Victory: Supreme Court Votes 4-4 on DACA, Obama Angry

Posted on June 23, 2016June 23, 2016 by Denise Simon

The lower court decision stands. Obama said many times he did not have the authority and in the end, used executive action anyway. The Supreme Court, well 4 Justices stood with the Constitution and rule his action was not within his authority.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott had this response:

The Solicitor General, representing the Government in this case is Donald Verilli. As an aside, he resigned on June 2, and his last day is June 24th.

Now comes Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson on the Supreme Court decision:

Statement by Secretary Johnson on Today’s Supreme Court Decision

Release Date:

June 23, 2016

DHS: Like the President, I am disappointed by the Supreme Court’s 4-4 vote today in United States v. Texas. The case concerns Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The 4-4 impasse leaves the court of appeals ruling in place and effectively prohibits us from implementing these important initiatives.

It is important to emphasize that this ruling does not affect the existing DACA policy, which was not challenged. Eligible individuals may continue to come forward and request initial grants or renewals of DACA, pursuant to the guidelines established in 2012.

We are also moving forward on the other executive actions the President and I announced in November 2014 to reform our immigration system. This includes our changes to the Department’s immigration enforcement priorities. Through these priorities, we are more sharply focused on the removal of convicted criminals, threats to public safety and national security, and border security. We have ended the controversial Secure Communities program. We are expanding policies designed to help family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents stay together when removal would result in extreme hardship. And we have taken several actions to make it easier for international students, entrepreneurs, and high-skilled immigrants to contribute to the U.S. economy.

The President and I remain committed to fixing our broken immigration system. We are disappointed by the 4-4 vote in the Supreme Court today, and the gridlock in Congress that has stood in the way of more lasting, comprehensive immigration reform.

*****

FNC: The judgment could have significant political and legal consequences in a presidential election year highlighted by competing rhetoric over immigration. As the ruling was announced, pro-immigration activists filled the sidewalk in front of the court, some crying as the ruling became public. Critics of the policy touted the decision as a strong statement against “executive abuses.”

“The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement, adding that the ruling rendered Obama’s actions “null and void.”

Obama, though, said the decision “takes us further from the country that we aspire to be.”

He stressed that earlier changes his administration made to immigration policy are not affected, but acknowledged his most recent 2014 changes cannot go forward and additional executive actions are unlikely.

While Obama accepted the ruling, he also made his own full-court press, saying the split decision underscores the importance of the current court vacancy and the appointment of a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, to “break this tie.” So far, Senate Republicans have not considered Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.

Meanwhile:

As Cubans rush through Texas, immigration policy questioned

From February to May, about 4,000 Cubans crossed over the Rio Grande River into Texas’ westernmost city. The number of Cubans coming to the U.S. has increased dramatically in the last few years. And it continues to rise, with about 77,000 Cubans entering between October 2014 and April 2016. Many are forgoing the typical route across the Florida Straits by boat to Miami and are traveling by foot, bus, boat and plane through Central America and Mexico to the Southwest border. More here.

**** The 108 Page Supreme Court decision is here.

Pentagon Releases bin Ladin’s Bodyguard to Montenegro

Posted on June 23, 2016June 23, 2016 by Denise Simon

Pentagon transfer Abdel Malik Ahmed Abdel Wahab Al Rahabi (#Yemen 1979) from Guantanamo Bay to #Montenegro.

The transfer of Abdel Malik Ahmed Abdel Wahab al-Rahabi leaves 79 detainees remaining at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo. Al-Rahabi, 37, who was brought to Guantanamo in January 2002, had been accused of being a bodyguard for the late al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, according to Pentagon documents. More from Reuters.

Related reading: Baltics, Montenegro and NATO

In part from LWJ: US officials repeatedly warned that Rahabi was a threat. Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), President Obama’s Guantanamo Review Task Force, and a Periodic Review Board (PRB) all deemed Rahabi too dangerous to transfer. Curiously, another PRB approved Rahabi’s transfer in late 2014, just months after the same body said his continued detention remained necessary to mitigate the threat he posed.

According to a leaked threat assessment, dated Apr. 28, 2008, Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) concluded Rahabi was a “high” risk who is “likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies.”

