The Soviet Union realized back in the thirties that the most dangerous element facing it was religion. And violent attack against “the Church” would not have worked. So, they figured out a different approach. They created Social Justice Warrior philosophy within religion and directed that effort toward third or second world populations. The communists are a patient group, twenty or thirty years of quiet corruption is just fine with them, as long as it works in the end. Out of this effort came some serious socialists and communists, who somehow claim to be both religious and communists at the same time. One of them is the Pope’s right hand man. The Pope himself is a hard line socialist, which makes him dangerous to free societies like ours. You would think anyone who had any knowledge of the hundreds of millions of people murdered and imprisoned by Communists would reject the concept. But then again, where’s the money in that?
After Pope Francis early in his papacy decried capitalism as “trickle-down economics” — a polemical phrase coined by the left during the Reagan years that Francis frequently borrows — radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh commented, “This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the Pope.” Talk show host Michael Savage called him “Lenin’s pope.” Pope Francis took such comments as a compliment. “I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended,” he told the Italian press.
Pope Francis grew up in socialist Argentina, an experience that left a deep impression on his thinking. He told the Latin American journalists Javier Camara and Sebastian Pfaffen that as a young man he “read books of the Communist Party that my boss in the laboratory gave me” and that “there was a period where I would wait anxiously for the newspaper La Vanguardia, which was not allowed to be sold with the other newspapers and was brought to us by the socialist militants.”
The “boss” to whom Pope Francis referred is Esther Ballestrino de Careaga. He has described her as a “Paraguayan woman” and a “fervent communist.” He considers her one of his most important mentors. “I owe a huge amount to that great woman,” he has said, saying that she “taught me so much about politics.” (He worked for her as an assistant at Hickethier-Bachmann Laboratory in Buenos Aires.)
“She often read Communist Party texts to me and gave them to me to read. So I also got to know that very materialistic conception. I remember that she also gave me the statement from the American Communists in defense of the Rosenbergs, who had been sentenced to death,” he has said. Learning about communism, he said, “through a courageous and honest person was helpful. I realized a few things, an aspect of the social, which I then found in the social doctrine of the Church.” As the archbishop of Buenos Aires, he took pride in helping her hide the family’s Marxist literature from the authorities who were investigating her. According to the author James Carroll, Bergoglio smuggled her communist books, including Marx’s Das Kapital, into a “Jesuit library.”
Holy Papal Batman! What is going on here? Remember, this is not about religion, this is about controlling a religion that was essential in the overthrow of the Communist government in USSR. Pope John Paul worked with Reagan to destroy the Polish communist government and set the USSR on its heels.
Uh, anyone else a little queasy?
He can say he’s not a hard line socialist but the facts are clearly on the table. He bugged Trump about the environment. The environmental cause is about two things, seizing taxes for government and controlling people’s activities. A selling point for lesser societies is the promise of payment by the first world controllers to third world countries to “help them” with their environmental issues. We all know that money would never get past their corrupt government officials and probably a good number of religious leaders.
One of the major people influencing a not so bright Pope (does he have a degree in climate studies himself?) is Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo.
VATICAN CITY, July 16, 2015 (ChurchMilitant.com) – Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Science and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, spoke at a press conference Wednesday morning pushing, among other things, redistribution of weath.
Discussing a joint symposium July 22 with the United Nations’ initiative the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (headed by abortion and population control advocate Jeffrey Sachs), Sorondo justified the Vatican’s collaboration with the UN, claiming, “The United Nations is not the devil.”
The symposium will include around 60 mayors from around the world, consisting entirely of the political left. This fact was not lost on at least one journalist, who asked Sorondo whether the “exclusive presence of mayors of the left of center is not a sign of partiality.” Sorondo responded, “The invitation is open to everyone.”
This marks the second event organized by the pontifical academy that involves major UN representatives. The first was the Vatican summit on global warming, held in April, which also included Jeffrey Sachs as keynote speaker along with UN general secretary Ban Ki-Moon, another well-known proponent of abortion and population control, who gave the opening speech. The academy came under heavy criticism from Catholic media for the prominent role these abortion advocates played at the climate change conference. Both men were invited by Sorondo.
Sorondo was also responsible for systematically removing or preventing climate change skeptics from attendance at the global warming summit. Philippe de Larminat, a scientist from Nantes, France, registered for the conference and bought a plane flight to Rome, after assurance by Cardinal Peter Turkson that he was welcome. But five days before the event he was told there was no room for him.
It turned out that Sorondo was the one who vetoed de Larminat’s presence. When asked why, he wrote, “because he’s not an academic authority in this field, neither a religious authority nor a UN authority.”
But other climate change skeptics also met the same fate, screened out and prevented from attending the conference. “They didn’t want to hear any other opinion,” de Larminat said.
Lord Christopher Monckton, a British journalist and former policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher, was the only skeptic to make it through — but only based on his press credentials as a journalist. Once Sorondo discovered Monckton’s position against anthropogenic climate change, he promptly had him removed.
Now there’s a good Catholic, a man who wants to hear from all voices in this very important issue…oh..sorry.
Who is this guy? He is a “warrior” for social justice and uses the environment in an attempt to seize money and control. Why is anyone listening to him? Hopefully, Trump will take anything the Pope says about the environment with a grain of salt.. or maybe a pound or two.
Because it is, and has always been, about the money. Robes or not.
The question is why is she so worked up. If her IT guys, the ones from Iran, who are now scattering across the globe to avoid prosecution, were just bad guys taking advantage, she should welcome the chance to be a good victim/witness. But maybe she doesn’t want the truth to get out?
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz threatened the chief of the U.S. Capitol Police with “consequences” for holding equipment that she says belongs to her in order to build a criminal case against a Pakistani staffer suspected of massive cybersecurity breaches involving funneling sensitive congressional data offsite.
The Florida lawmaker used her position on the committee that sets the police force’s budget to press its chief to relinquish the piece of evidence Thursday, in what could be considered using her authority to attempt to interfere with a criminal investigation.
The Capitol Police and outside agencies are pursuing Imran Awan, who has run technology for the Florida lawmaker since 2005 and was banned from the House network in February on suspicion of data breaches and theft.
“My understanding is the the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate Members’ equipment when the Member is not under investigation,” Wasserman Schultz said in the annual police budget hearing of the House Committee On Appropriations’ Legislative Branch Subcommittee.
“We can’t return the equipment,” Police Chief Matthew R. Verderosa told the Florida Democrat.
“I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences,” Wasserman Schultz said.
At this point, and in my fantasies, the police chief pulls out a pair of handcuffs, drops them on her desk and says, “The next time I hear you say something like this, you’ll be wearing these on the way out this door.”
But, he’ll play along with the politics because I pretty much think being a Capitol Police officer is a whole lot of looking the other way. Those people up there have to be a mess to work around. The secrets the CPD have to keep would make for the ultimate best selling novel of corruption and bad behavior.
However, this case needs to be looked at. The IT people stole a ton of data and some equipment, set up accounts where all the information of the staff went through ONE Iphone account. There is no way they aren’t spies.
