Hypocrisy and hyperbole; the aftermath of Comey’s firing

If you’d been listening to the American Media Maggots the past 24 hours, you’d think the sky had indeed fallen all across the United States of America.

President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday, and the world has, literally, stopped rotating on its axis.

It all started with a letter by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

May 9, 2017

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

FROM: ROD J. ROSENSTEIN

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation’s premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.

The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution.

It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his “goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it.” But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then – if prosecution is warranted – let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it.

Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would “speak” about the decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or “conceal” it. “Conceal” is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.

My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Ford, wrote that “it is not the bureau’s responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted.” Silberman believes that the Director’s “Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover.” Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton, joined with Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had “chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions.” They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend” the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, observed the Director “stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion” because the FBI director “doesn’t make that decision.”

Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision “an error in judgement.” Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama, said the Director’s decision“was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season.” Holder concluded that the Director “broke with these fundamental principles” and “negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.”

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual events as“real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation,” that is “antithetical to the interests of justice.”

Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President H.W. Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was“astonished and perplexed” by the decision to “break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections.” Ayer’s letter noted, “Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions.”

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.

I set out my objections to now-former Director James Comey last year with his horribly flawed reasoning for failing to forward the Hillary Clinton case to the DOJ last year, and also in this post. I was heartened to see that the bulk of my objections were quite similar to those of the Deputy Attorney General.

We all know that President William Jefferson Clinton fired his FBI Director, William Sessions, back in 1993 for essentially political reasons. That was fine with Demorats.

Many Demorats themselves were calling for the severed head of William Comey quite recently.

Yes, two words: what changed?

We all know the answer, quite obviously. Judicial Watch’s CJ Farrell had this to say from last year.

Maxine Waters at least had the guts to come out and say what every other Demorat and Leftist is thinking about the situation.

From RealClearPolitics.com:

Maxine Waters: I Don’t Support Trump Firing Comey, I Would Support Hillary Clinton Firing Comey

by Ian Schwartz

NBC’s Peter Alexander grills Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Cali.) for her displeasure at President Trump firing FBI Director James Comey after she had announced in January that he has lost all credibility after attending a classified briefing conducted by the now-former director.

In March, Waters issued a press release that read Comey “advanced Russia’s misinformation campaign.”

However, in the interview Wednesday on MSNBC, asked if she would be okay with a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton dismissing Comey from his position, Waters said yes.

“If she had won the White House, I believe that given what he did to her, and what he tried to do, she should have fired him. Yes,” the California Democrat said.

“So she should have fired him but had he shouldn’t fire him. This is why I’m confused,” Alexander said to Waters.

Honesty and clarity, for once, coming from Maxine Waters in terms of her clear bias.

But it wasn’t just politicians who became unhinged over the firing of James Comey. The so-called “celebrities” did so as well.

Steven Colbert was not amused.

Neither was our favorite moonbat, Keith Olbermann.

So what really happened in the White House? What was the final straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back? I wrote back on Tuesday that Comey’s final waffling on the number of emails found in Weiner’s laptop was the kicker. Oddly enough, Dr Sebastian Gorka highlighted that same issue.

The New York Times wrote this about the White House decision.

‘Enough was Enough’: How Festering Anger at Comey Ended in His Firing

by Maggie Haberman, Glenn Thrush, Michael S Schmidt and Peter Baker

WASHINGTON — By the end, neither of them thought much of the other.

After President Trump accused his predecessor in March of wiretapping him, James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, was flabbergasted. The president, Mr. Comey told associates, was “outside the realm of normal,” even “crazy.”

For his part, Mr. Trump fumed when Mr. Comey publicly dismissed the sensational wiretapping claim. In the weeks that followed, he grew angrier and began talking about firing Mr. Comey. After stewing last weekend while watching Sunday talk shows at his New Jersey golf resort, Mr. Trump decided it was time. There was “something wrong with” Mr. Comey, he told aides.

The problem, you see, was that Donald Trump waited too long. As I believed and wrote numerous times, on January 20th at noon, President Trump should have demanded Comey’s resignation letter.

