Eric Holder

California Democrats’ Sanctuary Includes Violent Criminals

February 6, 2017 By Hector Barajas 6 Comments

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) have been clear that they oppose California allowing the state or its sanctuary cities from cooperating with immigration officials unless the individual committed a violent crime.

Under California law, throwing acid at someone or rape of an unconscious, intoxicated or mentally ill victim is not considered a violent crime. Neither is vehicular manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon, arson, solicitation of murder or exploding a destructive device or explosive with intent to injure.

A recent article by Jazmine Ulloa, Los Angeles Times makes this clear distinction:

After being accused of rape, Andrew Luster jumped his $1-million bail and was later captured in Mexico by a bounty hunter on TV.

Ventura County prosecutors said he drugged three women and videotaped the assaults, and a jury convicted him of 86 counts of poisoning, sexual battery and rape of an unconscious or intoxicated person. But with none of his offenses listed among the 23 crimes that California considers “violent” felonies in its penal code….

In drawing the line at crime violence, why would Kevin de Leon and Anthony Rendon extend sanctuary and protection to predators like Andrew Luster?

While Eric Holder will be in Sacramento tomorrow, collecting his $25,000 a-month-taxpayer-funded-check from the state’s taxpayers via our Legislature, he needs to be the adult in the room and ask the Democratic leadership to remove their rose-colored glasses and realize that there are distinctions between “hardened criminals,” “undocumented immigrants,” and those who perpetrate the abbreviated state list of “violent crimes.”

Ending “sanctuary city” ordinances does not mean that law enforcement in those communities become “quasi immigration enforcement officers.” Rather, it reopens the door to the real need of providing continued cooperation between law enforcement and immigration officials and ensuring societally dangerous and violent criminals are identified, detained and deported. They should also include those convicted of gang activities, rape, arson or those who sexually assault the elderly or mentally ill victims.

The following crimes are not covered by the definition of violent crimes under recently passed Proposition 57:

Vehicular manslaughter
Human trafficking involving a minor
Battery with personal infliction of serious bodily injury
Throwing acid or flammable substance
Assault with a deadly weapon
Assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer or firefighter
Discharging firearm at an occupied dwelling, building, vehicle or airport
Rape where victim legally capable of giving consent
Rape by intoxicating substance
Rape where victim unconscious of the act
Rape/sodomy/oral copulation of unconscious person or by use of date rape drugs
Rape by threat of public official
Inflicting corporal injury on a child
Domestic violence
Arson of a structure or forest land
Arson of property
Solicitation to commit murder
Grand theft firearm
Assault with a deadly weapon by state prison inmate
Any felony involving the personal use of a deadly weapon
Holding a hostage by state prison inmate
Exploding a destructive device or explosive with intent to injure

Hector Barajas is a partner at Merino, Barajas & Allen, a California strategic communications and public affairs firm. As a nationally recognized expert on Latino politics and public policy issues, he serves as an on-air political analyst for Univision and Telemundo.

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Anthony Rendon, Eric Holder, Kevin de Leon, Sanctuary Cities, Ventura County

Eric Holder hired to “fight Trump” – San Fran Chronicle does not provide whole story

January 19, 2017 By Stephen Frank 11 Comments

When President Obama worked to pass the Affordable Care Act, the state of California did not hire a Washington attorney to fight for this legislation. As Obama was issuing the Dream Act, amnesty for illegal aliens, the state Legislature did not hire a Washington attorney to demand, at a $25,000 a month retainer, to use his office to overturn a vote of Congress for the amnesty. Sacramento has given the 38 million people of California some of the toughest, and least enforced, gun laws possible. The hacks of the Capitol were “so successful” that 1.3 million new guns were sold in the state in 2016.

Yet, the San Francisco Chronicle reported in an article on January 15, 2017, that the state of California, via the Democratic supermajority in the Legislature, has hired a Washington, D.C., attorney to “fight” for California:

“California lawmakers are bracing for a fight against soon-to-be President Trump and top officials in his administration who have said they will push for policy and legal changes that would threaten several of the state’s progressive laws.

From immigration to gun control to environmental protections, the state finds itself at odds with Trump, who will be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States on Friday. One of the biggest tools the federal government has is control of the purse strings. California is expected to receive $105 billion in federal dollars in the upcoming fiscal year, which includes $78 billion for various health and human services. The new administration, and the Republican-controlled Congress, can reward — and punish — states with the way it distributes federal dollars.

To prepare for any battles, the Legislature has hired a Washington, D.C., law firm headed by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.”

So, to get these “progressive policies” in the past, the California government used its 53 members of Congress, its two U.S. Senators, 80 Assembly members, 40 State Senators, the governor, the attorney general and the 1,600 attorneys in that office, along with the numerous state agencies.