JTF-GTMO found that Rahabi was a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and was also related to the al Qaeda founder by marriage.

Rahabi “swore bayat (oath of allegiance)” to Bin Laden and “received specialized close combat training for his role as a suicide operative in an aborted component” of the 9/11 hijackings, according to JTF-GTMO’s threat assessment.

US officials concluded that Rahabi was one of several al Qaeda members “designated as suicide operatives in a plot to hijack US air carriers traveling across Southeast Asia and destroy them in midair.” The hijackings were initially intended to coincide with al Qaeda’s attacks on the East Coast of the US, but bin Laden reportedly canceled them because he feared the two parts of the operation would be too difficult to synchronize.

JTF-GTMO’s analysts concluded that Rahabi “participated in hostilities against US and Coalition forces and was captured with a group referred to as the ‘Dirty 30,’ which included [bin Laden] bodyguards and “a jihadist “assessed” to be the would-be 20th hijacker on 9/11. The latter individual is Mohammed al Qahtani, who is still detained at Guantanamo. Qahtani was denied entry into the US in August 2001 and eventually returned to South Asia. Qahtani was captured by Pakistani forces in December 2001 as he and more than two dozen others, including Rahabi, attempted to flee the Battle of Tora Bora.

For these reasons and more, JTF-GTMO recommended that Rahabi be retained in US custody.

President Obama’s Guantanamo Review Task Force also determined that Rahabi was too dangerous to transfer.

The task force, which concluded its work in January 2010, recommended that Rahabi be held in “[c]ontinued detention pursuant to the [2001] Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

A Periodic Review Board (PRB) established by the Obama administration reevaluated Rahabi’s case in early 2014. The PRB determined on Mar. 5, 2014 that “continued law of war detention of” Rahabi remained “necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.”

That is, the PRB concluded that Rahabi was too much of a risk to transfer as well, just as JTF-GTMO and President Obama’s task force had before hand. [See LWJ report, Review board rules against Guantanamo detainee.]

Hearing Scheduled on Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism

Posted on June 23, 2016June 23, 2016 by Denise Simon

In part from Conservative Review: Next Tuesday, June 28, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, will conduct a hearing investigating the willful blindness on the part of the relevant law enforcement agencies to domestic Islamic terror networks. The subject of the hearing is “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts To Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism.”

Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at a press conference that the motives of the Orlando jihadist might never be known and that “our most effective response to terror…is unity and love.” This comes on the heels of the government’s attempt to redact any mention of Islamic rhetoric in the 911 call and DHS releasing another internal document scrubbing all references to Islamic terror. Just this week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a front group for Hamas, was allowed to sit in on FBI interviews with members of the Fort Pierce mosque. The FBI was supposed to cut ties with CAIR, and DOJ was supposed to prosecute them in 2009 following the Holy Land Foundation trial, in which CAIR was implicated as a co-conspirator, yet they are granted full access to FBI counter-terrorism investigations.

This hearing will likely focus on which figures within the federal government worked to squelch any research connecting the dots between local Muslim Brotherhood officials, these individual terrorists, and foreign terror networks. Senators on the committee now have an opportunity to expose the Muslim Brotherhood influence within DHS and the FBI, their invidious “Countering Violent Extremism” Agenda, and their hand in covering up counter-terrorism investigations. They can demonstrate how the federal government has hamstrung local law enforcement by refusing to cooperate and share information regarding jihadists living in their communities.

Most importantly, this is the first opportunity to finally change the narrative from the false discussion about guns, which has nothing to do with Islamic Jihad. Hopefully, this committee hearing will be the beginning of a concerted effort for the legislative branch to actually engage in some critical oversight of the perfidious actions within the top echelons of federal law enforcement. The fact that GOP leaders in the House and Senate are not pushing multiple hearings and legislation dealing with this issue is scandalous, but unfortunately, not unexpected. Full story and audio is found here from Conservative Review.

****

“Based on open-source research conducted on a list provided by the Department of Justice, the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest has determined that at least 380 of the 580 individuals convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014, were born abroad.” More here.

Further: In June 2016, CIA Director John Brennan testified that ISIS “is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including in refugee flows, smuggling routes and legitimate methods of travel.”