The collision between president and F.B.I. director that culminated with Mr. Comey’s stunning dismissal on Tuesday had been a long time coming. To a president obsessed with loyalty, Mr. Comey was a rogue operator who could not be trusted as the F.B.I. investigated Russian ties to Mr. Trump’s campaign. To a lawman obsessed with independence, Mr. Trump was the ultimate loose cannon, making irresponsible claims on Twitter and jeopardizing the bureau’s credibility.

The other problem was that Comey wasn’t obsessed with any independence other than his own, and not that of the bureau itself. The only person who jeopardized the FBI’s credibility was James Comey.

The White House, in a series of shifting and contradictory accounts, first said Mr. Trump decided to fire Mr. Comey because the attorney general and his deputy recommended it. By Wednesday, it had amended the timeline to say that the president had actually been thinking about getting rid of the F.B.I. director as far back as November, after he won the election, and then became “strongly inclined” after Mr. Comey testified before Congress last week.

Mr. Comey’s fate was sealed by his latest testimony about the bureau’s investigation into Russia’s efforts to sway the 2016 election and the Clinton email inquiry. Mr. Trump burned as he watched, convinced that Mr. Comey was grandstanding. He was particularly irked when Mr. Comey said he was “mildly nauseous” to think that his handling of the email case had influenced the election, which Mr. Trump took to demean his own role in history.

Director Comey was grandstanding.

At that point, Mr. Trump began talking about firing him. He and his aides thought they had an opening because Mr. Comey gave an incorrect account of how Huma Abedin, a top adviser to Mrs. Clinton, transferred emails to her husband’s laptop, an account the F.B.I. later corrected.

As I wrote on Tuesday, that element was the final straw. And yes, it did provide an opening.

At first, Mr. Trump, who is fond of vetting his decisions with a wide circle of staff members, advisers and friends, kept his thinking to a small circle, venting his anger to Vice President Mike Pence; the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II; and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who all told him they generally backed dismissing Mr. Comey.

Then President Trump finally did the right thing.

But wait; hold up on that car wash. Isn’t this the same New York Times that wrote in 1993:

DEFIANT F.B.I. CHIEF REMOVED FROM JOB BY THE PRESIDENT

By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: July 20, 1993

WASHINGTON, July 19— President Clinton today dismissed William S. Sessions, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who had stubbornly rejected an Administration ultimatum to resign six months after a harsh internal ethics report on his conduct.

Mr. Clinton said he would announce his nominee to replace Mr. Sessions on Tuesday. He was expected to pick Judge Louis J. Freeh of Federal District Court in Manhattan; officials said Judge Freeh had impressed Mr. Clinton favorably on Friday at their first meeting.

Mr. Clinton, explaining his reasons for removing Mr. Sessions, effective immediately, said, “We cannot have a leadership vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the F.B.I. It is time that this difficult chapter in the agency’s history is brought to a close.”

But in a parting news conference at F.B.I. headquarters after Mr. Clinton’s announcement, a defiant Mr. Sessions — his right arm in a sling as a result of a weekend fall — railed at what he called the unfairness of his removal, which comes nearly six years into his 10-year term.

“Because of the scurrilous attacks on me and my wife of 42 years, it has been decided by others that I can no longer be as forceful as I need to be in leading the F.B.I. and carrying out my responsibilities to the bureau and the nation,” he said. “It is because I believe in the principle of an independent F.B.I. that I have refused to voluntarily resign.”

It appears, according to the New York Times, that President William Clinton, a Demorat, was perfectly well within his rights and abilities to fire Director Sessions who insisted that the FBI be independent. That same newspaper now states that President Donald Trump, a Republican, is not perfectly well within his rights and abilities to fire Director Comey who insisted that the FBI be independent.

The difference? Political parties. Simply that.

James Comey, in a letter to his office the day after his firing, said the president was within his authority to fire a sitting FBI director. From TheHill.com:

Comey farewell: ‘A president can fire an FBI director for any reason’

Former FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday sent a letter to agents and friends following President Trump firing him the previous day.

“I have long believed that a President can fire an FBI director for any reason, or for no reason at all,” he wrote, according to CNN. “I’m not going to spend time on the decision or the way it was executed.”