Now that Donald Trump is to be the president, politicians in Sacramento, using tax dollars, have decided to hire a gun-runner, a former attorney general that authorized the sale of assault weapons to the Mexican drug cartels, to represent us in Washington. It is as if none of the thousands already being paid to do the job of representing us no longer exist. This has a smell of a political payoff rather than the hiring of an attorney.

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, though a freshman, has figured it out and why this is wrong. “In a letter to the opinion unit of the state attorney general’s office, the Rocklin Republican and former deputy attorney general argued that hiring Holder as outside counsel violates Article VII of the California Constitution. Kiley said California courts have interpreted that section ‘as forbidding private contracting for services that are of a kind that persons selected through civil service could perform ‘adequately and competently’ ” – such as “assisting in defending California against federal actions,” a function of the attorney general.

“In light of these facts, I respectfully ask your legal opinion as to whether the 1,592 attorneys and legal staff at the State Attorney General’s Office can perform ‘adequately and competently’ the legal services for which Covington & Burling has been retained by the Legislature,'” Kiley wrote in a letter to the Attorney General’s Office.

Most headlines in the Times, Chronicle and Bee noted that Holder was hired “to fight” Donald Trump. Is that the role of the Legislature, to fight a president because they do not like him? Is that the proper use of tax dollars, when we have homeless, affordable housing, pension and a water crisis? The state of California has a close to a $2 billion planned deficit, yet the Democrats in the Legislature refuse to use current assets to hire an attorney with no credibility in a town with a Republican president, Congress and Senate? Even if this was a needed hire, the person hired is known as being ethically challenged. He lied to a court and got caught, using his office for political purposes.

From Techdirt, October 30, 2014:

“Holder was asked if there was a decision during his tenure that he regretted, and he brought up the Rosen story:

Holder: I think that — I think about the subpoena to the Fox reporter, Rosen. I think that I could have been a little more careful in looking at the language that was contained in the filing that we made with the court. He was labeled as a — as a co-conspirator. I mean, you had to do that as a result of the statute, but there are ways in which I think that could have been done differently, done better. And that’s one of the reasons why I thought the criticism that we received because of that — and the AP matter as well — was something that we had to act upon and why we put in place this review of our — the way in which we interact with the media.

Except, as Julian Sanchez points out, that’s completely bogus. Holder claiming they had to do that because of the statute is flat out opposites-ville. They had to do that because the statute doesn’t allow them to spy on journalists. The law was designed to stop the DOJ from spying on journalists, and so the only way to break that was to lie to the court. The law in question — 18 USC 793 is designed to only apply to the people actually committing the crime of leaking defense information — and not to reporters.”

Yes, not only did Holder lie to a court — he used his office to illegally spy on journalists. Plus on other occasions he lied to Congress.

None of this was part of the Chronicle story — other than California is angry with the results of the elections and does not like it that Trump appears to be willing to keep his campaign promises. And, the fact, California taxpayers have been forced to hire one of the least likely people in Washington to get past the receptionist. The San Francisco Chronicle has a responsibility to fully explain the story. By leaving out who Holder really is and his record, it denies the readers of being able to make a judgement that the decision was good or bad.

Is this a man you would want pleading your case in Washington starting January 20, 2017? It is not California vs. Trump. It is Sacramento vs. California. And the Democrats have a supermajority. What could you do with $25,000 a month?

Stephen Frank is editor of the California Political News and Views section of California Political Review.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Donald Trump, Eric Holder, Kevin Kiley, Stephen Frank

California Democrats Behaving Like Confederates

January 11, 2017 By Jon Coupal 8 Comments

For fiscal conservatives and free market advocates, the national elections in 2008 and 2012 brought no small measure of disappointment. In its eight-year run, the Obama administration imposed a host of new taxes – including several as part of the failed “Affordable Care Act” – and, just as egregious, nearly doubling the national debt from $10 trillion to over $20 trillion.

Those who advocate for lower taxes, property rights and less burdensome regulation understood and begrudgingly accepted that “elections have consequences.” (As President Obama was known to brag.) So it is now with amusement – if not outright schadenfreude – we are watching progressives across the nation, and especially here in California, melt down in shock and disbelief.

Particularly frustrating for progressives is their growing realization that many of the policies and actions of the last eight years that they jammed down the throats of conservatives and center right citizens from “fly-over” country are now coming back to haunt them. For example, former Democrat Senator Harry Reid from Nevada changed longstanding Senate rules regarding how many votes it would take to stop the filibuster of a presidential appointee. Progressives imposed that rule to pack the United States Court of Appeal for District of Columbia Circuit, a powerful court because it reviews most legal challenges over federal regulations. The “Reid Rule” will now be used by the Trump administration to fill his cabinet quickly over the objections and efforts to obstruct by Democrats and, more importantly, to seat a replacement on the U.S. Supreme Court for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Another example of their being hoisted on their own petard was discussed recently by California political analyst Tony Quinn who noted that the federal courts struck down most of Arizona’s efforts to enforce border security. The U.S. Supreme Court noted that, in the area of immigration, federal laws pre-empt conflicting and even complimentary state laws. That throws into doubt any efforts by California and other left-leaning states to enforce any so-called “sanctuary” policies.

