Schumer: Preet Bharara 'will be sorely missed'

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Saturday lauded former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara after the high-profile federal prosecutor said he was fired earlier in the day.

This may well have been the smoking gun that I missed. It’s big as well.Seems Bharara may have just been a bagman for the obama/val/jar-lynch DOJ funneling hundreds of millions in fines to left wing groups.This is too big to be a coincidence.Looks like the guy was dirty after all.
Like I said never second guess our potus.
........................

The Justice Department…for 16 months has engaged in a scheme to undermine Congress’s spending authority by independently transferring dollars to President Obama’s political allies. The department is in the process of funneling more than half-a-billion dollars to liberal activist groups, at least some of which will actively support Democrats in the coming election.

It works likes this: The Justice Department prosecutes cases against supposed corporate bad actors. Those companies agree to settlements that include financial penalties. Then Justice mandates that at least some of that penalty money be paid in the form of “donations” to nonprofits that supposedly aid consumers and bolster neighborhoods.

The Justice Department maintains a list of government-approved nonprofit beneficiaries. And surprise, surprise: Many of them are liberal activist groups. The National Council of La Raza. The National Urban League. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition. NeighborWorks America (which awards grants to left-leaning community organization groups, and has been compared with Acorn).

This strategy kicked off with the $13 billion J.P. Morgan settlement in late 2013, though in that case the bank was simply offered credit for donations to nonprofits. That changed with the Citigroup and Bank of America settlements, which outright required $150 million in donations. The BofA agreement contains a provision that potentially tees up nonprofit groups for another $490 million. Several smaller settlements follow the same mold.

So was Bharara a crusader or a bag man for leftist groups? I can’t regard him as a serious impartial reformer if he presided over what amounted to a shakedown to benefit left wing groups like La Raza (“The Race”).

Good riddance.

Too bad for Bharara that he didn’t bring charges against deBlasio when he had the opportunity. That will make a run for mayor less winnable for him.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/mainstream_media_supplements_fake_news_with_fake_outrage_over_firing_of_us_attorney_preet_bharara.html#ixzz4b7AoRFF0
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

I’ve know that Reid was dirty for some time. I tried once to find out what was going on with him.He had extensive real estate holdings either in his name or through a family trust I believe where he had zoning changes over and over to increase the value and it appeared he was trying to gather up some property where roads were coming in as well to the best of my memory but I haven’t looked into him in some time.
As i recall it was referred to as “Reids Real estate magic” or something to that effect,it was about as brazen as you can get.
Here is just the tip of the iceberg:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/24/harry_reids_long_steady_accretion_of_power__wealth.html
There may be quite a bit of smoke.

In 1998, Reid invested $400,000 in an undeveloped residential property located on the outskirts of Las Vegas. Reid’s partner in the deal was attorney Jay Brown, whom Ralston describes as a “master manipulator.” Reid transferred his share of the property to a company Brown controlled in 2001. By transferring the land to Brown’s firm, Reid avoided legal liability and some taxes. But Reid didn’t note the transfer — or that he had any stake in the company — in his financial disclosure forms, despite rules requiring such transfers to be reported. By 2004, Brown’s company sold the land, which had been rezoned for a shopping center, and Reid received $1.1 million. He reported the sale as if he had always had control of the property.

When the Associated Press asked Reid about the deal during a 2006 interview, he hung up on the reporter. A spokesman later said that “there were several legal steps associated with the investment during those years that did not alter Senator Reid’s actual ownership interest in the land.” However, there was no physical proof that Reid had any stake in Brown’s company. (Reid’s office said that this is “simply not true” and pointed to testimony before the Clark County Commission about Reid’s involvement with the property. Jentleson also said that Nevada law did not require Reid to disclose the change of personal ownership.) The story may have caused Reid public embarrassment — he amended his ethics reports to include the full history of the property — but he walked away from the deal some $700,000 richer.

(Sen. Reid’s office asserted that the land deal did not qualify as “smoke” or “problematic,” saying that the story “didn’t actually show any wrongdoing. Senator Reid is not the first person in America to have made a profitable land sale and I suspect he won’t be the last but the last time I checked there’s nothing wrong with selling land.”)