Leftist attorney and professor Alan Dershowitz came in on the side of President Trump. From Breitbart.com:

Dershowitz: Comey Firing ‘Appropriate,’ No Special Prosecutor

by Joel B Pollak

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz told CNN’s Don Lemon on Tuesday night that President Donald Trump was well within his rights to fire former FBI director James Comey, and that there was no need for a special prosecutor in the investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Dershowitz appeared next to CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who was apoplectic. “The fact that he did this will disgrace his memory for as long as this presidency is remembered. There is only one date that will be remembered after Januarth 20th so far in the Trump presidency, and it is the day of the ‘Tuesday Night Massacre,’” Toobin said, referencing President Richard Nixon’s firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox during the Watergate scandal.

Toobin had also told CNN’s Anderson Cooper earlier that Trump would likely name a “campaign stooge” as Comey’s replacement at the FBI.

But Dershowitz disagreed.

“Should Comey be the director of the FBI? The answer to that is no,” he said, noting that he had called earlier for Comey to resign. “He lost his credibility. … A lot of this is his fault.”

When Toobin objected that Trump had fired former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara as well as Comey, “all three of whom had the potential to investigate and trouble the Trump presidency,” Dershowitz argued that they were all Democrat appointees and had all been dismissed appropriately by a Republican president.

Perquisites of the job that have been replicated time and again by Demorat presidents.

Where is John McCain on this because, after all, when the story appears to be about someone else, well, it’s really about John McCain, isn’t it? From the WashingtonPost.com:

John McCain on Comey firing: ‘There will be more shoes to drop’

by Josh Rogin

President Trump’s sudden firing of FBI Director James B. Comey is bad for the country and will not be the end of the Trump-Russia affair, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told a group of foreign diplomats and experts Tuesday night.

Although McCain did not directly accuse the White House of firing Comey to thwart the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible Russia ties, he did say that if that was the intention, it would fail.

Again, news about truth isn’t news. News about specious insinuation is news.

“This scandal is going to go on. I’ve seen it before,” McCain told a meeting of the Munich Security Conference core group. “This is a centipede. I guarantee you there will be more shoes to drop, I can just guarantee it. There’s just too much information that we don’t have that will be coming out.”

He called Trump’s actions against Comey “unprecedented” and said the position of FBI director has held special meaning in American public life dating back decades.

Ooooh, scary, John, very scary.

“Probably the most respected individual in all of the American government is probably the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” McCain said. “I’m very sorry that this has happened.”

The event was off the record, but McCain gave me permission to place his comments on the record. He said that Trump had the legal basis to fire Comey but that his decision would have long-term negative consequences.

“I regret it, I think it’s unfortunate,” McCain said. “The president does have that constitutional authority. But I can’t help but think that this is not a good thing for America.”

I refer to this article solely to illustrate how terribly out-of-touch is John McCain with the law and with reality. However, even McCain isn’t yet sufficiently addled to refute the authority of a president to fire an FBI director.

Former FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom weighs in on the Comey situation and likewise concludes that President Trump acted appropriately. “I’m glad it happened.”

As I’ve said, I still have law enforcement contacts across the fruited plain and I know that the bulk of line-level agents, not necessarily supervisors or managers, were relieved to see the dismissal of William Comey. Judge Andrew Napolitano confirms this.

Newt Gingrich also weighs in on the issue with Sean Hannity.

Let us not forget the 10 major scandals that occurred on the 3.5-year watch of Director Comey.

The bottom line is this: former FBI Director James Comey made quite a number of flawed decisions based not upon the law but instead on politics. He placed himself in front of cameras frequently as he enjoyed the limelight. He did so for self-aggrandizing reasons. Having a self-righteous and poor decision-maker in charge of the FBI is not a formula for success or for ensuring confidence in the bureau.

The firing of James Comey was long overdue.

BZ

 

Chicago’s great news: blacks are still shooting blacks

And Rahm Emanuel gets paid no matter who gets killed.

Skin in the game? Nah.

So does Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, et al.

Skin in the game? Nah.