Flirting with criminal charges and blackmail. What were they thinking?
If there were a real case, with a real prosecutor and detectives working the investigation, NONE of what you would be seeing would happen. The establishment is treating Comey as a witness and an investigator, rather than a potential target for lying to Congress or perhaps leaking confidential information. There is a report that Comey met with Mueller before his testimony in Congress. Now we hear that testimony is cancelled. Why? Because keeping lies straight is getting difficult.
Former FBI Director James Comey will speak privately with Robert Mueller, special prosecutor in the Russia probe, prior to testifying in public before the House or the Senate.
House Oversight Committee Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said that decision of Comey’s means he would delay a hearing he had planned for this week.
“Spoke with Comey. He wants to speak with special counsel prior to public testimony. Hearing Wed postponed,” Chaffetz tweeted. Comey was also slated to talk to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
As noted before, Comey is Mueller’s protege. They are buds. What did Mueller say to Comey to make Comey change his plans?
Another proven liar is John Brennan, who- from what I gather- testified with new information or an opinion on a previously discussed issue. In a real case, that witness would be torn apart by the defense. Here’s the problem with Brennan, he’s a liar trying to thread his way through a very dangerous landscape. One misstep and he’s proven- again- as a person willing to lie to protect himself and his allies. Gowdy did his best to make Brennan stumble. Which might have happened.
Today former CIA Director John Brennan testified to congress on the Russian counter-intelligence operation which began in July 2016. Today, John Brennan completely contradicted the March 20th, 2017, testimony of former FBI Director James Comey.
So, Trump, who cannot defend himself outside ill timed and ill considered tweets, is being made to look like a bad guy through leaks and “newly discovered” memories from people who have NO DESIRE to see him succeed.
If Congress were really willing to follow the rule of law, they should remind each witness that any lying to Congress will be immediately sent to the DOJ for prosecution. I’m willing to bet you’d see a ton of people follow Comey’s move and suddenly cancel. This has been a series of people playing a game to harm a sitting President. Whether you like Trump or Obama or Hillary that has to stop. This is getting dangerously close to turning into a process crime. Where the “charge” will be lying to the FBI, the Martha Stewart trap as it is called. That’s just crazy. Politics is tough, but as some have said, this is a soft coup. Which is wrong.
Investigate the crimes if there are any. Shut up about the rest. If we catch you lying, you go to jail.
Or the fraudulent, manipulating, story telling, always the hero bureaucrat that wants to protect- and enhance- his reputation. Comey is smart and wily, a veteran of inside DC hardball, and an angry former employee.
Trump should have followed protocol and fired Comey in the right way. That’s on the impulsive Trump. However, once fired, a decent man would simply go away- knowing he compromised himself repeatedly throughout his career- and then do something all former insiders do- write a book.
But not Comey- who’s ego may rival Trump’s- but in a quieter more manipulative way. He has decided to testify in an open session, in front of the cameras he’s grown to love, and shoot Trump in the foot. He wants to paint a picture of him being the hero again, trying to save Trump from himself, but in the end realizing Trump was actually a bad guy.
Now, as a veteran detective, I would eat Comey alive in about five minutes. As smart as he is, he has created a trick bag that he has become obsessed in cleaning up. He made the mistake of letting his moron friend- another lawyer- speak for him. In doing so, his friend went too far and put Comey in a spot he has to talk himself out of.
Comey, and the allies inside DC establishment, are hoping his OTHER friend, Mueller, will get him out of the bag.
Okay, let me explain. I was going to say something, but I had a job I liked, so I didn’t. But he fired me, and well screw that right?! So I’m here to get even..I mean tell the truth- kinda.
Here’s the rub. Comey said, under oath, that he felt no influence from anyone to do his job. Since he is not in control of the actual investigation- DOJ and his agents are- that makes sense. What Trump did, according to Comey’s mysterious notes, is ask to wrap up the investigation and go easy on Flynn “because he’s a good guy.”
There is nothing in Flynn’s history to say any different. A stellar military career, Flynn’s only “offense” was to buck the false narrative Obama’s idiots were pushing about the Middle East. Flynn turned out to be right, but they fired him. Then he hooked up with Trump. His position, the one Trump signed onto, was we needed to totally rethink how America interacted with the Middle East. The establishment wanted things just the profitable way they were- so Flynn had to go. (Flynn apparently did some consulting work and took money from foreign companies and countries. If that’s a crime then lock up Podesta, Hillary, Bill and Biden’s kid, not to mention hundreds of others. But that’s the way things are. Good for me the liberal, bad for you the conservative, mainly because the media looks the other way.)
Enter the effort by the establishment, accompanied by Comey, to destroy Flynn, then destroy Trump. Two flies too many in their collective soup.
Comey has a history of worming his way through situations that didn’t turn out well and still came out looking like a hero, usually through his excellent storytelling ability to make himself look like one. Now we are going to see that ability again.
According to one source with knowledge, Comey’s relationship with Trump was uncomfortable from the start. The director had some hope that, over time, he could effectively point out the appropriate procedures and guidelines to both Trump and the White House staff about how the process of communications normally works. It didn’t turn out that way.
One Comey memo reportedly claims that Trump asked the FBI director to “let this go”– referring to the FBI investigation into Gen. Michael Flynn’s contacts with the Russians — although the President himself has flatly denied that he ever did that.
While it is unknown whether the President has either tapes or notes of his conversations with Comey, the FBI director kept meticulous memos and shared them with his team contemporaneously.
Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of the Lawfare blog and a Comey friend, writes that Comey called his interactions with Trump “training” in order to “re-establish” appropriate boundaries. In his conversations, Wittes writes, “Comey never specifically said this was about the Russia matter” but he assumed that it was. Comey saw his job, Wittes writes, as an effort to “protect the rest of the bureau from improper contacts and interferences from a group of people he did not regard as honorable.”
Wittes told The New York Times that the now-infamous hug from the President — from which Comey tried to hide behind a blue curtain — left the director “disgusted.” Wittes writes “he regarded the episode as a physical attempt to show closeness and warmth in a fashion calculated to compromise him before Democrats who already mistrusted him.”
The dinner with the President, which Wittes describes as “the loyalty dinner,” took place five days after that hug.
When the writers of this article were constructing it, did any of them ask the obvious questions.
1- How is it okay that an FBI director takes it upon himself to school a President. How is that his job? In Comey’s storytelling world, he was trying to be the good guy. He never said Trump was wrong- just rough and unschooled. So like a good mentor, Comey was going to fix that- so he’s the hero…right!
Comey has a history, even as recent as last October and July, where his own sense of morality set his actions in motion. The Left and the MSM were HATING HIM! Now he’s the storyteller they are waiting for with baited breath. Here’s a follow up question- Why? Why is he at the center, and maybe that is what he craves. So is he willing to say whatever it takes to stay there?
Which leads to the second question; 2- Why is this coming out now and why suddenly is Comey saying it could be obstruction? The answer is twofold. It is coming out now because Comey is mad, his ego bruised and his stellar reputation harmed. So he is striking back. The reason he is using words like obstruction is because it plays better in the story. He will be seen as the victim/hero, a martyr on the pyre that is the Trump crisis presidency.
