An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.

Immigration: Senator Sessions Just Released Shocking Report

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest released a new chart on Thursday exclusively to Breitbart News that shows that the number of fugitive criminal aliens in America outnumbers the populations of every city in New Hampshire.

Fugitive Criminal Aliens Outnumber Populations Of All New Hampshire Cities

The release accompanying the chart shows:

Breitbart: According to data provided to the Subcommittee by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), there are at least 179,027 aliens in the United States who not only have been ordered to leave the country for violating our immigration laws, but who have also been convicted of a criminal offense, and have not left as required or been removed by ICE. Because of the Obama Administration’s lax enforcement policies, ICE removed only 63,539 of these criminal aliens from the interior of the United States in Fiscal Year 2015. At that rate, it would take nearly three years to remove just the existing criminal aliens who have been ordered removed from the United States (not future criminal aliens who will be ordered removed). While the ICE data includes only criminal aliens who have already been ordered removed, Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, estimates there are more than 2 million total criminal aliens in the United States.

The chart shows that the at-least-179,027 fugitive criminal aliens in the United States outnumber the populations of every single New Hampshire city. Manchester, New Hampshire, the most populous city, has 110,000 people — about 70,000 less people than fugitive criminal aliens in America — while Nashua has 87,000 people. Concord, New Hamsphire’s capital city, has 42,000 people and Dover has 31,000, while Rochester has 30,000.

The subcommittee, which is chaired by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) — the intellectual leader of the modern conservative movement — has essentially proved that no matter where anyone in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire lives, there are well more fugitive criminal aliens in the United States than the entire population of their home city. It will be interesting to see how this plays on the campaign trail in the final days.

Feb. 3, 2016

Refugee and Visa Programs

Homeland Security and State Department officials testified at a hearing on security concerns related to U.S. refugee and visa… read more

Homeland Security and State Department officials testified at a hearing on security concerns related to U.S. refugee and visa policy. Francis Taylor told committee members that the Department of Homeland Security was now looking at the social media accounts of refugees coming from “high risk” nations. The change was in response to the mass shooting by a husband and wife team in San Bernadino, California. The wife was a Pakistani immigrant in the U.S. on a visa

Justice Dept. Refuses to Comply With Court Order

The excuses are stupid…

Visitors look through books before Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to the library of the Schneerson family of Hasidic rabbis in the Jewish Museum in Moscow, Thursday, June 13, 2013. The vast collection of Jewish books and documents is the focus of a dispute between Moscow and Washington.
Photo: Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP

Updated at 1:10 p.m.

The U.S. Department of Justice is fighting efforts by a Jewish group to subpoena banks for information about assets owned by the Russian Federation, which owes more than $43 million in sanctions for rebuffing a U.S. judge’s order to return a collection of religious texts.

In papers filed on Wednesday night, the Justice Department warned that allowing lawyers for Agudas Chasidei Chabad of the United States to subpoena information about Russian assets from five financial institutions—JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and Computershare—could harm U.S. foreign policy interests. The subpoenas seek information about accounts that belong to the Russian government and to individuals, including President Vladimir Putin.

“Such efforts are antithetical to the goal of securing the return of the collection to Chabad, open the doors to reciprocal measures being taken against the United States by Russia, and would be out of step with international practice such that they could cause considerable friction with other foreign governments,” the Justice Department wrote.

The U.S. government supports Chabad’s claim to the Schneerson Collection—more than 12,000 books and manuscripts seized in Russia in the early 20th century, and 25,000 pages of texts stolen by the Nazis and then taken as war loot by the Soviet Red Army. Chabad has fought in court for the return of the collection for more than a decade. The Russian government stopped participating in the litigation in 2009.

The Justice Department has opposed efforts by Chabad’s lawyers to pursue Russian assets to force compliance with a 2010 court ruling that ordered Russia to return the collection to Chabad.

Steven Lieberman, a partner at Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck and a lead attorney for Chabad, said in a joint statement with lawyers from Lewin & Lewin in Washington that the Justice Department was “simply trying to re-litigate an issue it has already lost.”
“We are reviewing the government’s position, and we will consider asking [the judge] to take appropriate steps to ensure that our efforts to identify Russian assets will proceed without further interference,” Lieberman said. “However, it is shocking that the Departments of Justice and State  now appear to be representing Russian interests more aggressively than their private counsel ever did.”
In 2013, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington—over the Justice Department’s objections—entered a civil contempt order against Russia that included a fine of $50,000 per day. In September 2015, Lamberth entered a judgment for Chabad for $43.7 million, the sanctions total at the time.