From the ChicagoTribune.com:

29 people shot in less than 18 hours in Chicago

by Elyssa Cherney

In the pouring rain, the 23-year-old man pulled a fur-lined hood over his head and stood on the porch of his younger brother’s home in the Douglas Park neighborhood early Sunday, watching police investigate the city’s first homicide of the weekend.

The man said he heard people arguing and throwing bottles at each other about 2:30 a.m. before the shots rang out. He said he went to check on what was happening three doors down but then stopped, retreated back.

“When I noticed the commotion, I headed the other direction,” he said, as he was getting ready to go to work as a truck driver. “There’s a reason for the rain. Only God knew this was going to happen.”

The fatal shooting of Tywan Anderson, 23, in the 1300 block of South Fairfield Avenue, half a block north of Mount Sinai Hospital, marked the only fatality among 29 people who were shot from Saturday to Sunday morning, officials said. Of the people shot, three were teenagers — ages 14, 15 and 17.

Woo-hoo. In the city with the strictest gun laws in the nation. How well they work. Wait. I have a great idea. Let’s make them even more constrictive. That will solve everything.

Even left-leaning TheAtlantic.com admits Chicago has a serious problem.

The problem is real: 762 people were murdered in Chicago last year, a stunning 58 percent jump in homicides from 2015. So large was the sharp, sudden increase in homicides in one of America’s largest cities that it tangibly raised the entire nation’s homicide rate higher for 2016. But nobody really knows why it’s happening.

Is that true? No one knows why it’s happening?

Even the data on one of the most obvious possible causes—a sudden shift in policing tactics—offers little clarity. Street stops had been in steady decline since early 2014, when they peaked at 80,000 stops per month. By October 2015, they reached 60,000 per month and then plummeted sharply to 10,000 stops by December 2015. At first glance, that would seem to correlate with the sudden surge of in 2016.

What are the reasons? Because, after all, even Time magazine admits violent crime is on the rise in major US cities all through the United States.

Breitbart writes, on the Easter violence in Chicago:

Despite the low death rate, the number of wounded for the holiday weekend has far exceeded that of the last three years.

While the focus has often been misplaced on the police in the Windy City, those killed in confrontations with cops is relatively low. For instance, in 2016, only four of the city’s 717 shooting deaths were at the hands of police. Thus far this year, there have been no police-involved shootings.

[We also know the US DOJ is keeping Americans in the dark about Obama’s release of over 1,700 convicts in the last days of his presidency.]

Why is this problem not solved?

Because it is impolitically correct to focus policing and discipline on one segment or area of a given city. Stop and frisk worked.

Nothing is working now.

Black lives matter?

Don’t make me laugh.

BZ

 

AG Sessions pulls the first swamp drain-plug, asking Obama attorneys to vacate

From Reuters.com:

Sessions asks 46 Obama-era U.S. attorneys to resign

by Joel Schectman and Mark Hosenball

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions abruptly asked the remaining 46 chief federal prosecutors left over from the Obama administration to resign on Friday, including Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who had been asked to stay on in November by then President-elect Donald Trump.

Although U.S. attorneys are political appointees, and the request from Trump’s Justice Department is part of a routine process, the move came as a surprise. Not every new administration replaces all U.S. attorneys at once.

Stop. Please notice what is emphasized and what is de-emphasized. It is emphasized that the event was a surprise. It was not much emphasized that it is customary for new administrations to replace the US attorneys as they are political appointments and thusly connected by prevailing political prairie winds. When Demorats do it, the process is all well and good. When a conservative or a Republican does it — as George Bush did — the process is now evil on its face. As expected, Leftist news organs went ballistic.

Gloriously, CNN’s Don Lemon saw a conspiracy behind every bush — or was it Bush? Sean Hannity knows all, sees all, and pulls the strings of DC from the Fox News studios.

Then there are the US attorneys who, apparently, are superior to others. From the WP.com:

New York federal prosecutor Preet Bharara says he was fired by Trump administration

by Devlin Barrett, Sari Horowitz and Robert Costa

Preet Bharara, one of the most high-profile federal prosecutors in the country, was fired Saturday after refusing to submit a letter of resignation as part of an ouster of the remaining U.S. attorneys who were holdovers from the Obama administration, according to people familiar with the matter.