· In March 2016, the top U.S. military commander in Europe—Air Force General Philip Breedlove—told a Senate Committee that ISIS is infiltrating the ranks of refugees entering Europe, and that terrorists, returning foreign fighters and criminals are now part of the “daily” refugee flow.

· In September 2015, when asked if ISIS could infiltrate the refugees, Obama’s former top envoy on the coalition to defeat ISIS, General John Allen told ABC News, “I think we should watch it. We should be conscious of the potential that Daesh (aka ISIS) may attempt to embed agents within that population.”

· In October 2015, FBI Director James Comey said during a House Committee on Homeland Security hearing that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct thorough background checks on all of the 10,000 Syrian refugees that the Obama administration says will be allowed to come to the U.S.

In September 2015, the US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper said “We don’t obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees.”

· In September 2015, State Department Spokesman John Kirby admitted it’s “possible” for those with ISIS ties to sneak in the US through the refugee program.

· In February 2015, when asked by Rep. Michael McCaul if bringing in Syrian refugees could pose a risk to Americans, Deputy Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Nicholas Rasmussen said “It’s clearly a population of concern.”

· In February 2015 assistant director for the FBI, Michael Steinbeck said in a House Homeland Security hearing that he was “concerned” that bringing in Syrian refugees could pose a greater risk to Americans.

· In April 2015 House Homeland Security Committee Chairman, Rep. Michael McCaul said, “The intelligence community has briefed me that [terrorists] want to exploit the refugees — [that] terrorists want to exploit the refugee program to infiltrate and get in.”

Per Documents, State Dept. Knew About Hillary Server

Posted on June 23, 2016June 23, 2016 by Denise Simon

Emails: State Dept. scrambled on trouble on Clinton’s server

WASHINGTON (AP)— State Department staffers wrestled for weeks in December 2010 over a serious technical problem that affected emails from then-Secretary Hillary Clinton’s home email server, causing them to temporarily disable security features on the government’s own systems, according to emails released Wednesday.

The emails were released under court order Wednesday to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over access to public records related to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s service as the nation’s top diplomat between 2009 and 2013.

The emails, reviewed by The Associated Press, show that State Department technical staff disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses. They were trying urgently to resolve delivery problems with emails sent from Clinton’s private server.

“This should trump all other activities,” a senior technical official, Ken LaVolpe, told IT employees in a Dec. 17, 2010, email. Another senior State Department official, Thomas W. Lawrence, wrote days later in an email that deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin personally was asking for an update about the repairs. Abedin and Clinton, who both used Clinton’s private server, had complained that emails each sent to State Department employees were not being reliably received.

After technical staffers turned off some security features, Lawrence cautioned in an email, “We view this as a Band-Aid and fear it’s not 100 percent fully effective.”

The AP initially reported Wednesday that the emails described security features being turned off on Clinton’s own private server, but State Department spokesman John Kirby clarified hours later that the emails described “a series of troubleshooting measures to the department’s system — not Secretary Clinton’s system — to attempt to remedy the problem.”

The emails were released under court order Wednesday to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over access to public records related to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s service as the nation’s top diplomat between 2009 and 2013.

Clinton has repeatedly denied there is any evidence her private email server ever was breached. Her campaign did not immediately provide comment Wednesday.

Days after the technical crisis, on Jan. 9, 2011, an IT worker was forced to shut down Clinton’s server because he believed “someone was trying to hack us.” Later that day, he wrote, “We were attacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min.” It was one of several occasions when email access to Clinton’s BlackBerry smartphone was disrupted because her private server was down, according to the documents.

The AP reported last year that in the early morning hours of Aug. 3, 2011, Clinton received infected emails, disguised as speeding tickets from New York. The emails instructed recipients to print the attached tickets. Opening an attachment would have allowed hackers to take over control of a victim’s computer.

In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department’s inspector general concluded that Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers. Her aides twice brushed aside concerns, in one case telling technical staff “the matter was not to be discussed further,” the report said.

The State Department has released more than 52,000 pages of Clinton’s work-related emails, including some that have since been classified. Clinton has withheld thousands of additional emails, saying they were personal. The emails released Wednesday were not made available until after the inspector general’s office published its report, and Judicial Watch asked a federal judge to force the State Department to turn them over.