With the judgment on record, Chabad’s lawyers ramped up their search for Russian assets in the United States. They subpoenaed the five financial institutions in December.

The Justice Department argues that even with Lamberth’s sanctions order in place, the court wouldn’t be allowed under federal law to actually enforce it. And if the court can’t enforce its order, the government said, Chabad shouldn’t be allowed to subpoena information or otherwise use the court system to investigate Russian assets that it can’t attach.

“The sanctions judgment at issue here … while resulting from Russia’s noncompliance with a default judgment ordering it to return certain property to Chabad, does not in and of itself grant any property rights to Chabad. Instead, it simply sanctions Russia for its noncompliance with the court’s specific performance order,” the Justice Department wrote.

In a Feb. 2 letter included in the government’s court papers from Katherine McManus, deputy legal adviser at the U.S. Department of State, to Justice Department Civil Division Principal Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Mizer, McManus wrote that the Chabad case had already created diplomatic problems.

“For several years, senior Russian officials have regularly raised this litigation with their U.S. counterparts. They have done so more frequently, and at higher levels, since the issuance of the district court’s sanctions order,” McManus wrote. The sanctions order and efforts to enforce it would only hurt efforts to negotiate the return of the Schneerson Collection, she added.

More broadly, the Justice Department said in its court papers that if Chabad were allowed to conduct “sweeping discovery” into Russian assets, it would create “friction” with other foreign governments and risk similar orders being entered against the United States abroad. The U.S. last year was granted immunity from contempt sanctions in a Spanish court, the Justice Department noted.

“Any constraint placed on property of the Russian entities named in the subpoenas in the context of this case would isolate the United States in the international community and raise doubts about the United States’ respect for other foreign sovereigns,” the government argued.

Updated with comment from Chabad’s lawyers.

Read more: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202748827496/Justice-Dept-Fights-Subpoenas-for-Bank-Records-About-Russian-Assets#ixzz3zFTIekGm

Finally, Hillary’s Security Clearance in Jeopardy?

Humm –> Expect to undergo one or more interviews and often a polygraph as part of the clearance process. These steps are used by investigators to get a better understanding of your character, conduct and integrity. You might also have to answer questions designed to clear up discrepancies or clarify unfavorable data discovered during the background investigation. The ultimate goal is for government security personnel to determine your eligibility for a clearance, a decision based on the totality of the evidence and information collected.

August of last year: Intelligence community wants Clinton’s security clearance suspended

WashingtonTimes: Security experts say that if Hillary Rodham Clinton retained her government security clearance when she left the State Department, as is normal practice, it should be suspended now that it is known her unprotected private email server contained top secret material.

“Standard procedure is that when there is evidence of a security breach, the clearance of the individual is suspended in many, but not all, cases,” said retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence in the George W. Bush administration. “This rises to the level of requiring a suspension.”

“The department does not comment on individuals’ security clearance status,” the official said.

Mrs. Clinton is the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. A campaign spokesman did not reply to a query, but she did get a vote of support from a key congressional Democrat.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said Thursday there is no evidence Mrs. Clinton herself sent classified information and that the emails now under scrutiny were not marked classified at the time she sent them.

Clinton’s Security Clearance Is Under Scrutiny

Bloomberg: Now that several e-mails on Hillary Clinton’s private server have been classified, there is a more immediate question than the outcome of the investigation: Should the former secretary of state retain her security clearance during the inquiry? Congressional Republicans and Democrats offer predictably different answers.

The State Department announced Friday that it would not release 22 e-mails from Clinton’s private server after a review found they contained information designated as top secret. U.S. officials who reviewed the e-mails tell us they contain the names of U.S. intelligence officers overseas, but not the identities of undercover spies; summaries of sensitive meetings with foreign officials; and information on classified programs like drone strikes and intelligence-collection efforts in North Korea.

The FBI is investigating the use of Clinton’s home server when she was secretary of state, which the bureau now has. The New York Times reported in August that  Clinton is not a target of that investigation. We reported in September that one goal is to discover whether a foreign intelligence service hacked in.