“I did not resign,” Bharara said on Twitter. “Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life.”

On Friday, acting deputy attorney general Dana Boente began making calls to 46 prosecutors asking for their resignations. Such requests are a normal part of a transition of power from one administration to another, and about half of the 94 Obama-era U.S. attorneys had already left their jobs.

Stop. So you see the difference in reporting? Reuters intimates it’s non-standard to expect letters of resignation and to accept them. WaPo says it’s a “normal part” of the transition.

Further, Mr Bharara believes he’s superior to other USAs and, as a result, doesn’t have to submit a letter of resignation. When subsequently fired he becomes shocked, shocked I tell you. Then, after wits collected, he stated he was proud of his “absolute independence.” This is LeftShockSpeak for “shit, I have to say something.”

Another point about USA Preet Bharara. It was he who prosecuted Dinesh D’Souza for election fraud (thank you, Pat Dollard) because D’Souza is a conservative and was a critic of the Obama administration — as was revealed in his newly-released case files.

“All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.”

Could it also be that any number of these USAs should be removed due to incompetence? In my opinion that would be applicable to US Attorney Zachary Fardon in Chicago, who is noteworthy (or should I say infamous) for this:

Fardon became Chicago’s “top federal prosecutor on Oct. 23, 2013,” and has been heavily criticized for his lack of prosecution of federal gun law violations.

Fardon played up “his office’s role in fighting gun violence on the streets of Chicago” but a Chicago Sun-Times report on “court records in October 2016 showed federal weapons charges in Chicago had actually fallen slightly over the previous five years.”

The Sun-Times report squares with the experience of the Chicago Police Board. During a January 7 interview with NPR, police board chairwoman Lori Lightfoot said Chicago needed more federal prosecutions if they were ever to turn the tide on the city’s gun crime.

Lightfoot said:

We need to have more federal gun prosecutions in Chicago. Our federal partners from the U.S. attorney’s office, the ATF, the FBI need to be much more invested in this overall strategy. Chicago Police Department cannot tackle this issue by itself.

A final note of interest. Whilst the Demorats and Leftists wring their palsied hands over the terrible treatment by President Trump of the US Attorneys, President Clinton purified and cleansed the AG’s offices throughout the fruited plain in 1993 — including US Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama Jeff Sessions, who had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan and served President George H.W. Bush as well. Clinton ejected those USAs produced under Republican regimes — and had every bit of authority to do so. Let’s listen.

The bottom line is that none of this needs to be justified by the Trump administration. It’s how the game is played and the “mainstream media” or what I term the American Media Maggots have and will not tell you anything about the history of events like this. They want you to believe that everything occurs in a vacuum and is totally unprecedented. The American Media Maggots possess what I term a purposeful Historical Alzheimers.

That is why I say that the American Media Maggots have historically worked long and hard to earn their sobriquet of Fake News.

They are proud of the way they have acted and are acting now.

As conservatives, these common maneuvers are exactly what we expected of Donald Trump and, further, is precisely why he was elected.

“The spice must flow,” and the swamp must be drained.

BZ

 

Trump’s mistake: he kept Comey

[Note: I have been away from blogging and my various radio broadcasts since last Sunday, due to the fact that I was smacked with the flu. My apologies. I will be attempting to ramp things up as the days go on.]

When I voted for Donald Trump I did so with my eyes wide open. My vote was cast primarily because he was not Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. I also voted for Trump because I sensed he would make more sensible nominations for SCOTUS; first to replace Antonin Scalia then to fill what I suspect will be another two to possibly three additional jurists in the next four years.

I’ll be honest. I can only hope that SCOTUS truly is stacked with moderate or conservative jurists that will keep the court on a common sense track for at least another generation, perhaps two.

As an adult I knew Trump would do things with which I’d disagree. He has done so. From the WashingtonPost.com:

FBI Director James Comey to stay on in Trump administration

by Matt Zapotosky, Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller

FBI Director James B. Comey was among the senior U.S. officials who had the unpleasant task of traveling to Trump Tower last month to inform the president-elect that Russia had interfered in the election process to help him win office.