The case is one of about three dozen lawsuits over access to records related to Clinton’s time as secretary, including one filed by the AP. As part of its ongoing suit, lawyers from Judicial Watch on Wednesday questioned Bryan Pagliano, a former IT staffer for Clinton who helped set up the server, under oath. According to the group, Pagliano repeatedly responded to questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as he did last year before a congressional committee.

The FBI is also investigating whether Clinton’s use of the private email server imperiled government secrets. It has recently interviewed Clinton’s top aides, including former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and Abedin.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said in a speech Wednesday that Clinton’s email server “was easily hacked by foreign governments.” Trump cited no new evidence that hackers had successfully breached Clinton’s server, but he said unspecified enemies of the United States were in possession of all her emails.

“So they probably now have a blackmail file over someone who wants to be President of the United States. This fact alone disqualifies her from the presidency,” Trump said. “We can’t hand over our government to someone whose deepest, darkest secrets may be in the hands of our enemies.”

**** The lies, the lies…

State Department Memo Conflicts With Claims From Top Security Official

State Department official claimed he did not know about private Hillary server

FreeBeacon: State Department official who told Congress he had no knowledge of Hillary Clinton’s private email server was included on an internal memo that discussed the server’s installation on March 17, 2009, the day it was allegedly set up.

The memo and other documents published by the watchdog group Judicial Watch on Wednesday conflict with claims that State Department security official John Bentel was unaware of Clinton’s personal email server.

Bentel has declined through his attorney to answer questions about the server from the Senate Judiciary Committee, citing a lack of knowledge. The committee has repeatedly sought testimony from Bentel over the past several months.

“According to his attorney, Randall Turk, Mr. Bentel knew nothing about the server at the time,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley in floor remarks on May 26. “Mr. Bentel’s attorney claimed that his client only learned of the controversial email arrangement after it was reported in the press.”

Bentel’s attorney did not respond to request for comment.

The March 17, 2009 server memo was emailed Bentel and three other State Department security officials from a department IT officer. It was headlined “Secretary Residential Installation Hotwash.” The term “hotwash” is a reference to a briefing that takes place after a consequential event.

The first bullet point on the memo discussed Clinton’s “Unclassified Partner System,” which identified a server in the “basement telephone closet.”

Clinton’s email server was reportedly set up on March 17, 2009, and she did not turn over any emails to the State Department that were sent or received before that date.

Judicial Watch received a copy of the memo, as well as other documents, as part of an ongoing public records lawsuit against the State Department. The document was previously mentioned in a State Department Inspector General report last month, which outlined extensive failures in the department’s public records process. However, the report did not list the recipients of the memo.

Other documents mentioned in the IG report raise additional questions about Bentel’s knowledge of Clinton’s server, according to Grassley. The report cited two State Department staffers who allegedly expressed concerns about the security of the setup to Bentel and were told to stop discussing the issue.

The Judiciary Committee chairman sent a letter to Bentel’s attorney on June 3, citing the discrepancies and again requesting an interview.

“At no time since I informed you of what we have learned from our interviews has Mr. Turk amended his position that you have ‘no memory or knowledge’ of these matters,” wrote Grassley.

“Based on the OIG report, it appears that your attorney’s representations to the Committee may have been false and misleading,” he added. “If the testimony to the Inspector General is true, then you did know of Secretary Clinton’s non-government email server and her private email use.”

Turk responded on June 10 to say his client “respectfully declines this invitation, as he has with prior invitations,” adding that Bentel had already discussed the issue with the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

DoJ: National Healthcare Fraud Takedown

Posted on June 22, 2016June 22, 2016 by Denise Simon

In what the Justice Department is calling the largest takedown of healthcare fraud in U.S. history, federal authorities on Wednesday brought charges against 301 people for $900 million in false billings.

Among those charged includes 61 doctors, nurses, and other licensed medical professionals who, among other crimes, allegedly committed money laundering, identity theft, and Medicare Part D pharmacy fraud. Across the country, 23 states and 36 federal districts coordinated with the Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services to go after the alleged fraud schemes.