Comey picked this committee and not that committee because his story cannot be retold twice. Because, as we all know, stories change as they are retold. Each time a little bigger and a little grander for the storyteller. Comey is avoiding the committee he swore to that no influence had occurred and picking a new committee with different make up of members. I’m sure he’s researched the issue and is picking the sweeter of the two landscapes.
Comey has to be really careful. If he goes too far, his story falls apart. If he sounds to insistent, he is a just an angry ex-employee trying to get back at his boss. His advantage is the mistakes will not be reported. His danger is he’s messing with a guy who will not sit and take it, and who also may have notes.
Comey’s ability to, in a way, “hang back by the curtains” of the federal government, inserting himself here and there after careful thought, is his strength. Here he is wide open, over his skis and flying downhill. If he gets it wrong, in a real world, an indictment or an embarrassment.
Trump overplayed his hand by hammering Comey. Comey’s ego may make him overplay his hand in return. As a point, Alan Dershowitz explains that Comey is being cowardly in using his friend to speak for him. I agree. Comey can allow the accusations to go forward, then claim his friend misunderstood what Comey said, so neither can be held for intentionally saying a harmful statement. That’s pretty cheezy.
Dershowitz said that he’s always liked Comey, but Comey has been “using his friends to get his point out. It’s cowardly. And I think it’s about time that Comey is confronted directly with cross-examination. He was a great director of the FBI, but when the whole Hillary Clinton thing began, he cared more about his reputation and his dignity than about what was good for America.”
Dershowitz added, “I’d want to find out if he was the source of the leaks of the memo that he was quoted in. Second, I would ask him why he didn’t talk directly, why he’s using his friends. I would go back to his decisions to speak to the public.” He continued that while he disagreed with President Trump’s reported characterization of Comey as a “nutjob,” calling him a “showboat” is “not a bad characterization.”
He further stated Comey’s motives are “all about preserving his reputation above everything else.” Dershowitz further argued that Comey revealed Clinton investigation because thought Clinton was going to win, and he would be faulted by Trump supporters for not revealing the investigation, and so Comey revealed the Clinton investigation to preserve his reputation.
Dershowitz also stated that he believes Trump fired Comey due to Comey’s statement that he felt sick over the prospect that he might have influenced the election.
Here’s the video.
This isn’t the way our government should work, but it does expose the venial corrupted personalities that run our country, which should frighten all of us. When pressure is applied they all just seem to turn into rabid animals, biting and snapping, to protect their food bowl.
Truly one of the “ah ha!” moments! Everything makes so much more sense!
Journalists’ brains show a lower-than-average level of executive functioning, according to a new study, which means they have a below-average ability to regulate their emotions, suppress biases, solve complex problems, switch between tasks, and show creative and flexible thinking.
The study, led by Tara Swart, a neuroscientist and leadership coach, analysed 40 journalists from newspapers, magazines, broadcast, and online platforms over seven months. The participants took part in tests related to their lifestyle, health, and behaviour.
It was launched in association with the London Press Club, and the objective was to determine how journalists can thrive under stress.
Each subject completed a blood test, wore a heart-rate monitor for three days, kept a food and drink diary for a week, and completed a brain profile questionnaire.
The results showed that journalists’ brains were operating at a lower level than the average population, particularly because of dehydration and the tendency of journalists to self-medicate with alcohol, caffeine, and high-sugar foods.
Forty-one percent of the subjects said they drank 18 or more units of alcohol a week, which is four units above the recommended weekly allowance. Less than 5% drank the recommended amount of water.
However, in interviews conducted in conjunction with the brain profile results, the participants indicated they felt their jobs had a lot of meaning and purpose, and they showed high mental resilience.
Just because you are resiliently dumb, doesn’t make it a good thing!
Basically, if you gathered all the journalists together, it would look like this;
Big headline but proves the point that in this rarified air that the DC/New York/international business lives in- everybody knows everybody.
Let’s throw out the issue that Mueller and Comey are friends.
Don’t worry pal. It’s all good!
Let’s throw out the BIG issue that John Podesta, Clinton’s chief of staff, lobbied for a Ukrainian business, and is lobbying for a Russian bank…currently! Understand, this is payoffs and bribery in the 21st century. Instead of money in a paper bag handed under a table, this system was developed to make it all seem legal. They hire Hillary’s Chief of Staff’s brother, pay him big money for nothing, HRC’s chief of staff owes a favor. If John is part owner of lobbying firm, he gets paid directly too. This is the big “establishment” scam that domestic and international interests have used to payoff politicians for years.
Let’s throw out the millions paid Bill and Hill WHILE Hill was Sec of State, giving favors to people who “donated” to her so-called money laundering charity.
So when the MSM screams about Trump and the Russians, remember from what hilltop they are standing on.
It was easier when I was young because we never actually saw the corruption as blatant as this. It was there, just in the backroom because it mattered to the politicians that we didn’t know, a sense of respect and maybe some fear. Now it is a finger in the eye and a middle finger in general when we complain. It has now become their “right” to steal.
So, getting to Mueller. I have an issue with someone like him, a friend of Comey’s, looking into what is going to really jam Comey up if someone who wasn’t his friend was looking into this mess.
First and foremost, this whole Russian deal was created by the Hillary Clinton campaign as a way to excuse her loss and screw with Trump. With the media and democrats helping it worked.
Second, it is becoming apparent that Comey is all about Comey. I admit I still agree with what he did in July with the press conference. I was convinced by his public reputation that he just couldn’t stand the corruption any longer. I was wrong. The problem with Comey is that it is all about Comey. He had massaged stories and remembrances of events in order to promote his public reputation of being a straight shooter. He may be, compared to the rest of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, but he works hard making sure everybody believe “He’s the guy!”. So him coming out in July may have been more about him getting in front of a scandal he knew was coming if Hillary won. My point, he was doing it more for himself than us, it just worked out good for America. Hillary would have been a corruption machine!
Alberto Gonzales tells his version of the well known Comey story about how he stopped Gonzales from getting a program reauthorized by AG John Ashcroft, when Ashcroft was hospitalized. The Comey version is he had a problem with the program, he didn’t want to sign it, Ashcroft was in a hospital and he went there to stop Gonzales from getting Ashcroft to sign what COMEY thought wasn’t right. Not illegal, not unapproved, just what Comey -in his Diogenes moment- one of many apparently- decided could not be authorized. Comey said he was sitting by the bedside and confronted Gonzales- thus saving the day (From what? Not sure.).
However, Gonzales remembers it differently and make sure you read the whole article to grasp an idea of what is the Comey perception problem.
Gonzales’s descriptions of his interactions with Comey, included in his 2016 book “True Faith And Allegiance,” are detailed and extensive. While his tone is measured, the language he uses to describe Comey’s actions in 2004 and 2007 leaves little doubt about the former top Bush official’s views on Comey’s character. Gonzales’s opinion is clearly colored by the fact that Comey cravenly used him to jumpstart his own political career by going public with surprise (and questionable) testimony that Gonzales had attempted to take advantage of a deathly ill man in order to ram through authorization of an illegal surveillance program.
Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft had taken ill and was in the hospital at a pivotal time. The legal authorization of a surveillance program meant to find and root out terrorist threats was days from expiring. What happened in Ashcroft’s hospital room in March of 2004 later became political fodder for a hearing in which Senate Democrats used Comey to dredge up the 2004 hospital meeting to tar Gonzales’ credibility and suggest he was unfit to continue serving as attorney general. As the 2004 and 2007 sagas show, Comey is clearly no stranger to using the unarguably legal dismissal of government employees as the backdrop for casting himself as the story’s protaganist standing up to the forces of corruption.
“[I] told my security detail that I needed to get to George Washington Hospital immediately. They turned on the emergency equipment and drove very quickly to the hospital,” Comey testified. “I got out of the car and ran up — literally ran up the stairs with my security detail.”
“I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was in no condition to do that,” Comey said.
Comey’s use of the phrase “overrule me” is especially noteworthy, given that the authority he referenced belongs not to the deputy attorney general, but to the attorney general himself. However, unbeknownst to anyone at the White House on that day, Comey had assumed for himself the authorities attendant to Ashcroft’s position. Rather than personally informing anyone at the White House, including the president, the vice president, the White House chief of staff, or the White House counsel, the Department of Justice sent a mere fax to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue noting the change in power. For some reason, the newly designated acting attorney general didn’t feel compelled to personally inform any of his superiors that he was now a cabinet official.
I sat down in an armchair by the head of the attorney general’s bed. The two other Justice Department people stood behind me. And Mrs. Ashcroft stood by the bed holding her husband’s arm. And we waited.
And it was only a matter of minutes that the door opened and in walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card. They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly. And then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there — to seek his approval for a matter, and explained what the matter was — which I will not do.
And Attorney General Ashcroft then stunned me. He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me — drawn from the hour-long meeting we’d had a week earlier — and in very strong terms expressed himself, and then laid his head back down on the pillow, seemed spent, and said to them, ‘But that doesn’t matter, because I’m not the attorney general.’
And as he laid back down, he said, ‘But that doesn’t matter, because I’m not the attorney general. There is the attorney general,’ and he pointed to me, and I was just to his left. The two men did not acknowledge me. They turned and walked from the room. And within just a few moments after that, Director Mueller arrived. I told him quickly what had happened. He had a brief — a memorable brief exchange with the attorney general and then we went outside in the hallway.
Gonzales was taken aback by Comey’s appearance and testimony. It turns out that was by design. Comey kept secret his pre-hearing planning with Schumer and his staff to maximize the fallout of the bomb he planned to drop on Gonzales and the Bush administration. In a significant breach of protocol, Comey also refused to share with the White House or the Department of Justice that he had planned to testify about his work at DOJ, a move which made it impossible for the White House to consider whether it needed to assert executive privilege over portions of Comey’s planned testimony.
As fate would have it, the Schumer staffer who spearheaded the entire spectacle was none other than Preet Bharara, a former employee of Comey’s in the U.S. attorney’s office in New York. Bharara, like Comey, was fired by President Donald Trump earlier this year. And Bharara, like Comey, owes his most recent position of authority in the U.S. government to Schumer and President Barack Obama.
“When I found out from our DOJ legislative liaison that Comey was testifying, I was surprised,” Gonzales wrote after noting that Comey hadn’t worked at DOJ for years when the U.S. attorneys were fired. “It was also odd that we had received no notice at DOJ regarding the appearance of one of the former members of our leadership team at a Senate hearing.”
“I called the White House counsel Fred Fielding, and Fred confirmed that he had no prior notice of Comey’s testimony either,” Gonzales continued. “I was disappointed that the man who had been given so much in his legal career — appointed by President Bush as a U.S. attorney and then as deputy attorney general — did not even notify the White House or me in advance of his testimony.”
“It felt to me that Jim’s loyalty was more to his friend Preet Bharara and to Chuck Schumer,” he wrote.
Gonzales also questioned whether Bharara’s role in ambushing the previous Republican presidential administration was the reason Obama later appointed Bharara to Comey’s old job as U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York.
Comey’s 2007 testimony went off just as he, Bharara, and Schumer planned. It was shocking and dramatic. Comey weaved a tale that involved him being notified at the last possible second that Bush’s chief of staff and counsel planned to ambush Ashcroft in his hospital bed and force him against his will to sign a legal document authorizing an ongoing mass surveillance program that Comey and his deputy, Jack Goldsmith, had very recently decided was illegal despite multiple DOJ and National Security Agency legal opinions to the contrary. According to Gonzales, despite having been on the job for months, Comey and Goldsmith didn’t disclose their concerns to the White House counsel about the legality of the surveillance initiative until March 6, just five days before the program’s authorization expired.
The narrative Comey provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee was riveting. But according to Gonzales, it didn’t actually happen the way it was presented. And the conflicting details between Comey’s and Gonzales’ account, given Comey’s current attempts to use his credibility and recollection of events witnessed only by himself to take down a Republican official, raise significant questions about the trustworthiness of Comey’s current claims.
According to Gonzales, rather than sitting directly next to Ashcroft, Comey and his two deputies, Goldsmith and Pat Philbin, never made their presence known, and neither Gonzales nor Andy Card, Bush’s chief of staff, had any clue they were there during the 10-minute meeting. To the contrary, Gonzales noted in his book that he assumed the small handful of people hiding in the periphery of a darkened room were actually Ashcroft’s security detail doing their best to stay out of the way.
More important, in Gonzales’ telling, Ashcroft never even mentioned Comey, let alone pointed him out to Gonzales as being physically present in the room.
“I was told this morning that I’m no longer attorney general,” Gonzales wrote was Ashcroft’s response to a request to re-authorize the Stellar Wind program, a far cry from the forceful declaration Comey attributed to Ashcroft.
“Certainly, had the vice president, Andy, or I known about the matter, we would have informed the president, and he could have simply summoned the deputy attorney general,” Gonzales wrote. “But none of us knew until John Ashcroft announced the news to us in his hospital room.”
President George W. Bush himself, in his book “Decision Points,” expressed his feeling of shock when he found out that Comey had seized the attorney general’s authority in March of 2004.
Hmmm…self aggrandizing much?
In this light comes the “notes” read to an anti-Trump newspaper by an associate of Comey’s. Which, on a side note, is just weird. Who does that?
Anyway, Comey took notes saying Trump may have tried to influence his investigation into Flynn by saying Flynn’s a good guy and to be easy on him. Of course Comey resisted, as only Diogenes can!, and wrote it down. Here’s the rub. Comey didn’t say a word UNTIL he got canned. Suddenly, he has all this information on how Trump acted badly, something he was willing to accept as long as he could stay in the spotlight. (Shades of the Hilllary/Lynch/Obama days!)