Then Comey asked his colleagues — including the CIA director — to step outside so that he could discuss something even more awkward: a dossier in wide circulation in Washington that alleged that Moscow had gathered compromising financial, political and personal material about the incoming U.S. president.

That Comey was asked after that encounter, described by U.S. officials briefed on its details, to stay on as FBI director speaks to his survival instincts and ability to inspire confidence. But the meeting may also have provided a preview of the perilous position he occupies serving in the Trump administration while his agents pursue investigations that seem to lead to the president’s associates.

That was a poor decision, Donald John Trump, and I believe you’ll regret it. Director Comey allows politics to intervene in critical decisions where politics should be the very last consideration. Case in point: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Make no mistake. James Comey is a country-destroying weasel, first for not recommending the prosecution of Hillary Clinton, and second for not placing Hillary Clinton under oath or recording her in any fashion when interviewed on the July 4th weekend of 2016.  There is, thusly, no transcript of her interview. Though that’s general FBI policy, in this critical case, an exception should have been made.

To me it is quite clear that FBI Director James Comey, about whose probity I wrote quite a number of times on the blog, has dishonored his law enforcement oath, showing that he has no fidelity, no bravery and no integrity with regard to his decision to not recommend prosecution of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But in the July 2016 hearing with Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz as documented at Politico, James Comey revealed his flawed and craven, cowardly political thinking when one is familiar with law enforcement prosecutorial thresholds as I am. First:

Director Comey determined a manner in which to weasel his way out of recommending the prosecution of Clinton.  At one hearing he went out of his way — again, just like the previous day — to make his own case and then fall back on a position/decision that isn’t his to make.

FBI director: Clinton’s statements were not true

by Nick Gass

FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton’s statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau’s investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.

During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI’s investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified.

“That is not true,” Comey said. “There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”

Asked whether Clinton’s testimony that she did not email “any classified material to anyone on my email” and “there is no classified material” was true, Comey responded, “No, there was classified material emailed.”

“Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”

Comey admits that Clinton lied.  But here is the difference (that we won’t know precisely because there was no oath and no recording).

You can lie publicly all you want, if people are sufficiently stupid to believe it — like much of the electorate and the American Media Maggots are doltish enough.  But you should not lie to the FBI.  My guess is that Hillary Clinton came relatively clean in 3.5 hours.  And that is why I believe she was not placed under oath and the interview was not recorded.  Things like that make it easier to dispute later when politically necessary.  There is no record and it is not completely official.  As the Church Lady would have said, “how con-veee-nient.”

Gowdy asked whether Clintons’ lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, “No.”

But here, ladies and gentlemen, comes the crux of the proverbial biscuit.  Please read this carefully, though through Gowdy’s bit of humor:

“In interest of time, because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through anymore of the false statements but I am going to ask you put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements, they are used for what?” Gowdy inquired.

Wait for it.

“Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?” Gowdy asked. “Consciousness of guilt and intent.”

Please read the rest of the article here, because we are going to jump to another Politico article.  Politico purposely does not let you make this link.  You have to be smarter than Politico and make the link as I now display to you.  We continue:

Comey: Clinton did not lie to the FBI

by Nick Gass

Hillary Clinton did not lie to FBI investigators during their probe into her use of a private server as secretary of state, FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday.

“We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI,” Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing’s opening exchanges.

Chaffetz then asked whether Clinton lied to the public. “That’s a question I’m not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI,” Comey said.

Weasel words.  Mealy-mouthed.  Word pablum.  You cannot determine that Clinton lied to the public?  You just made your best case that she did.  If she didn’t lie to your agents under oath, and you’re unsure if she lied to the public, then why didn’t you simply say so?  Instead, you went out of your way to say the opposite.  Your statements are conflicting and make no sense whatsoever.

But the most insightful part has arrived.  Comey outs himself:

Chaffetz then asked whether it was that he was just not able to prosecute it or that Clinton broke the law.

“Well, I don’t want to give an overly lawyerly answer,” Comey said. “The question I always look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute, and my judgment here is there is not. “

And that was how James Comey attempted to rationalize his decision.  He stated he did not believe his case established guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

NEWSFLASH: It is not UP to YOU, Director Comey, to assemble a case that yields a determination of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  That threshold is up to the DOJ or more pointedly a Grand Jury, not you or your organization.  All you need to compile a case for submission is “probable cause.”  That’s what real cops and real DAs in America do.  Their jobs.  They stay in their lanes and do their jobs.