 

Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Clinton should not lose her security clearance for receiving information that was not marked classified at the time. “I’m sure she does hold a clearance, and she should,” he told us.

Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican member of that committee who also has read the e-mails, told us, “It’s important, given all the information we now know, that the House of Representatives work alongside the executive branch to determine whether it’s appropriate for Secretary Clinton to continue to hold her security clearances.”

Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr told us the decision lies with the White House. “I think that’s up to what the National Security Council is comfortable with,” he said.

Burr, who has also read all 22 e-mails, said Clinton should have known to better protect the information they contain. “They are definitely sensitive,” he said. “Anybody in the intelligence world would know that the content was sensitive.”

His Democratic counterpart, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who also read them, told us that Clinton didn’t originally send any of the e-mails and that they were largely from her staff, although she did sometimes reply. Feinstein said the intelligence community is being overly cautious by designating the e-mails as top secret.

“There’s no question that they are over-classifying this stuff,” she said.

Clinton’s discussion of classified programs on an unclassified e-mail system is hardly rare. The issue, called “spillage,” has plagued the government for years. It can apply to anything from a spoken conversation about intelligence programs outside of a secure facility, to printing out a document with classified information on an unsecure printer.

Still, it is forbidden. The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual says “transmitting classified information over a communication channel that is unauthorized for the level of information being transmitted” is a “security violation.” Such violations must be investigated by the State Department’s own bureaus of human resources and diplomatic security. Punishment can vary from a letter of reprimand to loss of security clearance, according to the manual.

When asked about the status of Clinton’s security clearance, State Department spokesman John Kirby said: “The State Department does not comment on individuals’ security clearance status. We will say, however, that generally speaking there is a long tradition of secretaries of state making themselves available to future secretaries and presidents. Secretaries are typically allowed to maintain their security clearance and access to their own records for use in writing their memoirs and the like.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.

During the Obama administration, it has not been automatic for officials to lose their security clearance while an investigation is underway. Just last week, the Washington Post reported that the chief of naval intelligence, Vice Adm. Ted Branch, had his security clearance suspended because he is wrapped up in a Justice Department investigation into contracting corruption. He has not been able to read, see, or hear classified information since November 2013. Branch has not been charged with any crime and continues to serve in that post.

But when then-CIA director David Petraeus came under FBI investigation at the end of 2012, his security clearance was not formally revoked. After he resigned, his access to classified information was suspended, according to U.S. officials. In that case, Petraeus had provided notebooks with highly classified information to his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell, whose security clearances did not permit her to receive it.

Unlike Broadwell, officials familiar with the e-mails tell us that Clinton and her e-mail correspondents were cleared to receive the information that has been classified after the fact. Steven Aftergood, who heads the project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told us, “It’s entirely possible for information to start out as unclassified and to be classified only when the question of public disclosure arises.”

William Leonard, who oversaw the government’s security classification process between 2002 and 2008 as the director of the Information Security Oversight Office, told us this kind of “spillage” was common. “The bottom line is this, if you have the opportunity to pore through any cleared individual’s unclassified e-mail account, it’s almost inevitable you would find material that someone, some way would point out should be classified.” He also said that in Clinton’s case, “there is no indication that she deliberately disregarded the rules for handling classified information so I see no reason why she should not remain eligible for a security clearance.”

Nonetheless, Leonard added that Clinton’s decision to use the private e-mail server as secretary of state “reflected exceedingly poor judgment, and those that advised her on this did not serve her well.”

The FBI investigation may determine that neither Clinton nor her aides broke the law, but Clinton herself has said she used poor judgment. It’s an open question how that poor judgment will affect her access to state secrets, during and after the FBI’s investigation.

About that Mosque that Barack Visited Today

A deep investigation was performed on the Muslim Brotherhood and organizations in the United States under that umbrella. The full summary is here.

Mosque Obama Visiting Graduated Terrorist Who Targeted Federal Building

The Al-Rahmah School at Islamic Society of Baltimore as seen in 2007. The mosque is hosting President Obama on Wednesday. (AP) According to CIA Director John Brennan ‘jihad’ means struggle…..

