Expect Agenda-Advancing Activism from Anti-Gun Judge Reviewing Hillary Clinton Emails

Clinton-appointee Colleen Kollar-Kotelly thinks environmentalcase concerns trump your right to life. What are the odds she’ll give conservatives a legal boost against Hillary Clinton? (The Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit)

“A federal judge in the nation’s capital will personally review redacted material from emails that discuss Hillary Clinton’s use of unsecure iPads and iPhones during her tenure as secretary of state,” WND.com reported. “Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly will determine whether or not the Trump administration can withhold evidence that could shed light on accusations Clinton and her staff mishandled classified information.”

It’s part of a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch following the administration’s refusal to respond to a Freedom of Information Act Request. That means Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in protecting their fiefdoms, are also giving Clinton cover.

And in this case, be surprised if the judge doesn’t follow suit. It won’t be the first time a federal judge has done so.

Aside from being former Presiding Judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (which carries its own troubling Constitutional considerations), Kollar-Kotelly has shown herself to be a “progressive” activist when it comes to infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

She was the Bill Clinton-appointed judge (no conflict of interest there!) who – before Congress acted on a rider to a credit card bill to make it “legal” – ruled that a Bush administration rule to allow concealed carry in national parks could not be implemented until an environmental impact study had been conducted. She issued a preliminary injunction in a memorandum opinion siding with the Brady Campaign.

Put another way, she unilaterally decided your life and your rights were less important than the off-chance you might fire your gun in self-defense and accidentally threaten an endangered species animal, or perhaps cause other damage by adding a minuscule amount of lead to the environment. And that’s in spite of case after documented case of threats to life in national parks that were known at the time.

As an aside, the Obama administration enacted plenty of rules allowing for illegal aliens and “refugees” to come into the country and to spread their populations throughout. This causes very real additional environmental stresses and demands in terms of energy, water, food, resources, waste disposal, etc., and yet the influx has been added without a realistic assessment to let the American people know what their “leaders” are committing them to deal with.

The odds have to be greater than those of hitting a spotted owl during a defensive gun use.

It’s fair to wonder — if the Bradys had standing to sue over guns in parks — who would have standing to sue over the engineered invasion of foreign nationals? And to wonder if Kollar-Kotelly would find a contradictory rationale if “progressive” goals were at stake…?

Who wants to bet she’ll let Judicial Watch endanger Hillary?

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Comments

  1. Cal 10 October, 2017, 16:51

    “It’s fair to wonder — if the Bradys had standing to sue over guns in parks — who would have standing to sue over the engineered invasion of foreign nationals?”

    We the people of the united States of America. Why? Because, as said in the Declaration of Independence, “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,… That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”

    And because “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”. It is our, the states Constract with those that SERVE WITHIN our federal government. Because it is a contract between those elected, hired, contracted, etc it defines and assigns the duties to THE DIFFERENT BRANCHES and to NAMED OFFICES WITHIN A BRANCH. Those who serve know (or should know) when they go to work within the government – elected, hired, contracted, etc – they are bound by that supreme contract FIRST even if an agency, etc has a seperate and different contract. That second contract is only valid as long as it is in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution. Add to that the Oath, a REQUIRED Oath to “SUPPORT AND DEFEND” the US Constitution before any orders from superiors (if any), and before the duties of the position they occupy (except for those that serve as US Presidents who are held to the higher standard to “PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND the US Constitution). Breaking the Oath is a felony and Perjury.

    Plus it is the constitutionally assigned duty of the Militias of the several states to
    — Enforce the US Constitution (supreme Law of this nation) and each state’s Constitution (highest Law of the state),
    — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    As it is the constitutional duty of the Militias, and because whoever serves as a US President is REQUIRED as a condition of serving in that position to “PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND” the US Constitution through the Oath, and is required to “… take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” through the contract that the person serving as a US President is serving under, the US Constitution.

    Basically the Militias of the serveral States standing to sue for many things that those who serve within our government have done, are not doing, etc. This is just one of them. Check our Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 and 16. Clause 16 covers the duties that those who serve within our state and federal government have TO THE MILITIAS.

    Reply this comment
  2. Drake Savage 11 October, 2017, 14:38

    It’s like they used to say in those old gangster movies,”The fix is in “

    Reply this comment
  3. ABBAsFernando 11 October, 2017, 23:19

    Vile progressive liberal fascists are NAZIS who obey no LAW. Laws are enacted to control one’s enemies.

    As such everything is political with respect for the rights and property of others does not exist. Anything and everything is justified in obtaining the goals of EVIL.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*