Senate Bill 54, which seeks to limit state and local law enforcement agencies from using resources to question, detain and provide information on immigrants illegally in the country.

Covington & Burling analyzed the legislation this year and concluded that “states have the power over the health and safety of their residents and allocation of state resources.”

 

A Fresh Round of Lawsuits at DoJ and the Mueller Team

Politico: Attorneys for former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort filed a lawsuit Wednesday in federal court accusing special counsel Robert Mueller and the Justice Department of overreaching with criminal charges brought last fall including money laundering and tax evasion.

Image result for paul manafort photo

Manafort pleaded not guilty. His 17-page complaint contends the Russia special counsel exceeded the authority DOJ gave him in May to investigate any links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

Mueller’s office declined comment on the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A Justice Department spokeswoman pushed back in a statement: “The lawsuit is frivolous but the defendant is entitled to file whatever he wants.”

***

BI: A top ethics watchdog said Wednesday it is suing the Justice Department for all communications concerning the DOJ’s decision to share with the press text messages exchanged between two FBI employees, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, during the 2016 election.

Image result for strzok page photo

Many of the texts were overtly critical of President Donald Trump, and Strzok and Page mocked him at various points throughout the campaign, calling him an “idiot.”

Strzok and Page also disparaged other political leaders, like the Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders and former Attorney General Eric Holder. The texts concerning Trump, however, were quickly weaponized by the most vehement critics of special counsel Robert Mueller following the DOJ’s decision to release them to Congress and the press. That release came just one day before Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified before the House Judiciary Committee on December 13.

The department has failed to answer a significant lingering question stemming from that release: how it chose which texts, of the more than 10,000 the department obtained over the summer, to unveil publicly. Nor has it released additional messages that could provide context to the ones that were shared with lawmakers and reporters. DOJ has also not disclosed who authorized the release.

The lawsuit, filed by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington asked the “DOJ’s senior leadership offices for all communications concerning the decision” to give the texts to a small group of reporters the day before Rosenstein’s testimony. CREW filed the expedited request Wednesday after the DOJ failed to respond to their initial inquiry within 20 working days.

Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said on Wednesday that career DOJ employees hadn’t denied CREW’s FOIA request, but were examining the expedited review request based on “a two prong standard.”

CREW specified that the Freedom of Information Act request should include “communications with reporters regarding this meeting, communications with DOJ about whether, when, and how to share the text messages with reporters, communications with any member of Congress and/or their staff regarding this matter,” and information about who made the decision to release the texts to the media on December 12.

The DOJ’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, said in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Democrats in December that, absent any legal or ethical issues, he gave the DOJ a green light one month earlier to release the texts to Congress.

Horowitz said his office was not consulted before the DOJ shared the same texts with the press, but the DOJ has insisted it followed proper protocol before doing so.

“Senior career ethics advisers determined that there were no legal or ethical concerns, including under the Privacy Act, that prohibited the release of the information to the public either by members of Congress or by the Department,” Flores said in a statement last month.

But “cutting out the middle person and giving the texts directly to the press is an unusual step that is inconsistent with law enforcement norms and raises concerns that the purpose was political,” said William Yeomans, a former deputy assistant attorney general.

“The bottom line,” he said, “is that a release of raw evidence during an ongoing investigation breaches important norms and is a very bad idea.”

CREW said in its lawsuit that the OIG has indicated it will “continue to review records responsive to CREW’s request” and process it “as expeditiously as possible.”  The OIG declined to comment on Wednesday.

Read the full court filing below:

 

2018-1-3-1-Complaint1 by natasha on Scribd

Taking Names and Dollars at the UN on the Jerusalem Capital Vote

Image result for jerusalem capital vote UN

The U.S. will hold a reception for countries that did not vote last month to approve a United Nations (U.N.) resolution condemning the Trump administration’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said Tuesday.

“As I said in December, we won’t forget the Jerusalem vote,” Haley said at a news conference. “To that end, tomorrow night, we are having a reception for the countries who chose not to oppose the U.S. position [on Jerusalem].”

Image result for nikki haley reception invitation un jerusalem vote

The resolution, while not legally binding, amounted to an international effort to pressure the Trump administration to reconsider its Jerusalem decision, which reversed decades of U.S. policy in the region.

