Nancy Worley, Head Of Alabama Democratic Party, Indicted On 10 Felony And Misdemeanor Charges.
Here’s a little story from earlier this month that the mainstream media completely skipped over: Nancy Worley, former secretary of state and the current chairwoman of the Alabama Democratic Party, turned herself in at the Montgomery County Jail following indictment by a grand jury on felony and misdemeanor charges related to her unsuccessful 2006 re-election campaign.
— TruthSayerGriffin (@MidSkinner) January 4, 2018
According to the indictment, Worley broke the law when she wrote a letter to her employees with the underlined words, “I want to ask for your support and your vote in the June 2006 Democratic Primary Election.” She followed up the solicitation by saying, “If you choose to support another candidate you have every right to make that decision without any problems from me.”
However, as stated in Alabama election law, it is “unlawful for any officer or employee to solicit any type political campaign contributions from other employees who work for said officer or employee in a subordinate capacity.” Worley’s attorney claims that her latter statement indicates that her employees were not pressured into contributing – but Worley’s employees see it differently.
According to Ed Packer, one of Worley’s many disgruntled former employees, “Aside from it being illegal it just seems wrong for an elected official to request money or other kinds of campaign support from their subordinates because of that employer – employee relationship that could be coercive just by its very nature.” Packer also said that Worley sent her employees bumper stickers and a mailer to volunteer or request a yard sign.
Worley was released on bond after turning herself in. She faces five misdemeanor and five felony charges – and she hasn’t wasted any time blaming Republicans for her own criminality. “This is happening to Democrats throughout the country who don’t bow down to Republicans,” she said.
This is far from the first time Worley has faced criticism. Her four years in office were plagued by complaints about everything from her selection of a gas guzzling SUV that the state paid for to low morale among her employees.
Yet, in October 2017, Worley hypocritically proclaimed that Alabamians should vote Democrat because several Republicans had been ousted from office due to misconduct.
But the truth always comes out, doesn’t it?
Share this to help spread the word about Democratic corruption overlooked by the MSM!
Well, it’s about dang time!
The DHS secretary has just confirmed that sanctuary city leaders will be targeted.
Check this out…
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that her department has asked federal prosecutors to see if they can lodge criminal charges against sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.
“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available,” Ms. Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Her confirmation came after California’s new sanctuary law went into effect Jan. 1, severely restricting cooperation the state or any of its localities could offer.
More from Nielsen’s hearing, where Democrat Sen. Cory Booker lashed out for a good while – per Washington Examiner:
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., was enraged during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday and admitted he was “seething with anger” over President Trump’s alleged “shithole comments” and a Cabinet official’s statement that she did not recall the incident.
“I had tears of rage,” Booker bellowed at Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen in reference to when he first heard of Trump’s “shithole countries” remark last week. “And for you not to feel that hurt and that pain and to dismiss the questions of my colleagues, with tens of millions Americans hurting right now because they’re worried about what happened in the White House …”
Cory Booker: "We have a history that is beautiful and grand and also ugly. From this nation to others, we know what happens when people are bystanders and say nothing." (via CBS) pic.twitter.com/I43rklf1JB
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 16, 2018
Thank you, President Trump!
In a shocking, sudden turn of events, one of the country’s most controversial cases that went to court over a year ago has just ended with all charges dropped against this person. Three others involved in this massive news piece have also been exonerated. While there will be much excitement over this stunning decision, there are likely to be riots as well from the opposition. Was justice effective served? It depends on where you stand on the issue of what this “crime” was.
Barack Hussein Obama was this patriot’s biggest nemesis whose orders led to a deadly standoff. With a new president in charge, things have changed dramatically on one of the country’s biggest cases that would have gone much differently had President Donald Trump not been in office.
Fox News reports:
A federal judge dismissed all charged against rancher Cliven Bundy and three others
U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro cited “flagrant prosecutorial misconduct” in her decision to dismiss all charges against rancher Cliven Bundy, two of his sons and another person.
This comes after a standoff two years ago that ended in a court battle that began in October of 2017.
Fox explains the unprecedented move made today that was not expected:
The embarrassment a federal judge dealt to government prosecutors last month in the Cliven Bundy case could be set to resume Monday, at a hearing to determine whether the cattle rancher who became a folk hero long before he beat the feds can be retried.
