Voter fraud is a serious accusation. Some democrats have shown that they are willing to cheat since that was how they defeated Bernie Sanders in the primary elections. The Obama justice department has just officially responded to the issue.

Although the department did not technically say that legitimately documenting or reporting cases of voter fraud is now a criminal activity, the statement did warn that certain activities, like so-called intimidating forms of poll monitoring, could violate federal voting rights laws.

A press release from the Department of Justice says that people who want to prevent voter fraud might be violating voter intimidation laws. These people that the department just threatened might be serving as poll watchers just to make sure that there is nothing going on with the votes.

When first looking at the press release, it initially serves as a warning that voter fraud and abuse isn’t going to be tolerated by federal law enforcement. But what it also does is cast a shadow of doubt over some of the lawful election activities. They use broad language that intends to make individuals worry and therefore not perform their own duties.

A statement that was initially circulated by various U.S. Attorney’s offices had outlined several forms of election crimes. They include “buying and selling votes, impersonating voters,” and various others. Yet they offer a blanket warning to people that might want to challenge some of those actions mentioned.

They claim that those that do what they can to prevent election fraud might, “violate federal voting rights laws.” The Department of Justice comment specifically says that they are against communicating with voters and “challenging them.”

What this does is create confusion among those that are trying to do their jobs and make sure that there isn’t any fraud going on. The statement doesn’t say which states might allow communication between voters and poll watchers. It doesn’t note that some observers in specific states have the power to challenge would-be voters based on their document status.

This broadness is just going to create confusion and allow voter fraud to happen.

Plus this statement comes at a time when Donald Trump has been saying that he has been worried about the election being rigged. In the past law enforcement agencies at all levels have given contact information to report suspicious activity in a “see-something-say-something” way. But now that Trump makes a statement against it, the Department of Justice uses confusing language that cannot be determined to warn against election fraud.

Delaware United States Attorney Charles M. Oberly, III’s says, “every citizen must be able to vote without interference or discrimination and to have that vote counted without it being stolen because of fraud.” Despite his plea, the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division has a poor record of bringing violators to justice.

The last voter intimidation case that was brought up was before the inauguration of President Obama, and even that case ended up being dropped. So that is one case in eight years? That is a horrible record.

The bottom line is that this vagueness is going to create so much confusion that people are not going to do their jobs in fear of being arrested. And that may open the door to let voter fraud in.

Ever since that unplanned meeting with former president Bill Clinton where they were most likely talking about Hillary’s email scandal, the head of the department, Loretta Lynch, has been helping her out in any way possible.

Of course that could be because Clinton has promised Lynch a seat on the Supreme Court if she wins the presidential nomination? Many people think the reason that Lynch is doing whatever she can to help Clinton is because Lynch would be offered a seat on the Supreme Court.

Others believe the other person that would be offered a seat on the bench would be President Obama. That means that we would have two very liberal people on the bench for years to come.

That isn’t the only thing that Lynch has done. She has tried her best to ban all evidence of the Confederate Flag, despite the fact that the flag is a part of American history.