DOES BERNIE PRACTICE WHAT HE PREACH?

DID SANDERS USED HIS PUBLIC POSITION TO ENRICH HIS FAMILY?


The gap between the image Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., portrays and the reality of how he conducts his own affairs is a “major problem” for his candidacy, investigative reporter Peter Schweizer said Wednesday.

In an appearance on “Fox & Friends” with host Steve Doocy, Schweizer explained that while the 2020 presidential candidate may talk about the common good, his public service has benefitted his family financially over the years.

According to Schweizer’s investigations, Sanders’ wife Jane Driscoll Sanders was appointed to several positions of influence when he was mayor of Burlington, Vt. After the pair were married in 1988, she received a big pay increase — ignoring objections from the city council.

“Bernie ignored them and that began this pattern of sort of steering money – taxpayer money and campaign money – to his family,” the “Profiles in Corruption” author said.

Schweizer said that shortly after his wife joined Sanders’ administration, she set up a media buying business registered to the Sanders’ home in Vermont – despite having no previous experience in the field – and started doing media buying for her husband’s campaign.

“And, the dirty little secret here is, Steve, when you do a media buy, the buyer is entitled to a commission of between 10 and 15 percent,” Schweizer added. “So, it can be quite lucrative.”

According to Schweizer, at least $150,000 was funneled to Jane Sanders, though he stressed that the practice was not illegal. Doocy said the Sanders campaign did not respond to a request for comment.n addition, Schweizer said that allies of Sanders who ran for governor and lieutenant governor of the state of Vermont in 2000 and 2004 only received Sanders’ endorsement after they both hired his wife as their media buyer.

“So, he clearly seems to be leveraging his position for her business as well,” he remarked.

Delving further into Sanders’ history, Schweizer told Doocy that his stock portfolio shows investments that aren’t “socially responsible.”

“He’s not buying solar company stock or buying into an organic cattle farm. He is buying Fortune 500 companies. So, he attacks Wall Street, he attacks big pharma, he attacks big oil…He is invested in those companies; that’s where he is actually putting his assets,” he stated.

“So, it’s a major problem for Bernie: this gap between the image he portrays and the reality of how he actually conducts his own affairs,” Schweizer concluded.

DIPSHIDIOT OF THE DAY: NEW SAN FRANCISCO DA ……. (AGAIN)

NEW RULES FOR PRETEXT STOPS

HERE IS THE DIPSHITS STATEMENT:

A pretextual traffic stop involves a police officer stopping a driver for a traffic violation, minor or otherwise, to allow the officer to then investigate a separate and unrelated, suspected criminal offense. … By law, police officers must observe a legitimate traffic violation in order to stop an automobile.

DAWG SAYS: SO AFTER A LEGITIMATE TRAFFIC STOP OFFICERS CANNOT INVESTIGATE ANY OTHER CRIME THAT MAY BE OBSERVED DURING THAT STOP? SOMEBODY CLEAR THAT UP FOR ME.

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS HILLARY TO BE DEPOSED……

A federal judge Monday granted a request from conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch to have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sit for a sworn deposition to answer questions about her use of a private email server to conduct government business.

Clinton has argued that she has already answered questions about this and should not have to do so again — the matter did not result in any charges for the then-presidential candidate in 2016 after a high-profile investigation — but D.C. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said in his ruling that her past responses left much to be desired.

“As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business,” Lamberth said.

The judge went on to recognize that while Clinton responded to written questions in a separate case, “those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put her responses left many more questions than answers.” Lamberth said that using written questions this time “will only muddle any understanding of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind and fail to capture the full picture, thus delaying the final disposition of this case even further.”

Lamberth even gave some examples of lingering questions about Clinton’s emails, such as how did she come to believe that her private emails would be preserved under normal State Department processes, who told her this and when, at what point did she learn department records management officials did not know about the server, “[a]nd why did she think that using a private server to conduct State Department business was permissible under the law in the first place?”

The ruling comes after Judicial Watch revealed at a December 2019 status conference that the FBI released “approximately thirty previously undisclosed Clinton emails,” and that the State Department “failed to fully explain” where they came from.

The State Department has been pushing for the discovery phase of the case to come to a close, but Lamberth said he is not ready to do so, saying that “there is still more to learn.”

Judicial Watch, which initiated this case in 2014, is looking for information regarding whether Clinton used her private email server to intentionally get around the Freedom of Information Act, whether the State Department acted in bad faith when they tried to settle the case years ago, and whether the department had adequately looked for records in response to Judicial Watch’s initial FOIA request.

Given that the settlement attempts and records search took place after Clinton left office, the judge ruled that the deposition should focus on whether she intentionally tried to use her private server to evade FOIA and her understanding of the State Department’s record management requirements.