But all this hasn’t stopped California’s top Democratic leadership from posturing (mostly for the cameras) about how they will “stand up” to the federal government to protect “California’s values,” whatever that means. Apparently, Gov. Brown and newly elected legislative leaders have mistaken Sutter’s Fort in Sacramento with Fort Sumter in South Carolina which heard the first shots fired in the Civil War. They need to be reminded that things didn’t work out so well for the Confederacy back then and if, by taking on the federal government, they think they will get a better outcome, they’re probably wrong.

The latest evidence that Democratic leadership has lost its moorings with reality is the hiring of Eric Holder, the disgraced and corrupt former U.S. Attorney General in order to “push back” against both the Trump Administration and the Republican controlled Congress. (Holder advocated for international criminal Mark Rich, and was admittedly running guns to Mexico as part of the “Fast and Furious” scandal).

The hiring of Holder is an insult to all California taxpayers. First, California has a multitude of lobbyists in Washington, D.C. (all at taxpayer expense) to represent the actual interests of the state. Second, the action was clearly a provocation intended to generate a response from Washington. But California should be careful what it wishes for. The Congress of the United States has the power of the purse and California would do well to work collaboratively with those upon whom they rely for billions of federal dollars.

Near the close of the Civil War, President Lincoln gave his famous second inaugural address in which he implored Americans to show “malice toward none, with charity for all.” Let us hope that the petulant, foolish posturing of California’s political leadership receive as much grace from the federal government in the coming years.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

This piece was originally published by HJTA.org

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Donald Trump, Eric Holder, Harry Reid, Jon Coupal

Senator Moorlach Cautions Majority Party on the Costs of the Holder Hire

January 5, 2017 By CPR Editors 21 Comments

SACRAMENTO – Senator John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, provided the following statement regarding the legislative Democrats’ decision to hire former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as their next line of defense against the incoming Trump Administration.

“If the majority party continues to poke President-elect Trump with a short stick, then they better be prepared with a Plan B. And, as far as I can tell, there is no alternative plan should these combative moves not be received well by the incoming Trump Administration.

“We cannot and must not jeopardize Federal funding to our state, counties and cities. They cannot afford it, especially with increasing pensions costs at the door.”

The above statement was sent out in a press release from the office of state Sen. John Moorlach.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Donald Trump, Eric Holder, John Moorlach, Trump Administration

DOJ’s Operation Choke Point strangles businesses

July 18, 2014 By Jonah Bennett 2 Comments

A Justice Department fraud prevention program came under fire Thursday for allegedly morphing into actively pressuring banks to deny financial services to businesses for political reasons.

Operation Choke Point functions as a partnership between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and various other federal agencies which deal with bank regulations, specifically the Treasury and the SEC. The objective of the project is to choke-off fraudulent businesses from accessing financial services, in an effort to protect consumers.

The controversy, however, is over allegations that the DOJ is pressuring financial institutions to decline doing business with so-called “high risk” industries which line up squarely against the political leanings of the current administration. These businesses include ammunition sales, payday loans, pornography, fireworks companies, and others—24 industries in total, as listed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

“Operation Choke Point is one of the most dangerous programs I have experienced in my 45 years of service as a bank regulator, bank attorney and consultant, and bank board member. Operating without legal authority and guided by a political agenda, unelected officials at the DOJ are discouraging banks from providing basic banking services…to lawful businesses simply because they don’t like them,” said William M. Isaac, former chairman of the FDIC.

Thursday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing focused on the legality of DOJ overreach. Letters have poured in from company owners in support of these suspicions, noting startling cases where the DOJ reportedly has directly strong-armed banks into dropping clients not engaging in fraud.

Virginia Republican Rep. Robert Goodlatte revealed that one of the more egregious examples sent in to the committee was a meeting between the DOJ and a bank regarding the continued provision of financial services to a payday loan company.

The DOJ official reportedly told the banker, “I don’t like this product, and I don’t believe it should have a place in our financial system. And if you don’t agree, there will be an immediate, unplanned audit of your entire bank.”

The Justice Department has now served over 50 subpoenas on banks, and Alabama Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus expressed considerable concern that dragging banks into a long and expensive process is just an underhanded way of encouraging banks to drop clients as an easy-out.

“Subpoenas are expensive to comply with and can bring unwanted scrutiny. The natural reaction from a financial institution might be to sever relations with the merchant and be done with it,” Bachus said Thursday in a hearing at the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law.

Missouri Republican Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer brought forward the End Operation Choke Point Act Tuesday to curb the DOJ’s activities in this area. The act would provide financial institutions with safe harbor to serve customers engaged in legal activities, so as to cut out politically motivated attacks on businesses deemed undesirable by the Justice Department.

This article originally appeared on the Daily Caller.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Department of Justice, Eric Holder