Trump did him wrong by just firing him unceremoniously. Bad form. Comey is going to seek revenge, because that is what Comey’s ego demands be done. So strap in. But before you do, ask yourself this. If Comey felt pressured by an attempt at obstruction- why didn’t he report it? He was required to, had a chance before Congress, while under oath. But he denied it. And if by saying now it was obstruction, but in front of Congress lied about it, doesn’t that put him in the trick bag? Mueller, Comey’s friend needs to address this.
Mueller, who is compromised out the door, needs to do some other things if he is serious.
One- seize ALL of Comey’s notes. Raw and unedited from his entire time as FBI director. Why? Because for one, they no longer belong to him. By using them as a source to undermine a sitting President, and because at the time he was taking those notes he was personally involved in investigations as a paid employee of the federal government- those notes belong to us. Further, the notes can be used to create context. Will we see a series of notes reflecting accurately the facts of events we can verify? Or will we see a perception of a man who thinks he is the last honest man left in DC, always the hero? That is very, very important. It is a duty of any investigating detective to make sure any witness is accurate and vetted for veracity. If not, the detective needs to information the attorney involved and the jury if need be.
Does Comey embellish? The short answer is yes. Here is a perfect example. Comey tells a friend, who tells the papers (again, wtf?) that he avoided hugging the President. First, the question is why does he hate Trump so much to start out. They don’t even know each other. So there is that bias. Then he tells the story of how he tried to hide from Trump to avoid shaking his hand, telling us more about Comey than about Trump. THEN he says that he didn’t let Trump hug him. This is all to set up Comey as the guy who realizes early that Trump is unfit and does “the right thing”. All about reputation.
Sadly, for Comey, there is video.
As for him being pressured to the level of obstruction? Well, either he’s lying then, or he’s lying now. But will Mueller do anything to harm his inner circle buddy?
And this is the rub for Mueller, IF he can stay on. There seems to be a legal problem.
Robert Mueller has a serious conflict of interest that should disqualify him from serving as special counsel.
He has had a long and close relationship with someone who will surely become a pivotal witness –James Comey.
No one doubts Mueller’s sterling credentials. That is not the issue. He is eminently qualified. The problem arises in his duty to fairly and objectively evaluate the evidence he gathers.
How can Americans have confidence in the results if they know the special counsel may harbor a conspicuous bias? They cannot. The conflict inevitably discredits whatever conclusion is reached. It renders the entire investigatory exercise suspect, and it only elevates the controversy surrounding it.
For this reason, Mueller should not serve as special counsel.
The law governing the special counsel (28 CFR 600.7) specifically prohibits him from serving if he has a conflict of interest in the case. The rule has been interpreted to mean that even the appearance of a conflict is sufficient for disqualification.
A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties. The conflict itself creates a clash between that individual’s self-interest or bias and his professional or public interest. It calls into question whether he can discharge his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner.
Identical rules govern prosecutors who, for example, must recuse themselves from handling a case against a person with whom they have worked or had a personal relationship. The same would be true if a prosecutor had a close relationship with a witness in the case. The prior association raises the real or perceived possibility of prejudice or favoritism which is contrary to the fair administration of justice.
So what exactly is Mueller’s conflict? He and Comey are good friends and former colleagues who worked hand-in-hand at the FBI and Department of Justice. Agents will tell you they were joined at the hip. They stood together in solidarity, both threatening to resign over the warrantless wiretapping fiasco involving then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004.
Comey regards his predecessor as a mentor, while Mueller considers Comey his protégé. When Comey was appointed to succeed Mueller as FBI Director, both men appeared together and were effusive in their praise of one another. Their relationship is not merely a casual one. It is precisely the kind of association which ethical rules are designed to guard against.
If I were Trump I would bring this up and demand someone TRULY on the outside of the DC swamp if possible. It also makes you wonder what the hell the assistant DOJ attorney was thinking when he offered up Mueller!
Plus, we learn that Mueller’s legal firm worked for Jared Kushner in a business deal, plus Manafort- arguably the biggest interest in this “investigation.”
Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said Thursday that the agency will conduct a background investigation and detailed review of conflict-of-interest issues, a process outlined in the regulation governing special counsels under which he was appointed.
For the past three years, Mueller has been a partner in the Washington office of WilmerHale, whose attorneys represent former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Trump’s daughter Ivanka and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law.
Federal regulations prohibit officials from participating in matters involving their former employers for two years after joining the government unless they receive a waiver to do so.
Bruce Berman, WilmerHale’s general counsel, said that Mueller had no involvement in the representation of Manafort, Kushner or Trump, or any client in connection with any Russia-related inquiry. The firm says there are no potential conflicts regarding Mueller’s role as special counsel, Berman said.
Ahhh, whatever dude! This is typical, amoral legal crap from lawyers. To make this simpler, would parents let the cousin of the opposition coach umpire a ballgame for their kids? NOOOOO!!
Yet, here we are. And frankly PJ media points out IF Mueller makes it, has some serious steps he must take- none of which I have confidence he will do. In fact, I am convinced that the smartest thing Trump can do is say no- point out the conflicts and demand a truly impartial attorney. Maybe pull in some guy from the Arizona or Florida office.
For Mueller to separate them or to disregard any of the three will mean his investigation is essentially a useless charade. They are:
One: the matter of the Hillary Clinton email server. This has resurfaced dramatically in the firing of James Comey, reasons for which are laid out in Rod Rosenstein’s memo. Whether he wrote this memo before or after Trump decided to get rid of Comey is immaterial since the Deputy AG has now stated he stands behind its contents. Further to this portion of the narrative is the overall question of putative Russian government hacking into the Clinton campaign. So far we have seen no public evidence that this is true. We have actually seen circumstantial evidence (the Seth Rich murder) to the contrary. Mueller must also explain why the DNC refused to open its servers to the FBI after it was supposedly hacked by the Russians and why the FBI, incredibly, acquiesced in this. The questions here are endless—including why the FBI gave immunity in so many cases and allowed for the destruction of evidence.
This is about establishing a baseline. IF the Russians did not hack into the DNC, NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!
Two: the matter of government surveillance of Trump and his people. The president famously complained in a tweet of being “wiretapped” by Obama. Despite endless criticisms of his language when he actually put the word in quotes, the possibility of this obviously high-tech surveillance and the various attendant unmaskings is by far the most serious question that must be dealt with in this investigation. If the massive intelligence capabilities of the NSA and the CIA are being used for internal political purposes, the United States of America, as we know it and the Founders envisioned it, no longer exists.
How did Yates, Rice, Obama and all news outlets get any information at all about anyone talking to the Russians? Again, illegally obtained information is out!
Three: Trump and the Russians, of course. It’s clear from his campaign statements that Trump wanted better relations with Russia and Putin. This was nothing new. Several American presidents have sought the same thing at the beginning of their administrations only to be blindsided by reality. Obama seemed particularly desperate when he got caught on camera naively whispering to Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more to offer Putin after the election (as if Vladimir didn’t know). The rest, including the failed “red line,” Iran on the rampage, and the endless Syrian civil war, is history. The question now is to what extent Trump and his people may have colluded with the Russians and whether this “collusion” meant anything. In the case of Manafort, as it was with John Podesta, this seems to have been no more than normal (and somewhat repellent) greed.