InvestorsDaily: Islamophilia: President Obama is conferring legitimacy on a Baltimore mosque the FBI just a few years ago was monitoring as a breeding ground for terrorists, after arresting a member for plotting to blow up a federal building.

IBD has learned that the FBI had been conducting surveillance at the Islamic Society of Baltimore since at least 2010 when it collared one of its members for plotting to bomb an Army recruiting center not far from the mosque in Catonsville, Md.

Agents secretly recorded a number of conversations with a 25-year-old Muslim convert — Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain — and other Muslims who worshipped there. According to the criminal complaint, Martinez said he knew “brothers” who could supply him weapons and propane tanks.

“He indicated that if the military continued to kill their Muslim brothers and sisters, they would need to expand their operation by killing U.S. Army personnel where they live,” FBI special agent Keith Bender wrote. Martinez said that in studying the Quran he learned that Islam counsels Muslims to “fight those who fight against you.”

Sentenced to 25 years in prison in 2012, Martinez also stated in a social media posting that he wanted to join the ranks of the “mujahideen” in “Pakistan or Afghanistan (a country that struggle[sic] for the sake of allah).” Most of ISB’s board members are from Pakistan.

To help disrupt the plot, the FBI reportedly put an undercover agent in the mosque, which upset the leadership there. After protests, the FBI sent an official to ISB to take questions and mollify concerns the bureau was spying on Muslims.

Members of the mosque complained that the FBI tried to “entrap” Martinez and other Muslim terrorism suspects by sending “spies with Muslim names” into the mosque.

“If I was the president of the mosque, I would not let you come here without strip(-searching) you,” one member angrily told the FBI official, “because you might drop something (like a bug) to hear what’s going on here.” “The Muslim Link” newspaper described the questioner as Pakistani.

This is the mosque that will be honored with a visit from Obama on Wednesday, the first U.S. mosque visit of his presidency.

It’s now abundantly clear the White House failed to properly vet the venue. Reportedly, it let the Council on American-Islamic Relations choose the site, even though the FBI has banned CAIR from outreach because of known ties to the Hamas terrorist group.

“For a number of years we’ve been encouraging the president to go to an American mosque,” CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said. “With the tremendous rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in our country, we believe that it will send a message of inclusion and mutual respect.”

As we reported Tuesday, ISB is affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America — which federal prosecutors in 2007 named a radical Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front and an unindicted terrorist co-conspirator in a scheme to funnel more than $12 million to Hamas suicide bombers — and ISB has helped organize the terror-tied ISNA’s conferences.

The Shariah-compliant mosque was led for 15 years by a radical cleric — Imam Mohamad Adam el-Sheikh — who once represented a federally designated al-Qaida front group. El-Sheikh also has argued for the legitimacy of suicide bombings, according to the Washington Post.

We also first reported that ISB board member and vice president Muhammad Jameel has blamed American foreign policy — namely, U.S. support for Israel — for terrorism and the rise of Osama bin Laden.

“I hope (his death) does not camouflage the bigger picture, which is to look at what gave rise to OBL and what are the root causes of terror,” Jameel said in a local 2011 interview. “Just eliminating him does not resolve the longer-term problems, which I consider to be (U.S.) foreign policy.”

ISB board members are required to have “an in-depth understanding of the Shariah,” and “must take Islam as the way of life,” according to recently amended articles of incorporation papers filed with the state of Maryland.

We have also learned that ISB invited one of the imams of the Boston Marathon bombers’ mosque to headline a 2013 fundraiser for its Islamic school.

Then-Islamic Society of Boston imam Suhaib Webb spoke at the 25th anniversary banquet of ISB’s Al-Rahmah School — even though two days before 9/11, according to an FBI surveillance report, Webb was raising cash for a Muslim cop-killer together with al-Qaida cleric Anwar Awlaki, the hijackers’ spiritual leader.

So let’s recap. The mosque that is hosting the commander in chief, while receiving his historic benediction graduated a terrorist who plotted to blow up a local Army recruiting station, hired an imam who condoned suicide bombings and blames American “foreign policy” for terrorism.

Obama has to be willfully blind not to see all these ties to terror.

The Other Chapter of the Clinton’s and Chelsea’s Father-in-Law

Clinton White House passed up pardon for Chelsea’s father-in-law

Ed Mezvinsky asked Bill Clinton to spare him ‘a long prison term,’ according to newly revealed records.