As I have said time and again, there are two kinds of crimes as written by statute: those of general intent and those of specific intent. Comey stated that HRC had to have possessed a very specific intent to commit her crimes. EXCEPT that the US codes applicable are not those of specific intent because they do not include the phrase “with the intent to.”

That is how a crime of specific intent is crafted. It is stated.

Even more disturbing: Attorney General Lynch did not recuse herself from the final decision on whether to prosecute the case — nor did she give that decision to a career prosecutor at the Department of Justice. She instead prejudged the case by supposedly blindly accepting the FBI’s recommendation. She stepped back and placed the festering pile of shite in the lap of Comey.

FBI Director James Comey figured out how to cover his own ass by revealing some truths about Hillary Clinton whilst simultaneously making nice with those in DC power positions who could hurt him seriously.  This is Comey’s false justification for his decision.  And it is clearly wrong and damaging.  He created his “out.”

Or did he just believe he “took one for the team”?

In my opinion: no.  He dishonored his oath.

Agents were directed to identify exculpatory instead of incriminatory evidence in the Hillary Rodham Clinton illegal server email case “conducted” by the FBI.

And trust me: that grated in the craw of every good line-level FBI agent remotely connected with the investigation.

As it grates with regard to DOJ special agents and some of the attorneys who aren’t yet full Leftist sycophants.

From FoxNews.com:

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

by Malia Zimmerman and Adam Housley

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

Read that again: “No trial level attorney, no agent working the case agree, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision.”

Precisely. That decision came directly from the Oval Office via a telephone call to Loretta Lynch and then a call to Director James Comey. It all dovetails and ties up neatly. I wrote about “connecting the dots” of corruption in the Obama administration here. Please take time to read the article — it explains most everything you’ve seen and heard.

Comey can’t stand political or personal heat. From anyone. He instead wants to please everyone, somehow keep his job, and does real justice no service whatsoever. If there ever were an indecisive, cowardly and misdirected man, it is James Brien Comey.

A) Following his July decision to forego a recommendation of either an indictment or a grand jury impaneled regarding Hillary Clinton’s private server and disregard for US security and intelligence protocols (not to mention laws), FBI Director James Comey created a firestorm not just within his own agency but the American public — and it affected his private as well as public or work life. Letters of resignation from good and true FBI line level agents began to pile up on his desk, and even Comey’s wife Pat told him he must make amends.

B) Under mounting pressure, on October 28th Director Comey indicated he was re-opening the investigation into more of Hillary Clinton’s emails — an estimated 650,000 of them, stemming from the examination of a case involving Anthony Wiener, husband of Huma Abedin, close assistant and confidant of HRC. The American Media Maggots and the Clinton campaigners moo’d in unison: “bad decision, Jim, bad decision.”

C) Following his determination to re-open the Clinton email case, the OSC (Office of Special Counsel) received complaints about Director Comey regarding violations of the Hatch Act, which is a “law designed to prevent federal officeholders from abusing their power to influence an election.” This complaint was filed Saturday, October 29th with the OSC by lawyer Richard Painter.

D) Nine short days later, armed with a team of miracle workers, FBI Director James Comey reaffirmed his original July decision: yeppers, nothing to see here. No corruption, no collusion, move along. The American Media Maggots and the Clinton campaigners moo’d again in unison: “great decision, Jim, great decision.”

You cannot convince me that James Comey can take political heat. He has instead bent and broken to whatever prevailing political prairie winds were coursing through DC at any given time. He is still sitting in a dark leather chair in his corner orifice whilst the bulk of his peers have left DC — including former AGs Holder and Lynch, as well as the former president. Comey, by appearing confused and/or conciliatory and utilizing his finest set of pablum-packed weasel words, is still standing.

Comey vacillates, he is a flawed thinker, and has proven that he is untrustworthy. Those are now his best qualities.

You keep Comey, President Trump, at your own peril.

Be forewarned, President Trump.