U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro on Dec. 20 declared a mistrial in the high-profile case. It was only the latest, stunning development in the saga of the Nevada rancher, and served as a repudiation of the federal government. Navarro accused prosecutors of willfully withholding evidence from Bundy’s lawyers, in violation of the federal Brady rule.
The Brady rule, named after the landmark 1963 Supreme Court case known as Brady v. Maryland, holds that failure to disclose such evidence violates a defendant’s right to due process.
“In this case the failures to comply with Brady were exquisite, extraordinary,” said Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano. “The judge exercised tremendous patience.”
The 71-year-old Bundy’s battle with the federal government eventually led to what became known as the Bundy standoff of 2014. But it began long before that.
In the early 1990s, the U.S. government limited grazing rights on federal lands in order to protect the desert tortoise habitat. In 1993, Bundy, in protest, refused to renew his permit for cattle grazing, and continued grazing his livestock on these public lands. He didn’t recognize the authority of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over the sovereign state of Nevada.
The federal courts sided with the BLM, and Bundy didn’t seem to have a legal leg to stand on. Nevertheless, the rancher and the government continued this dispute for 20 years, and Bundy ended up owing over $1 million in fees and fines.
Things came to a head in 2014, when officials planned to capture and impound cattle trespassing on government land. Protesters, many armed, tried to block the authorities, which led to a standoff. For a time, they even shut down a portion of I-15, the main interstate highway running through Southern Nevada.
Tensions escalated until officials, fearing for the general safety, announced they would return Bundy’s cattle and suspend the roundup.
Afterward, Bundy continued to graze his cattle and not pay fees. He and his fellow protesters were heroes to some, but criminals to the federal government. Bundy, along with others seen as leaders of the standoff, including sons Ammon and Ryan, were charged with numerous felonies, including conspiracy, assault on a federal officer and using a firearm in a violent crime. They faced many years in prison.
The Bundy case finally began in late October, 2017. But just two months later, it ended with Navarro angry, the feds humiliated and Bundy – at least to his supporters – vindicated.
In fact, Navarro had suspended the trial earlier and warned of a mistrial when prosecutors released information after a discovery deadline. Overall, the government was late in handing over more than 3,300 pages of documents. Further, some defense requests for information that ultimately came to light had been ridiculed by prosecutors as “fantastical” and a “fishing expedition.”
“Either the government lied or [it’s actions were] so grossly negligent as to be tantamount to lying,” Napolitano said. “This happened over and over again.”
Navarro offered a handful of examples of the prosecution’s failure to disclose. One had to do with a video showing government surveillance of the Bundy ranch, as well as government snipers, before the standoff.
“Timing is everything when it comes to these documents,” said Napolitano. “The tapes show that the defendants were telling the truth when they said they brought a militia to the property to protect them from snipers, rather than the government’s version, which is that the snipers came to protect the government agents from the militia.”
Other instances of the government holding back included the failure to produce an internal affairs report on BLM misconduct, which the defense requested and the government denied existed, and threat assessments by federal agents declaring the Bundys were not likely to use violence.
“The court does regrettably believe a mistrial in this case is the most suitable and only remedy,” Navarro said in declaring a mistrial.
Ammon and Ryan Bundy were arrested. LaVoy Finicum was dead. The standoff in Oregon between ranchers and the federal government seemed to be at an end as the leaders of the revolt had either been killed, or were in custody. Four holdouts remained at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon, though. Negotiations were underway for their surrender.
The son of famed preacher Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, said he would meet with the four holdouts at the national refuge, presumably to bring the revolt which has captivated Americans nationwide to a peaceful resolution.
Elected officials joined in the fray, telling the holdouts to “stay alive” so their story could be told. While this was happening, Cliven Bundy announced he would come to Oregon to bolster the holdouts stand against the federal government. As the holdouts somehow managed to break an FBI “block” of internet and cell communications, and stream audio, and video of what was happening, Cliven Bundy landed at Portland International Airport, and was immediately surrounded by SWAT teams.
USA Today reports that the elderly rancher was arrested, and booked into Multnomah County Jail.
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has been arrested after flying into Portland International Airport. The father of Ammon Bundy, the leader of the occupation at an Oregon wildlife refuge, was detained by the FBI and booked into Multnomah County Jail on Wednesday night, the prison’s records show.