160202_file_edward_mezvinsky_2_ap_1160.jpg

Politico: Encounters between potential in-laws can often be awkward, but this untold chapter in Clinton family history may take the cake.

President Bill Clinton once had the opportunity to save his daughter’s future father-in-law from spending five years behind bars, according to never-before-revealed White House files. But the asked-for reprieve never came.

In the waning days of Clinton’s presidency, federal prosecutors and the FBI were bearing down on former Rep. Ed Mezvinsky (D-Iowa), who had fallen for a series of Ponzi schemes and pulled in nearly $10 million money from other investors to cover his losses.

Mezvinsky would not be formally indicted until March of 2001, but records released last week by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock and obtained by POLITICO show Mezvinsky and his then-wife — ex-Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D-Pa.) — pleaded with the former president for a presidential pardon to head off the looming federal case.

“I have real reason to believe that without a pardon, charges will be brought against me in the very near future, and that I will then be faced with a long and difficult process of defending myself, and ultimately the prospect of a long prison term,” Mezvinsky wrote. “I am humbled and saddened at having sullied my reputation and that of my family, and having disappointed the many honorable and decent people who had confidence in me. I am prepared to try to make amends as best I can.”

Margolies-Mezvinsky’s missive to the president discusses her husband’s history of service in politics and for the community, but is vague about the nature of his alleged wrongdoing.

“He is a man who in public service and his private life has worked tirelessly as an advocate for the poor, the underprivileged, and underserved. But he is also a man who now finds himself in a precarious position, where a federal investigation has already blemished a stellar career, a life of high-minded public service dedication to humanitarian causes. It is for this reason that I write personally to you to seek clemency for Ed,” Margolies-Mezvinsky wrote.

It is unclear whether Clinton ever saw the letters, which turned up in the files of the White House’s counsel’s office.

Asked about the letters, Margolies-Mezvinsky — now Chelsea Clinton’s mother-in-law — said this week that she doesn’t believe the Clinton White House ever acted on the request.

“No action was taken … which is a matter of public record. To my knowledge, we never received any reply from the White House,” the former congresswoman said in an email to POLITICO.

A spokesman for the former president did not reply to a query Tuesday about whether the pardon request ever reached him.

Chelsea Clinton and the Mezvinskys’ son Marc married in 2010. However, their families had been friendly since at least the early 1990s. The future couple first met in 1993 when both families were attending the prestigious annual Renaissance Weekend gathering in South Carolina.

When Chelsea was touring colleges in 1997, Marc Mezvinsky, then a sophomore at Stanford, showed her around the campus. Their friendship developed over their college years, though they didn’t start formally dating until she moved to New York after graduation.

Congresswoman Margolies-Mezvinsky achieved national prominence in 1993 by providing what was seen as the critical vote for President Bill Clinton’s budget and tax bill. Republicans chanted, “Good-bye, Margie,” as she cast the high-profile vote.

Margolies-Mezvinsky’s first term indeed turned out to be her last. Despite significant efforts by Clinton to rescue her re-election bid, she lost to her GOP opponent by a 45-to-49 percent margin.

Bill Clinton has always seemed indebted to Margolies-Mezvinsky for the sacrifice she made. “I really didn’t want Margolies-Mezvinsky to have to vote with us,” the former president wrote in his 2004 memoir. “She was one of the very few Democrats who represented a district with more constituents who’d get tax hikes than tax cuts, and in her campaign she’d promised not to vote for any tax increases … She had earned an honored place in history, with a vote she shouldn’t have had to cast.”

After Mezvinsky’s defeat in 1994, Clinton named her as deputy chair of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. World Conference on Women in Beijing. First Lady Hillary Clinton wound up serving as head of the delegation, which made waves in China for its assertiveness.

The Clintons remained close to Margolies-Mezvinsky as she ran unsuccessfully for Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania in 1998 and for the U.S. House again in 2000. She dropped out of the latter race after filing for bankruptcy in the wake of the financial chaos resulting from her husband’s bizarre investment schemes, including one classic swindle that has been run out of Nigeria for decades. (In 2014, she again mounted a bid for Congress, but came up short in the Democratic primary despite strong backing from the former first couple.)