Among the countries to vote in favor of the resolution were key U.S. allies, like the United Kingdom, France and Germany. Other allies, like Canada, Australia and Mexico, abstained from the vote.

Among the nine countries to vote against the resolution were the U.S., Israel, Honduras, Guatemala and Palau, among others.

The Hill has reached out to the State Department for comment.

Jerusalem is considered sacred by Jews, Christians and Muslims, and Israel considers the city its eternal capital. But the Palestinians have long desired to establish east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state. More here.

*** So, beyond this…what about money to opposition countries?

Nikki Haley said that the United States would be “taking note” of the countries that “disrespected” America by voting in favor of the resolution, and President Trump said bluntly that the countries who don’t vote with the U.S. will have their funding cut.

So what if Trump actually gutted funding for those 128 countries? Well, The Daily Caller did the math.

According to USAid.gov, which catalogs all country-by-country financial obligations the U.S. holds with the rest of the world, Trump’s threat would save the United States more than $24 billion — in just one year.

The numbers below are based on what the U.S. was obligated to pay in 2016 to each of the countries that voted against us in the UN vote last week. Obligations are defined as the amount the United States is legally bound to pony up either in that year or the future.

The obligations may differ from the actual cash disbursements given in any given year, but they best reflect our financial obligations to the country in question.

Here are the countries that voted against the U.S., listed alphabetically, along with America’s 2016 financial obligation to each country:

