‘ALL’ does NOT Mean ‘ALL’ According to DOJ


When Bill Clinton occupied the White House and faced impeachment over his Oval Office sexcapades, he attempted to defend his adulterous actions by questioning the definition of the word ‘is’.

Since that time, a number of liberal Democrats have been redefining the English language to hide what they do or their agenda. Case in point is that they know that most Americans would rebel to any mention of socialism so they changed it ‘social justice,’ making it sound so much more palatable and acceptable. Another is changing illegal immigrant or alien to ‘undocumented immigrant or alien’ to cover up the fact they are here illegally.

If you carefully look through the vernacular of many Democrats you will find a number of so-called politically correct terms that are actually hiding the real meaning from most Americans. That’s one reason I absolutely refuse to use politically correct language.

Following in the footsteps of subversive language twisting, the Department of Justice is redefining the word ‘all.’

After the corruption of the Nixon administration in the early 1970s and the subsequent problems with an investigation of that corruption, Congress passed the Inspector General Act of 1978. This act gives inspector generals the authority to fully investigate any charges of corruption or other constitutional violations and have access to ALL documents and information pertinent to their investigation.

A week ago, the Department of Justice redefined ALL by claiming that certain documents and information are protected under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Federal Wiretap Act. Any inspector general seeking information that is supposedly protected under these acts must ask permission from the head of the government department or agency they are investigating.

In hearings this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, several inspector generals testified that not only does it take a long time for them to receive the documents they request but many of them have been redacted which they believe violates the 1978 act giving them legal access to ALL information. The incidence of redaction has drastically increased over the past several years under the Obama administration.

Ironically, in 2008, Barack Obama promised to have a 100% transparent administration. Obviously his definition of transparency involves zero visibility and cooperation.

At the hearings, a number of senators were getting angry over the testimony being presented. Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) responded to FBI Associate Deputy Director Kevin Parson’s testimony and comments, saying:

“I appreciate all of the statistics you gave us, but mathematically, all of those don’t equal A-L-L: all.”

In 2015, Congress attempted to fix the wording from the 1978 Act in part of the appropriations bill by placing restrictions of funding to any agency that restricted inspector generals from having full access to ALL information necessary to their investigations.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz addressed the attempted fix in his testimony saying:

“What we thought was a fix turned out not to be that.”

Referring to Horowitz’s testimony, Associate Deputy Attorney General Carlos Uriarte stated:

“We do think a legislative solution here is workable and it is something we absolutely support to address this issue. We do not, as [Horowitz] mentioned, want to be in a position of having to deal with these issues. We think he should get everything he needs and erase any question about his independence.”

Uriarte also told the committee that Attorney General Loretta Lynch, along with a number of other department heads are working on what they believe will be a workable concrete legislative proposal that would fix their own legal interpretation as put forth last week.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) responded saying:

“It is laughable and it’s completely unacceptable.”

“‘All’ does not mean ‘all’ contradicts all common sense. I don’t know why we should have to pass another law saying we really meant it in 1978 when we said ‘all’ [and that] we really really mean it this time. That’s ridiculous.”

The question that they need to be asking Uriarte is whether or not Lynch will just adhere and accept the word ‘all’ to mean ‘ALL’ as written in the 1978 act?

I wonder if Lynch is really going to reverse the DOJ statements made a week ago about restricting information given to inspector generals or if her so-called concrete solution will still contain caveats and exceptions to the word ALL?

If you rely on the record of the DOJ acting legally over the past six and half years, you’ll hold little hope that Lynch’s solution will be an acceptable solution. They have a long record of acting illegally, making their own laws and refusing to enforce other laws. They also attack others who are law abiding and trying to do the right thing, like Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, which is why I frequently refer to it as the Department of Injustice!

Previous Abortion is Monstrous and there is NO Pro-Life Case for Planned Parenthood
Next Another Hillary Scandal Involving Her Top Aide Huma Abedin

Comment