All true. In 2008 as Obama was running against McCain, his people were actively undermining the GW Bush administration efforts to get a deal with the Iranians by CONTACTING THE IRANIANS and telling them to sign no deal until they got into power and would offer something far sweeter- which they did.
So, what does Donald Trump winning the White House expose? The HUGE, CORRUPT, INCESTUOUS CABAL of DC elites who are parasitically feeding off our nation- and do not want to stop.
That’s the bottom line. He ripped the cover back and we now see just how lost our nation is. Despite Comey’s insistence, there are no honest men left.
I’ve supported Comey in the past when he tried to thread the needle in the fixed Hillary email “investigation.” By stepping out, he did the right thing, I thought for the right reasons. However, lately we’ve all seen him shift from the ethical guy- trying to save his agency from corruption- to a guy who is really only interested in his own reputation and maybe power.
Years ago it was revealed the reason J Edgar Hoover was never fired from being the original head of the FBI was not because he was great at his job, but more that he had dirt on everyone in DC. Nobody wanted to cross him because he would work to take them out.
I have thought we were beyond this, but I was wrong. The “deep state” cabal does exist and Comey is sadly part of it.
All of these leaks appear to emanate from one decision Trump made last week: firing Comey.
The termination of the former FBI director, at first, appeared to be greeted with bipartisan support. Then an hour after the news broke, the media and Democrats began treating it as the equivalent of a coup. More importantly, it angered many in the intelligence community, which now seems dead set on paralyzing the Trump administration.
All tough decisions come with blowback, of course, and it should have been expected that firing Comey would come with serious consequences. But the problem for Trump is this: what the hell did he hope to gain by making such a controversial move?
You could say he could get a better FBI director who could shed the taint of appearing too cozy with the Clintons during the 2016 campaign. But two of the top choices for the job are acting Andrew McCabe, who has strong ties to Clintonworld, and Merrick Garland, the liberal judge Democrats tried to claim was a lovable moderate.
The reports are that his son in law thought the Left would love to see Comey gone. They did not. In fact, within hours the new “obstruction of justice” meme took flight. And frankly, Trump could have not kick Comey in the nods on the way out of the door. But that’s Trump and he may have gotten a heads up that Comey was going to act out.
Which brings us to the notes.
As I have said, Comey went from a good guy, knee deep in the corrupt DC swamp, to Diogenes. He’s become the “last honest man” seeking justice for the nation. Sadly, instead of keeping quiet and writing a book, Comey decided to make it worse for the nation. He picked himself over his country. The method of his revenge was to have a “friend” read to the Washington Post part of Comey’s notes he wrote after he met with Trump. The trouble of course is nobody saw the notes, nobody talked with Comey and the media went with the story anyway.
My first thought was “You took notes on all important meetings?” Then I’m told he is known far and wide as a detailed note taker. Well now. By making those notes public and using them to harm the PRESIDENT, you have pushed what could be considered private notes into the public, which makes them our notes. He is not a lawyer acting for a client, he is a law enforcement officer. Those notes have evidentiary value. That’s the law anywhere in the country. You take notes, you had better expect a smart defense attorney to ask for them in a questionable case. And Hillary getting away with what she did is a very questionable case.
So, Mr. Comey, please turn over all the notes of EVERY meeting you had dealing with Obama/IRS/Hillary/Holder/Lynch meeting you had. I mean the raw notes. You’ll be called to explain them in the future.
You want to play? Let’s play.
I was waiting for someone to point this out, and finally somebody did.
A House Republican wants to see the entire memo from former FBI Director James Comey on President Trump asking him to drop the investigation of Michael Flynn, as well as any memo Comey might have composed on the infamous meeting Bill Clinton had with Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
“If the New York Times has [Comey’s memo] that means we’re going to be able to see it and I would assume that would be fair. I assume that Mr. Comey also kept, if he’s disturbed by the same memos, that he gave to or about when Mrs. Clinton’s husband appeared in the jet with the attorney general,” Texas Republican Rep. Pete Sessions told The Daily Caller Tuesday.
“So I assume that memo would be available to us also. And I would assume that we will see a number of disturbing trends that took place at the Department of Justice [during the Obama administration] for whatever he’s claiming and I’ll look forward to seeing all those,” Sessions said. “But I cannot comment, because I have not seen them but I would assume that Mr. Comey that if he kept one on this visit, evidently, he has others. Now I look forward to seeing those.”
Finally. Watch and see how many people are not interested in seeing the rest of the notes. If Comey were really an honest man, he come before Congress in an open session and lay it all out. As Trey Gowdy said, Comey was forced to make decisions reference the Hillary server scandal that hinged on classified information. I think that should be declassified at once to see why Comey did what he did.
James Comey wants to be a star? Fine. Let’s make him a star defendant and turn the spotlight on him for a change. According to Andrew McCarthy, Trump didn’t do anything wrong. But Obama…
Up until now, veiled orders have not been thought the equivalent of obstruction. On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The president acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated.
On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey publicly stated that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The director acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved.
Could there be more striking parallels? A cynic might say that Obama had clearly signaled to the FBI and the Justice Department that he did not want Mrs. Clinton to be charged with a crime, and that, with this not-so-subtle pressure in the air, the president’s subordinates dropped the case — exactly what Obama wanted, relying precisely on Obama’s stated rationale.
Yet the media yawned.
Of course, they’re not yawning now. Now it is Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, sending Comey signals. So now, such signals are a major issue — not merely of obstruction of justice, but of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Trump hysteria seems to be a permanent condition, a combustive compound of media-Democrat derangement surrounding a president who keeps providing derangement material. Let’s try to keep our feet on the ground, but with a commitment to get the evidence and go wherever it takes us.
For now, we don’t have much evidence. Essentially, we’ve got single statement, mined by the New York Times from a memo that no one outside a tight circle inside the FBI has seen — indeed, that the Times has not seen. According to anonymous sources, the memo was written by then–FBI director Comey shortly after a private meeting with President Trump — only two of them in the room after Trump asked other officials to leave. This was on February 14, the day after National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned over inaccurate statements he made to senior administration officials in recounting conversations he’d had with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak.
Trump is said to have told Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”
Other than telling us that Comey replied, “I agree he is a good guy,” the Times provides no context of the conversation. Its report gives no indication of whether the memo provides such context.
On its face, the statement does not amount to obstruction of justice. Trump could be said to be putting pressure on his subordinate, just as Obama was putting pressure on his subordinates (Comey included) last April. But assuming the Times is right about the memo, Trump did not order Comey to drop the case. In fact, Trump’s statement is consistent with encouraging Comey to use his own judgment, with the understanding that Trump hoped Comey would come out favorably to Flynn.
Like I said, you want to play. Let’s play. Of course, we just learned the “play” was appointing another establishment toady as Special Prosecutor, so…
Hot Air reports on the FBI review of how Obama’s drive to undermine law enforcement for eight years did exactly that.