A post on Bundy Ranch’s Facebook page said: “Cliven Bundy just landed in Portland; we are being told by eyes on ground that he was surrounded by SWAT and DETAINED.”
The 74-year-old, who intended to travel to Burns, close to the wildlife refuge, faces federal charges related to a standoff at his ranch in 2014, The Oregonian reported. The newspaper said he faces a charge of conspiracy to interfere with a federal officer and weapons charges.
The elderly Bundy was good friends with Arizona rancher LaVoy Finicum, who was killed by authorities during the Oregon standoff. During the standoff, Finicum told reporters that he just wanted to go home. Finicum was a foster parent to 4, and hosted 50 foster children at his ranch in Arizona.
Finicum explained in a video why he disliked the federal government so much. The Bureau of Land Management stole his water.
The “Oregon Standoff” began because Amanda Marshall, an Obama appointee for U.S. attorney for Oregon, recommended that the government sentence Oregon rancher Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven Hammond as terrorists for a controlled burn on their land which reached federal land.
DIN| JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR WAS FIRED LAST SPRING AND THEN CONDUCTED HIS VERY OWN MASS OF POLITICAL REHABILITATION, IS CONTINUING TO DEVELOP A LARGER AND LARGER SORE SPOT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS IS PUTTING UP HER FISTS TO FIGHT.
Recently in a press briefing, Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked:
“What exactly did James Comey do that was illegal?”
Her response caught everyone listening by surprise!
Reported by IJR:
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been on a full-throated defense of the president in the Russia investigation recently. Part of that defense has been ripping the bark off former FBI Director James Comey and his testimony to Congress.
Sanders has implied that Comey might have broken the law by releasing documents to the press that he made as FBI director. In a press briefing last week, Sanders said:
“The memos that Comey leaked were created on an FBI computer while he was the director. He claims they were private property. They clearly followed the protocol of an official FBI document. Leaking FBI memos on a sensitive case, regardless of classification, violates federal laws, including the Privacy Act, standard FBI employment agreement, and non-disclosure agreement all personnel must sign. I think that is pretty clean and clear that that would be a violation.”
Now, Democrats in the Senate believe Sanders may be the next person indicted because of her comments against Comey.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) went on MSNBC earlier this week to declare that Sanders was in jeopardy of having charges brought against her for attempting to align the character of Comey to a grand jury that will ultimately oversee the Mueller investigation. Whitehouse said (emphasis added):
“The three torpedoes that Sarah Huckabee Sanders shot at James Comey, which open up an entirely new avenue in the case for Mueller. There’s a statute, 1504 in the obstruction of justice statutes, that talks about attempts to influence grand jurors. So the question for Sarah Huckabee Sanders is, ‘Who asked you to do that? Who told you to do that?’
And once you know who it is, you look to their motivation. And if their motivation was to poison the reputation of Jim Comey with grand jurors, you’ve got another count in the indictment.”
While the accusation seems far-fetched for a member of the White House team whose job it is to defend the president and his decisions, this would not be the first time a White House aide was embroiled in a president’s controversy by disparaging a witness.
According to Shareblue:
Note that Clinton White House aide Sidney Blumenthal became enmeshed in a long-running impeachment-era controversy because he was accused of disparaging Lewinsky in a single private conversation after the scandal story broke. At the time, the allegation was treated as scandalous. (Blumenthal denied the charge.)
Yet today, the White House press secretary openly tries to undermine Comey’s credibility while he remains at the center of a federal investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Trump and his team.
That’s why Whitehouse thinks Sanders is heading for legal trouble.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP HAS FINALLY GIVEN CONGRESS THE AUTHORITY TO PRESS CHARGES AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON.
Jason Chaffetz, the Chairman of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, shared the information with the committee that he had a discussion with President Trump where the President gave Chaffetz the permission to investigate whatever he wants.
Chaffetz also suggested that charges against Hillary could be arriving soon.
This is what Chaffetz stated:
“PRESIDENT TRUMP VISITED PHILADELPHIA WHEN WE WERE AT OUR PLANNING AND STRATEGY SESSION.
I WENT BACKSTAGE WITH THE PRESIDENT. HERE’S WHAT HE SAID:
‘YOU DO A GREAT JOB. LISTEN, I UNDERSTAND I’M THE PRESIDENT AND YOU HAVE A JOB. YOU DO THE OVERSIGHT. DON’T SLOW DOWN. GO AFTER EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO GO AFTER. YOU LOOK AT EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO LOOK AT.’