The defendants allegedly submitted Medicare and Medicaid claims the Justice Department said “were medically unnecessary and often never provided.” Some of the defendants were paid kickbacks for providing information for fraudulent bills. At least 28 doctors were among those charged on Wednesday. More from Atlantic.

Lynch/Justice Department: Good morning everyone and thank you all for being here. I am joined by several key leaders in our nation’s efforts to address health care fraud: Department of Health and Human Services Secretary [Sylvia] Burwell; Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division [Leslie] Caldwell; United States Attorney [Wifredo] Ferrer of the Southern District of Florida; FBI Associate Deputy Director [David] Bowdich; HHS Deputy Inspector General for Investigations [Gary] Cantrell; DCIS Acting Director [Dermot] O’Reilly; and [Shantanu] Agrawal, Deputy Administrator and Director of the Center for Program Integrity at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

We are here today to announce a significant step in the federal government’s ongoing work to keep our nation’s health care system free of fraud and exploitation and to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used lawfully and appropriately. Over the last three days, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force – a joint effort between the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services – executed a significant nationwide health care fraud takedown. This action involved charging or unveiling charges against approximately 300 defendants in 36 federal districts for their alleged participation in a variety of schemes involving more than $900 million in fraudulent billings, making this the largest takedown in the Strike Force’s nine-year history.

The defendants named in these charges include doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists and home health care providers. They are accused of a wide range of serious crimes, from conspiring to commit health care fraud to making false statements and from bribery to money laundering. They submitted dishonest claims, charged excessive fees and prescribed unnecessary drugs. One group of defendants controlled a network of clinics in Brooklyn that they filled with patients through bribes and kickbacks. These patients then received medically unnecessary treatment, for which the clinic received over $38 million from Medicare and Medicaid – money that the conspirators subsequently laundered through more than 15 shell companies. In another case, a Detroit clinic billed Medicare for more than $36 million, even though it was actually a front for a narcotics diversion scheme. And yet another defendant took advantage of his position in a state agency in Georgia by accepting bribes and recommending the approval of unqualified health providers. These are just a few examples of the criminals that we targeted in this operation and although the specific nature of their wrongdoing varied from case to case, all of them betrayed the basic principles of their professions.

In addition to the usual patterns of fraud and deception that we’ve encountered in the past, we also saw new trends emerging in this year’s charges. For instance, in a number of cases involving the Medicare prescription drug benefit program known as Part D, we saw new evidence of identity theft, including the use of stolen doctors’ IDs to prepare fake prescriptions. We have also seen a growing number of cases involving compounded medications, which are combinations of two or more drugs prepared by a licensed professional. In recent years, the cost of these drugs has grown exponentially, making them a more attractive target for criminals looking to exploit them for profit.

As this takedown should make clear, health care fraud is not an abstract violation or benign offense. It is a serious crime. The wrongdoers that we pursue in these operations seek to use public funds for private enrichment. They target real people – many of them in need of significant medical care. They promise effective cures and therapies, but they provide none. Above all, they abuse basic bonds of trust – between doctor and patient; between pharmacist and doctor; between taxpayer and government – and pervert them to their own ends. The Department of Justice is determined to continue working to ensure that the American people know that their health care system works for them – and them alone.

In tackling these challenges, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force relies on close cooperation between the federal, state and local, governments. Since 2014, the Justice Department’s Criminal Division has organized an annual National Health Care Fraud Training Conference for Assistant U.S. Attorneys and state and federal law enforcement officers, which has substantially expanded the reach of our actions. More than 20 non-Strike Force U.S. Attorney’s Offices participated in this year’s takedown, helping us to combat health care fraud in a total of 30 federal districts nationwide, from Alaska to Florida. We were also assisted by approximately 20 state Medicaid Fraud Control Units, a reflection of the close partnership between state and federal authorities in combatting health care fraud – a partnership that we will continue to strengthen in the days ahead.

I want to thank my colleagues in the FBI, the Criminal Division and U.S. Attorneys’ Offices for their ongoing efforts to combat health care fraud. I want to thank all of the state and local law enforcement officers across the country who participated in this complex and fast-moving takedown. And I look forward to continuing our work together in the days ahead.

At this time, I’d like to turn things over to Secretary Burwell, who has been a dedicated leader and indispensable partner in this critical work and who will provide additional details on today’s announcement.