Afghanistan — $5,060,306,050

Albania — $27,479,989

Algeria — $17,807,222

Andorra — $0

Angola — $64,489,547

Armenia — $22,239,896

Austria — $310,536

Azerbaijan — $15,312,389

Bahrain — $6,573,352

Bangladesh — $263,396,621

Barbados — $5,442,370

Belarus — $11,166,107

Belgium — $3,101,636

Belize — $8,613,838

Bolivia — $1,378,654

Botswana — $57,252,922

Brazil — $14,899,949

Brunei — $354,829

Bulgaria — $20,066,715

Burkina Faso — $74,469,144

Burundi — $70,507,528

Cabo Verde — $5,044,716

Cambodia — $103,194,295

Chad — $117,425,683

Chile — $2,266,071

China — $42,263,025

Comoros — $1,057,063

Congo — $8,439,457

Costa Rica — $14,650,552

Cote d’Ivoire — $161,860,737

Cuba — $15,776,924

Cyprus — $0

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) — $2,142,161

Denmark — $3,455

Djibouti — $24,299,878

Dominica — $616,000

Ecuador — $26,014,579

Egypt — $1,239,291,240

Eritrea — $119,364

Estonia — $15,937,295

Ethiopia — $1,111,152,703

Finland — $33,492

France — $4,660,356

Gabon — $31,442,404

Gambia — $3,197,858

Germany — $5,484,317

Ghana — $724,133,065

Greece — $8,508,639

Grenada — $690,300

Guinea — $87,630,410

Guyana — $9,691,030

Iceland — $0

India — $179,688,851

Indonesia — $222,431,738

Iran — $3,350,327

Iraq — $5,280,379,380

Ireland — $0

Italy — $454,613

Japan — $20,804,795

Jordan — $1,214,093,785

Kazakhstan — $80,418,203

Kuwait — $112,000

Kyrgyzstan — $41,262,984

Laos — $57,174,076

Lebanon — $416,553,311

Liberia — $473,677,614

Libya — $26,612,087

Liechtenstein — $0

Lithuania — $15,709,304

Luxembourg — $0

Madagascar — $102,823,791

Malaysia — $10,439,368

Maldives — $1,511,931

Mali — $257,152,020

Malta — $137,945

Mauritania — $12,743,363

Mauritius — $791,133

Monaco — $0

Montenegro — $2,118,108

Morocco — $82,023,514

Mozambique — $514,007,619

Namibia — $53,691,093

Nepal — $194,286,218

Netherlands — $0

New Zealand — $0

Nicaragua — $31,318,397

Niger — $144,122,239

Nigeria — $718,236,917

Norway — $100,000

Oman — $5,753,829

Pakistan — $777,504,870

Papua New Guinea — $14,836,598

Peru — $95,803,112

Portugal — $207,600

Qatar — $95,097

Republic of Korea (South Korea) — $3,032,086

Russia — $17,195,004

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines — $612,000

Saudi Arabia — $732,875

Senegal — $99,599,642

Serbia — $33,062,589

Seychelles — $223,002

Singapore — $468,118

Slovakia — $2,585,685

Slovenia — $715,716

Somalia — $274,784,535

South Africa — $597,218,298

Spain — $81,231

Sri Lanka — $27,192,841

Sudan — $137,878,835

Suriname — $232,672

Sweden — $1,269

Switzerland — $1,168,960

Syria — $916,426,147

Tajikistan — $47,789,686

Thailand — $68,182,970

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia — $31,755,240

Tunisia — $117,490,639

Turkey — $154,594,512

United Arab Emirates — $1,140,659

United Kingdom — $3,877,820

United Republic of Tanzania — $628,785,614

Uruguay — $836,850

Uzbekistan — $20,067,933

Venezuela — $9,178,148

Vietnam — $157,611,276

Yemen — $305,054,784

Zimbabwe — $261,181,770

TOTAL — $24,485,383,599

AVERAGE PER COUNTRY — $205,795,526

How the U.S. will Deal with Iran and the Protests

Image result for iran protests photo

The 2009 protest in Iran, named the Green Revolution launched after the Obama famous Cairo speech was much larger than the current protests in opposition to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

As an aside, one must ask what is Europe going to do regarding Iran?

According to Fox News, the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Steve Goldstein said the United States will post messages in Farsi on Facebook and Twitter to show Iranians that the United States supports the protests and Iranians in their quest for democracy. Goldstein reportedly said the U.S. is working to enable communication via these two platforms despite the Iranian government’s censorship efforts.

“Even though many social media sites have been blocked, Iranians can reach our State Department FB and Twitter sites, which are in Farsi, through VPN,” Goldstein reportedly said. “We would like Iran to open these legitimate forms of communication.”

Also on Tuesday, Goldstein told the Associated Press that the U.S. wants Iran’s government to “open these sites,” including Instagram and Telegram. “They are legitimate avenues for communication,” Goldstein reportedly said. “People in Iran should be able to access those sites.”

Image result for iran protests  photo

Related reading: What Washington can do to support Iran’s protesters

A leaked report provided to Fox News shows how Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei met with political leaders and heads of the country’s security forces to discuss how to tamp down on the deadly nationwide protests.

The report covered several meetings up to December 31 and was provided to the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) from what it said were high level sources from within the regime.

The meeting notes, which have been translated into English from Farsi, said the unrest has hurt every sector of the country’s economy and “threatens the regime’s security. The first step, therefore, is to find a way out of this situation.”

The report added, “Religious leaders and the leadership must come to the scene as soon as possible and prevent the situation (from) deteriorating further.” It continued, “God help us, this is a very complex situation and is different from previous occasions.”

As the protests continue to spread, the total number dead rose Monday to at least 13, including a police officer shot and killed with a hunting rifle in the central city of Najafabad.

According to NCRI sources and reports from within Iran, at least 40 cities across Iran witnessed protests Monday, including in the capital city of Tehran. These reports state that slogans heard included “Death to the dictator,” and “the leader lives like God while the people live like beggars.”

The regime’s notes claimed protesters “started chanting the ultimate slogans from day one. In Tehran today, people were chanting slogans against Khamenei and the slogans used yesterday were all against Khamenei.”

The notes added that the intelligence division of the feared Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is “monitoring the situation” and “working all in coordination to prevent protests.”

It says that a “red alert” has not yet been declared, which would lead to direct military intervention in the protests. But it then predicted that sending IRGC or the Bassij forces would “backfire” and would further “antagonize the protesters.”

Messages of support for the protesters from President Trump and other administration officials were also mentioned in the report. “The United States officially supported the people on the streets.” The notes continued by saying the U.S. and the West “have all united in support of the Hypocrites,” the regime’s pejorative description of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) which is one of the groups making up the NCRI.

The meeting notes that the leader of the NCRI, Maryam Rajavi, and the “Infidels,” which the translation says refers to “the West,” “are united for the first time.” It continued, “Maryam Rajavi is hoping for regime change,” saying the protests are “definitely organized,” and “the security forces report that the MEK is very active and is leading and directing them.”

The notes also warn that all those affiliated with leadership “must be on alert and monitor the situation constantly,” continuing, “the security and intelligence forces must constantly monitor the situation on the scene and conduct surveillance and subsequently report to the office of the leadership.”