An FBI study written last month touches on the ongoing argument over the Ferguson Effect. The FBI looked at 50 incidents in which police officers were killed in 2016. In addition to the demographic makeup of the killers, the FBI also examined their motives. While the vast majority were simply attempting to evade arrest or avoid going back to jail, 28% of the incidents involved people who said they wanted to kill police officers. From the report:
The assailants inspired by social and/or political reasons believed that attacking police officers was their way to “get justice” for those who had been, in their view, unjustly killed by law enforcement. These assailants expressed that they were distrustful of the police due to previous personal interactions with law enforcement and what they heard and read in the media about other incidents involving law enforcement shootings. Specifically in the Dallas, TX, and Baton Rouge, LA, attacks, the assailants said they were influenced by the Black Lives Matter movement, and their belief that law enforcement was targeting black males.
The report goes on to say that the publicity associated with high-profile police shootings, particularly the death of Mike Brown in Ferguson, MO, has led to a sense national leaders are against them. “Nearly every police official interviewed agreed that for the first time, law enforcement not only felt that their national political leaders publically stood against them, but also that the politicians’ words and actions signified that disrespect to law enforcement was acceptable,” the report states. That, in turn, leads the officers to be less proactive in their policing, which the report calls “de-policing.”
All of this is true. But there is another reason why the police are pulling back- they are committing suicide by mistrust.
Recently, I had a chance to visit with a friend who is still on the job. He was talking about the new, new idea of body cameras and how it affects their work. He told me that it was now practice that if anyone complained about the officer, valid or not, they reviewed the footage of the body camera. If there is an issue, it’s either handled at the sergeant level or pushed up to IA. That isn’t too bad. However, he also told me per policy they are now required to pull random video from random officers and review their behavior in general. Like they were Big Brother or something.
When I heard that I thought to myself, “You have to be kidding me!” First, I’ve been retired for a decade now, and thank God for it. After he outlined the new process I was stunned at the fact the police officers were standing for it. There is no way good cops can interact with bad guys or witnesses in a street environment and get anything done. Especially when the officer knows not only is that camera recording what they are doing, but what the other people are doing too. Maybe the guy is wanting to talk to the cop and give him information. He’s not going to do ANYTHING in front of a camera that can be subpoenaed by any attorney or FOIA by a reporter. The world, their world, has changed.
Pretend to be an officer for a minute. Imagine if you make a traffic stop. The guy doesn’t want to get in trouble so he trades up. It happens all the time. “Hey, that dope you found isn’t mine, but I’m more than willing to give you the guy who has a few pounds of it in exchange for you believing my story.” Now in the old days, you maybe put the dope into evidence as “found” and let the guy slide, then make a few calls, get some backup, put up surveillance on the location and if the tip pans out you get a real bad guy instead of some not so bad guy, and society wins. Same with robbery, murder, burglary, theft, and other crimes.
Now, if I’m a bad guy willing to deal, why would I talk to anyone? How do I know what I am saying in confidence isn’t going to show up somewhere later? What if it is a neighborhood resident who wants to drop a dime on a bad guy tormenting the neighborhood. You are standing there on a routine stop and the driver motions you over, “Hey, I got something you might want…” Now what? Turn off the camera and face the inquiry from your bosses? What if the guy does something stupid instead and the FIRST question from your bosses is why did you turn off your camera?
You think he’s going to want to be on video? Nope. Not likely.
That is just the surface of the problem. What happens when the people in charge decide that random surveillance of a police officer when in contact with the public isn’t good enough and maybe they should just mount a camera in the car all the time? Or maybe live feed?
However, just this level of surveillance “adjusts” street behavior. You can’t interact the way you often need to when dealing with thugs and bad guys. Our team used to make traffic stops or street contact with a group of wannabe gang bangers. They were wearing the hats tilted, blue rags in their pockets, the whole thing. One time, we pulled them out of the car and lined them up. I walked the line, staring at them, studying their heads with a curious look on my face. Then I would step up, say “Is your head crooked?” straighten their hats, pull out the rags and lecture them about how they had to wear their stuff when around us. I paid particular attention to one kid, the leader, just shaming him in front of his friends. It was a loose conversation, with cussing and laughing and taunting. It was an intentional interaction to make them off guard and uncomfortable with the whole idea of being in a gang. It also reminded them that bringing the attention of the police department on them was a bad idea. This “freedom to work” allowed us to do things that impressed the thugs and modified their behavior. Eventually, the gang got tired of the harassment and attention and quit. Many are now grown up, law abiding citizens. A couple even sought me out to thank me and the team for keeping up the pressure. None of that would have happened if we were under a microscope.
This is no place for political correctness or cops worrying if they said anything wrong. That will get people hurt.
The real world is a tough, dark, dangerous, uncertain place. The police command cannot run what amounts to a documentary of the actions of their officers, spying on them like they were politicians and the command was the NSA. It won’t work. It will make the officers mentally defensive, worrying about what they are saying and what they are doing MORE than what the bad guy is saying or doing. The police officers are taught, through training and experience, that observing the bad guy keeps them alive. They are also taught one of the ways to check if a person is drunk is to divide their attention. The brain cannot work two inputs well at the same time. That goes for sober people too. So if an officer says something or does something he realizes might be questioned later he will think about that instead of watching the other guy. That is going to get someone hurt.
And for what? Because the command can? Because they allowed the lure of technology to interfere with the work of their officers? Because of political correctness? Here’s the best way to see if the command is committed to spying as a way to enhance safety and performance- install voice activated cameras in all the offices of command. When they get on the phone or if a person comes into the office, the camera starts up and records their activities. Knowing this will make sure they don’t call their buddies about the golf game that afternoon, or sit around telling off color jokes with other commanders while discussing the fate of lower level police officers. Heck, make sure the tapes are randomly reviewed by IA or by city council or by the mayor for fun. Make sure the tapes are available for subpoena or FOIA.
Then see how quickly things change.
Because abusing power is far more fun than being abused BY power! This would be like making Congress use the healthcare options they create in any legislation- instead of their exempting themselves- thus insuring the outcome of the law would be great!
Andrew McCarthy points out that grand juries, especially federal ones, are in place all the time. So a DOJ attorney can draft some information and present it to grand jury at any time.
In the case of Trump’s people or any other issue, Lynch’s DOJ had no problem presenting evidence. In the case of Hillary…well...
The news of grand-jury involvement contradicts prior reporting, at least at first blush. As we shall see, to say a grand jury was “involved” does not mean there was a real grand-jury investigation. It does, however, reinforce what we have said all along: The main subjects of the investigation could easily have been compelled to provide evidence and testimony — which is what investigators do when they are trying to make a case rather than not make a case. There was no valid reason for prosecutors to treat criminal suspects to an immunity spree. They could, for example, have served grand-jury subpoenas on Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, demanding that they surrender the private computers they used to review Clinton’s e-mails, including classified e-mails it was unlawful to transfer to such non-secure computers. The Justice Department did not have to make promises not to use the evidence against the suspects in exchange for getting the evidence. Mrs. Clinton’s friends at the Justice Department chose not to subpoena Mrs. Clinton’s friends from the State Department and the campaign. The decision not to employ regular criminal procedures — i.e., the decision not to treat the case like other criminal cases — was quite deliberate.