BZ

 

DOJ must be gutted: Denver S.O. fined $10K because no illegals hired

denver-sheriff-departmentLadies and gentlemen, if you harbored the slightest doubt that the US Department of Justice must be gutted through-and-through like a rotten fish, that doubt will now be completely erased.

This is not a joke. This is real. Note the phrasing of the top headline.

From the DenverPost.com:

Denver Sheriff Department penalized for wrongful hiring practices

by Noelle Phillips

The sheriff’s department will pay a $10,000 fine and will have to sort through old applications to identify people who were eliminated from consideration because they were not U.S. citizens

The Denver Sheriff Department has run afoul of the U.S. Department of Justice because it made U.S. citizenship a job requirement for its deputies during a hiring spree in 2015 and early 2016.

The sheriff’s department will pay a $10,000 fine and will have to sort through old applications to identify people who were eliminated from consideration because they were not U.S. citizens, according to a news release from the justice department.

The department must reconsider those applicants for future jobs, the justice department said.

I repeat: this is no joke. The DOJ is saying that foreign nationals must be hired for law enforcement. This is one perfect example of a 1986 federal law that should be re-examined and then scrubbed from the books for any number of reasons. Further, because of Obama and Lynch, the DOJ decided not to simply warn but to outright fine a department that is already struggling financially. That money comes out of the pockets of local taxpayers and — as James Comey pointed out with regard to HRC — the Denver Sheriff had no intention to violate.

Hillary escapes, the Denver Sheriff’s Department does not. Oh, the irony.

First and foremost, these laws should be critically examined under the new Trump Administration if for no other reasons than those of common sense and national sovereignty. Foreign nationals cannot vote in federal elections and many state/local elections, cannot sit on a jury and logically should not hold sway in any fashion over true citizens of this nation by yielding the authority to detain, arrest and possibly take lives through the application of deadly force to non-citizens. I fail to grasp that logic.

Do we really want to continue with the precedent of, essentially, hiring mercenaries as did Rome? Hessians, anyone? Please note this irony as well: the federal government will not allow foreign nationals to be federal officers and work for DHS or USCIS.

Already law enforcement agencies across the nation cannot access the USCIS database:

Sec. 274A. [8 U.S.C. 1324a]  (F) Limited use for law enforcement purposes.-The system may not be used for law enforcement purposes, other than for enforcement of this Act or sections 1001, 1028, 1546, and 1621 of title 18, United States Code.

Many will make the argument that green card holders and those with work authorization are legal under terms and pay taxes — to the extent that illegals walking into a market to purchase a pack of chicken pay taxes. To that I firmly reply: at best, at very best, they should be — in an extremely generous sense — considered last.

The Obama DOJ fined Denver SO for two reasons only: 1) to be punitive, and 2) to make a statement, an example.

This is a perfect time to re-examine most every immigration law on the books and then try to streamline a broken system so that people may become citizens lawfully and in something of a timely fashion. And until they are ultimately sworn in, they should not reap the benefits or largesse of this nation.

Let me also, finally, state the horribly unstateable. Law enforcement finds itself in a terrible bind with regard to hiring these days, due to both the public stigma and the physical crosshairs placed on LE currently. I’ve seen and experienced this situation before personally, as one of my SME venues of expertise was training. Most everything is cyclical in law enforcement and hiring practices are no different.

Because of the desperate need for law enforcement officers across the nation, many agencies are sub rosa having to lower their hiring standards. Any time you relax hiring standards you create a contingent of persons who will yield sub-standard performance. Those persons then become your department’s training officers, its detectives, Sergeants, its Lieutenants, Captains and so on.

At times like these many departments, to its and the community’s detriment, tend to forget the three major axioms of Risk Management altogether: 1) Negligence In Hiring, 2) Negligence In Training, and 3) Negligence In Retention.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you got LAPD’s Rampart scandal in the 90s. Those situations and events were corrected by tightening standards, demanding excellence, and attracting the best candidates possible via “3 At 50” and other incentives.

I’ve seen this before.

I know what I’m talking about.

Because as I’ve always said: “you get the kind of law enforcement you deserve.”

Buck up, citizens.

BZ