In the letters about the potential pardon, there are hints that Margolies-Mezvinsky was closer to the president than her husband was. His letter is signed, “Edward Mezvinsky,” while hers is signed, simply, “Marjorie.”

Whatever President Clinton’s inclinations towards the family, Mezvinsky’s pardon request may have simply come too late. A 22-page White House summary of pending pardon and commutation requests in early December 2000 makes no mention of Mezvinsky.

The pardon request reviewed by POLITICO is marked as received on January 12, 2001. The date, just eight days before Clinton left office, has been underlined.

Former White House officials say the pardon process descended into a degree of chaos in those final days. In his final hours in office, Clinton issued 176 pardons and commutations. Some went to individuals close to Clinton, like his brother Roger, and to people targeted in independent counsel investigations the president viewed as unfair. The most controversial pardons went to financiers Marc Rich and Pincus Green, who had been living in Switzerland for years to avoid facing a federal indictment.

Some of those pardons and commutations were issued even though individuals had never applied through the official process at the Justice Department.

It’s unclear whether Mezvinsky ever did so, but such an application would have been futile. Since he hadn’t even been charged, the Justice Department would have summarily rejected his application.

Clinton ultimately issued just one pre-trial pardon, blocking a prosecution of former CIA Director John Deutch for having classified information on his home computer. Deutch’s pardon also came on Clinton’s last day as president.

A federal prosecutor said in a 2007 interview that as Ed Mezvinsky swindled investors in the late 1990s he sometimes used his association with the Clintons as a talking point.

“When he thought it would help, he would call and say, ‘I’m spending the weekend with the Clintons,’ ” Robert Zauzmer told the New York Times.

The grand jury indictment filed in 2001 is a bit more vague, but hints at similar conduct. “Mezvinsky succeeded in defrauding others and gaining their confidence in part by stressing his lengthy experience in national and international affairs, and his acquaintance with prominent political figures,” the indictment says.

Zauzmer told POLITICO this week that he was unaware of Mezvinsky’s pre-trial pardon bid. “It wasn’t brought to my attention,” the prosecutor said. “I probably would not have any comment on it, even if it had been.”

Mezvinsky’s pardon request parallels an argument he attempted to make after his indictment: namely that his judgment was clouded by his extensive use of the anti-Malarial drug Lariam while traveling to Africa.

“The long-term cognitive effects of this medication were devastating in how they affected my cognitive ability to absorb and evaluate information in a formal way and how I exercised my reasoning powers” he wrote to President Clinton.

In court, Mezvinsky’s lawyers argued that his exposure to the medicine and his affliction with biploar disorder so affected his thinking that he should be allowed to mount a “mental health defense.” U.S. District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, rejected that effort.

“No expert on Mezvinsky’s behalf was in a position to say that at any given time during the twelve-year history of the alleged schemes to defraud that Mezvinsky did not have a capacity to deceive,” the judge wrote. “People like Mezvinsky are not out of touch with reality.”

A few months later, Mezvinsky pled guilty.

“Ed had a very, very bona fide psychiatric condition,” said Bryant Welch, an attorney and psychologist on the defense team. “I had the head of Harvard bipolar disorder clinic and the head of the Penn bipolar disorder clinic who had both evaluated it and confirmed it and the judge just disallowed the defense.”

Margolies -Mezvinsky’s decision to back her then-husband’s request for a pardon seems generous in light of some of the facts of the case. Her elderly mother, Mildred Margolies, was one of those Mezvinsky was eventually charged with swindling. The indictment claims he transferred more than $300,000 from his mother-in-law’s brokerage accounts for his own use.

The Mezvinskys divorced in 2007 while he was serving his sentence. Some of the restitution he owes remains unpaid.

Efforts to reach Ed Mezvinsky for comment were unsuccessful. An attorney for the 79-year-old ex-congressman, Stephen LaCheen, said he was not aware of any pre-trial pardon request.

Press reports said Mezvinsky planned to attend the wedding of his son Marc to Chelsea Clinton in 2010. However, Margolies—who dropped her former husband’s name after the divorce—reportedly walked her son down the aisle alone at the wedding. In an interview just before the event, the groom’s father said he was trying to put his legal troubles behind him.

“It was a terrible time, and I was punished for that and I respect that and I accept responsibility for what happened, and now I’m trying to move on,” Ed Mezvinsky told the TV show “Inside Edition.”