Yep. Someday maybe, the Session DOJ will tell the truth, and they should. Anyone complicit in this should be demoted or fired. The DOJ worked hard not to make this public or a serious investigation.
Yet, Mrs. Clinton was publicly claiming that the probe was “not a criminal investigation,” but rather “a security review.” This was a lie, but it was studiously adopted by the Obama Justice Department, then led by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who just happened to have been launched into national prominence in the 1990s when President Bill Clinton appointed her U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York — and who was plainly hoping to keep her job in a Hillary Clinton administration. Consequently, Lynch and other top Justice Department officials instructed FBI director James Comey to avoid referring to the probe as an “investigation.” In upcoming congressional testimony, he was to call it a “matter.” Amused, one official even teased the director: “I guess you’re the Federal Bureau of Matters now.” Hilarious, right?
Well, here’s a teeny problem. In a criminal case, investigators invariably have to resort to grand-jury subpoenas in order to collect evidence. When the recipient reads such a subpoena, he or she learns that the grand jury is conducting a criminal investigation into a potential violation of law. Typically, the subpoena even cites the penal statute of the main offense being probed. The point is to put the recipient on notice regarding what information may be relevant, and to alert the recipient to any potential criminal exposure that might call for asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Grand-jury investigations are supposed to be secret, but once subpoenas start flying, the nature of the investigation inevitably becomes public. The subjects of the Clinton investigation were operatives of the Clinton presidential campaign, which was desperate to obscure the fact that its candidate was under a criminal investigation. What better way to do this than for the subjects to offer to cooperate voluntarily — without need of subpoenas. And how very accommodating of the Justice Department to play ball . . . and to have those immunity grants ready just in case any of the “cooperators” possessed incriminating evidence!
So why did the Justice Department issue subpoenas at all? This is a convoluted part of the story, stemming from the Justice Department’s effective rewriting of the applicable statute to avoid charging Clinton. As the Times tells it, the Justice Department and the FBI knew that to charge Clinton with a crime, it would not be enough to prove she had been “sloppy or careless”; instead, “they needed evidence showing that she knowingly received classified information or set up her server for that purpose.”
As I have contended before, this claim is specious on multiple levels. Subsection (f) of the pertinent statute (the Espionage Act, codified at Section 793 of Title 18, U.S. Code) makes it a felony to mishandle classified information “through gross negligence” – i.e., proving Clinton was sloppy or careless (or “extremely careless,” to use Comey’s own description) could have been sufficient. But beyond that, Clinton willfully set up a private network for the systematic handling of her State Department–related communications, in violation of federal record-keeping requirements of which she was well aware, and under circumstances in which she (a former senator who served for years on the intelligence committee) was a sophisticated longtime consumer of classified information. She was keenly aware that her responsibilities as secretary of state would heavily involve classified information — whether it was “marked” classified or “born classified” because of the subject matter. It is irrelevant whether Clinton’s purpose was to transmit or store classified information on the private, non-secure server; prosecutors are not required to prove motive.
The question is whether she knew classified information would end up on the server, and her set-up made that inevitable. That is, Clinton could have been prosecuted either for willfully mishandling classified information or for doing so through gross negligence. The applicable statute elucidates those inconvenient facts, so what a surprise that there was no place for it in the Times’s 8,000-word report. (Maybe if it were a Russian statute?) In lieu of the law, we are treated to another story. Investigators were guided not by the statute but by the precedent allegedly set by the prosecution of David Petraeus for mishandling classified information.
Or maybe the Obama DOJ just didn’t want to open the whole can of worms involving things like Obama himself using a fake account to communicate on an illegal server, sending classified information to his long corrupted and bought off Sec of State…and..
Ahh, who cares… as long as Obama is cashing in right?
Obama taking Michelle’s photo on top of a 300 million dollar yacht. Being President has been very, very good to me!
If Trump/Sessions are really here to drain the swamp they need to start by releasing all the information and let the citizens find the truth. Then prosecute those who abused their office. That message would reverberate throughout the ranks for a decade. Nobody inside the system has a career path that includes spending time in gen pop in a fed prison.
So Trump doesn’t go to the WHCD and the Left shows its ass. And you wonder why he didn’t go.
Comedian Hasan Minhaj slammed President Donald Trump and members of his administration Saturday night during the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner (WHCA) in Washington, D.C.
The Daily Show correspondent called Trump the “liar-in-chief,” ripped the president’s immigration policy, and fired off several personal insults at Vice President Mike Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
“Welcome to the series finale of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner,” Minhaj’s politically-charged monologue began.
“The leader of our country is not here. And that’s because he lives in Moscow,” Minhaj said to applause from the crowd of celebrities, politicians, and journalists, many of them from the country’s largest media organizations.
President Trump was headlining a first 100 days rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania — his absence from the WHCD marks the first time in 36 years that a sitting president has missed the event.
“I think he’s in Pennsylvania because he can’t take a joke” Minhaj said of the commander-in-chief.
“This event is about celebrating the first amendment and free speech,” Minhaj said.
“Donald Trump doesn’t care about free speech,” he added.
Minhaj said he was asked not to mock the Trump White House in the president’s absence from the event, but he wasted no time taking aim at Pence, saying the Vice President’s wife wouldn’t let him attend the annual event “because apparently one of you ladies is ovulating.”
Let’s stop there and review. This person, a Muslim, is making fun of Trump, a man who is sending people into harms way to kill Muslim terrorists in an effort to secure the lives and health of other Muslims. And TRUMP’S the asshole…?!
This Muslim comedian lives in a world where he can bad mouth the leader of his nation and NOT get immediately killed- unlike Turkey, Syria, ISIS, Saudi, and a half dozen other Muslim led nations, and this guy still doesn’t get it. That’s free speech nimrod! And the fact you went home and you found your family safe and no hooded people with machete waiting at your door means you live in America!
And unlike the last LIBERAL president- who did allow for Muslims to kill Muslims in great numbers- you are not being spied on as we speak by sycophants in his NSA monitoring this moron’s “free speech”.
What Trump wants is TRUE free speech, not the stupid shit this guy was throwing around.
Sooo….. F off!
Now onto his other comments. Would the comedian show up to such a blood letting if he were the target of the blood letting? Of course not. But Trump refusing to show up was a big mistake. Because…?
And the comedian, who is married to his wife since college, bad mouths Pence for being faithful to his wife and CAREFUL with his career. I think the comedian’s wife should probably check his cell calls. He sounds like he doesn’t get the love and commitment angle in a marriage.
On another note, the comedy channel is starting a show called something like “The President Show”. If they had one for Obama called “I’m a liar and wanted the cash this gig would get me Show” I would not complain. But this is frankly just all out war. And the liberals wonder why they are so hated.
These guys and gals
Think this guy is funny when bashing the President.
While these Muslim terrorist guys kill gay people, who support the first guys and probably also think the Muslim comedian is funny.