IF YOU SAT THERE AND HEARD WHAT HE SAID TO ME ABOUT PURSUING OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT, YOU WOULD BE INSPIRED. AND FOR HIM TO CONVEY A MESSAGE OF ‘DON’T SLOW DOWN,’ I THINK WAS A GOOD MESSAGE.”
You can watch the video here:
The information that President Trump also encourages the investigation comes just days after the Oversight Committee ordered James Comey, (now former) FBI Director, to publish the contents of Hillary Clinton’s email server.
This basically indicates that criminal and reckless Hillary Clinton didn’t get away from a full-blown investigation, regardless of what she had hoped for.
Most of all, without Obama and Comey to cover her tracks now, Hillary Clinton may finally be indicted.
It’s about time she starts being held responsible for her innumerable crimes and for betraying our country.
Finally, she has to answer for what she did, since the fact that President Trump is in control, she won’t make it out uninvestigated this time.
We hope that you found this article informative and helpful. Share your thoughts and opinions with us!
Elder Patriot – There’s no question that partisan conservative lawyers feel that there is an ironclad case to be made against Hillary Clinton for her involvement in the sale of uranium to Russia and for the payment by her campaign for the so-called Trump dossier.
Fox News’ Gregg Jarrett has identified no fewer than thirteen federal felonies that he believes could be successfully prosecuted against Hillary.
“Thirteen potential crimes committed by Hillary Clinton, she’d be charged for six anti-corruption – they were all felonies. She could also be charged with racketeering for using her charity as a criminal enterprise and then you’ve got all of the email crimes – two of them under the espionage act and two additional.” – Jarrett to Sean Hannity
It’s one thing for partisans to make the case against people they view as their political enemies, even partisan lawyers to take sides when these conflicts in the law arise, but it’s quite another when non-partisan legal scholars begin weighing in at times like this.
Jonathan Turley is a Constitutional Law authority whose personal political leanings – it appears that he leans left – never interferes with his legal analysis.
That is what was so telling about his evaluation of the mess that Clinton has created because of her wanton disregard for the law.
“As you know, I’ve been very skeptical about the past Russian collusion claims as being a criminal matter, even though I supported the appointment of the special counsel after Comey was fired I’ve been cautioning and many others have that it really isn’t a crime to collude. In the same, it wouldn’t be a crime on the Trump side to receive information on the other side from a foreign national.
“The allegations against the Clintons could potentially be criminal. It doesn’t mean that they are criminal. The $500,000 given to Bill Clinton might have been innocent. The timing might just have been horrible. But that would be a cognizable crime if a linkage was found.
“In the same way, the allegation over the dossier does involve a potential violation of federal law. The Federal Election Commission Act requires campaigns to state a purpose for any money spent over about $200, to sort of have an item description for each of those amounts. There isn’t an item description for this law firm for the amount of money that is being alleged to have been given to this research firm.
Turley also believes that Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias may be guilty of suborning perjury when he denied the Clinton campaign had played any connection to the Russian dossier.
Turley’s has written on his website:
“The reports indicate that not only did the Clinton team fund the opposition research but that Elias may have been the person handling much of the arrangements. Now Elias’ position has worsened after a report out of Congress that he was present in an interview when campaign chairman John Podesta denied any campaign role in the funding or acquisition of the dossier.
“Podesta was asked in his September interview whether the Clinton campaign had a contractual agreement with Fusion GPS, and he said he was not aware of one, according to one of the sources. Sitting next to Podesta during the interview: his attorney Marc Elias, who worked for the law firm that hired Fusion GPS to continue research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, multiple sources said. Elias was only there in his capacity as Podesta’s attorney and not as a witness.
“If this and the earlier report is true, Elias not only falsely denied any connection between the Clinton campaign and the dossier to two New York Times reporters but sat silently as Podesta gave false information to congressional investigators.”
That would be subordination of perjury. Why would any attorney agree to do that?
There’s little doubt that Hillary and her criminal co-conspirators’ belief in their own skewed polls so inflated their confidence in winning the presidency that they figured they could bury their own and Clinton’s illegalities after her inauguration.
Thanks to the election of Donald Trump the wheels have come off the Democrats’ anti-American wagon and it is careening towards the cliffs of truth.