That isn’t the only problematic land deal Reid was involved with at the time. In 2002, he put $10,000 into a pension fund controlled by another friend, Clair Haycock. The payment gave Reid a sizable parcel of land in Bullhead City, Ariz. According to the Los Angeles Times, Reid purchased the land for one-tenth of its estimated value — and one-fortieth of what it had sold for a decade earlier. (Reid’s office said, “The Bullhead property is a money pit and has continued to lose value since Reid has owned it — he’s tried (and failed) to give it away for free!” The office pointed to articles showing that the property had declined in value.)

Two actions created suspicion afterward. First, Reid sponsored an $18 million earmark for a bridge that would connect Laughlin, Nev., and Bullhead City. (Reid’s office responds that readers “deserve the context of knowing it was actually a bipartisan, bicameral coalition supporting the New Laughlin Bridge.”) This bridge would likely increase property values in the area. (Reid’s office pointed to past articles showing “plenty of experts think the opposite and have said so on record.”)

Reid also introduced legislation that would benefit Haycock’s lubricant company. (Reid’s office: “It wasn’t just Reid, it was a bipartisan coalition,” pointing to two articles describing the legislation and those who supported it. Further, he pointed out that the Haycock family has denied any relationship between the sale and the legislation.) Reid aides denied that his support for the earmark or lubricant dealer bill was related to the land purchase. As of 2012, Reid listed the property as worth between $250,000 and $500,000 on his financial disclosure form.

While some of Reid’s most lucrative deals involved land, he also benefited from investments in stocks. Near the end of the 2005, he invested between $50,000 and $100,000 in the Dow Jones U.S. Energy Sector Fund, which held shares in several major oil companies. According to National Review, the fund closed at $29.15 on the day Reid purchased. Nearly three years later, in August 2008, Reid sold some of his shares, which closed that day at $41.82. Two months later, Reid-supported legislation that would cost oil companies billions in taxes and regulatory fees passed. The Energy Sector Fund’s shares plummeted to $24.41 each.

(Reid’s office responded: “Senator Reid’s stocks are held in a blind trust over which he has no control,” adding, that “ethics experts have long recommend broad-based funds over individual stock ownership.”)

While six-figure investments and million-dollar land deals most greatly impact Reid’s wealth, he also manages to save money through some of the perks that come with being the most powerful politician in Nevada (and the U.S. Senate, for that matter).

In 2004 and 2005, for example, he received ringside seats to three boxing matches from the Nevada Athletic Commission. Arizona Sen. John McCain attended one of the fights with Reid and paid $1,400 to reimburse the commission. Reid did not. However, after receiving criticism for accepting the tickets while considering legislation involving the commission, a Reid spokesman said that the senator would no longer be accepting “these kinds of credentials in the future.”

For years, Reid also took part in the bipartisan tradition of riding on corporate jets at a discounted rate. Between 2001 and 2005, he took 35 trips on corporate planes. Ethics rules required him to reimburse the firms — such as MGM Grand and U.S. Tobacco — the cost of a first-class plane ticket, which is significantly less than a private jet rental rate. Two years after the Jack Abramoff scandal, the Senate enacted new rules requiring senators to pay prohibitively expensive charter rates to ride on a corporate jet. (The senator’s office pointed out that the new ethics legislation was introduced by Reid: “It was the first bill he introduced as majority leader.”)

While in Washington, Reid stays in a one-bedroom condo he owns at the Ritz-Carlton. Each year, residents contribute money to a holiday bonus fund for Ritz staff. Between 2002 and 2005, Reid spent campaign cash — not his own money — to contribute a cumulative total of $3,300 to the holiday fund. His office said that his lawyers had approved the transfers and that a clerical error had prevented them from being properly disclosed. (The explanation was suspect, as several ethics experts said the expenditures clearly violated campaign finance regulations.) Reid reimbursed the campaign and admitted no intentional wrongdoing. (Reid’s office points out the FEC investigated the matter and dismissed the complaint.)

“There is kind of a pattern. He’ll do something pretty bold. There’ll be a lot of publicity about it, and he’ll step back. But then it happens again,” observed Sebelius. “It’s not as if somebody has made a mistake, learned from it … and it never happens again. This keeps happening.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.