Lamberth also granted Judicial Watch’s request to depose former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills, IT specialist Paul Combetta who was involved in deleting Clinton’s emails, as well as Brett Gittleson and Yvette Jacks, who were State Department officials familiar with Clinton’s private email server.

Judicial Watch also wanted to question Clinton and Mills about government talking points in the aftermath of the 2012 Benghazi attack. Lamberth said that while they “cannot be questioned about the underlying actions taken after the Benghazi attack,” they can face questions regarding “their knowledge of the existence of any emails, documents, or text messages related to the Benghazi attack.”

CALIFORNIA PROPOSING EXTENDING REFUGEE BENEFITS…….

A bill that would extend the Refugee Cash Assistance program in California by a further 8 months was read for the first time in the Assembly early this week.

Another 8 months of refugee assistance See bill HERE

Assembly bill 3134, authored by Assemblywomen Eloise Reyes (D-Grand Terrace) and Cecelia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters), would have the state of California give another 8 months of cash assistance to new refugees in the state on top of the 8 months already given by the federal government. The transition from federal to state at the 8-month mark would be “seamless” according to the bill language, and would prohibit them from reapplying to receive it.

The bill would also include keeping all assistance measures in place to ensure refugees resettle in the U.S. successfully, including receiving Social Security cards and entering their children into local schools. Funding for AB 3134 would come directly from state coffers as, similar to how the federal government currently funds their 8-month Refugee Cash Assistance program by using “appropriated federal funds.” It is currently unknown how much this will cost the state yearly.

Assemblywomen Reyes and Aguiar-Curry, as well as other supporters including refugee and resettlement organizations, have backed the bill because they have said that an additional 8-months is needed by many refugees to be self-sufficient and not have to further rely on the government after their assistance programs expire.

“California has long held the stance and supported the idea that that accepting and supporting refugees in their resettlement is an imperative humanitarian effort which benefits all of California’s communities,” Assemblywoman Reyes said in a press release. “If we truly want refugees to reach self-sufficiency, we must recognize that 8 months may be inadequate to get on their feet.  Rather than limiting the transition to 8 months and forcing them to drop further into poverty during their ninth month in California, thus making them more reliant on the social safety net we should offer an additional 8 months for the transition.”

AB 3134 opposition

Those who oppose AB 3134 have said that an additional 8-months could be too much.

“The goal is is to wean them off the system as they enter the job market or college or something,” noted Diego Flores, a former refugee from Honduras who helps other Honduran refugees transition to life in the Los Angeles area. “My parents managed to buy a business here after they fled because it was a ‘we have to make it here’ attitude. Eight months I’d say is generous, but 16 months seems almost like abuse.”

“I know families who have been on that program and were ready to get off after 8-months. There are some people who need more time, especially those who are struggling to learn English, but there are many church and other relief programs that help there. Another 8 months, well I know for a fact I would have taken it and spend the time procrastinating. Others I met tried to get extensions, only for them to be in fine shape after 8 months.”

“At least it should be month to month after 8 months. Have someone check in on them and see how they’re doing and if they need more time, not just automatically give them money.”

“Refugees do need help. My family and I would have died without it here. But there needs to be a reasonable limit to acclimate, not over a year like they want to do.”

AB 3134 is currently awaiting Committee assignment in the Assembly.

JUDGE JUDY CALLS IT QUITS…….

ENDING HER SHOW AFTER 25 YEARS

Judge Judy” is ending after 25 years on television, host Judy Sheindlin will announce Monday.

“I’ve had a 25-year-long marriage with CBS, and it’s been successful,” Sheindlin will tell “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” according to Variety.

“Judge Judy” will continue to air in syndication after next season and the host announced she will launch a new show, “Judy Justice.”

“I’m not tired. So ‘Judy Justice’ will be coming out a year later,” Sheindlin adds in the pre-taped segment. ” ‘Judge Judy’ you’ll be able to see next year, full year, all new shows. The following couple of years, you should be able to catch all the reruns that are currently carrying Judy, and ‘Judy Justice’ will be going elsewhere. Isn’t that fun?”

Sheindlin’s show has aired on CBS since 1996 and averages 10 million total viewers daily.

Sheindlin surprised many when she endorsed a presidential candidate for the first time last year. She backed former New York City Michael Bloomberg as the Democratic nominee.

“When I looked at the field of 2020 candidates … there was no other voice, for me, other than the voice of someone who has experience in governance second only to the president of the United States,” she told “The View.”

DAWG SAYS: ME PERSONALLY NEVER WATCHED, I DID NOT LIKE HER ATTITUDE. IT WAS FOR TV PROMOTION NOT JUSTICE.