Because, as everyone knows, Ben Shapiro is such an overbearing individual and cuts such an oppressive, racist, sexist, -ist and -obe swath seldom seen before, and should never have been allowed to speak at UC Berkeley this past Thursday. Yet he was.
As opposed to prior events where Berkeley PD and the UC Berkeley polices forces chose to stand down as ordered, however, the riots failed to cook off this time because officers were out in force and were clearly a presence. This time they countenanced no one, for example, wearing masks. That predominantly eliminates Antifa. Hold that thought. I’m coming back to it.
But first, Ben Shapiro’s entire speech including a Q and A session with audience members.
Coverage of the arrests outside the speech in Berkeley, by FoxNews.com:
Ben Shapiro speech at UC Berkeley results in arrests at protests
At least nine people were arrested Thursday night related to protests at the University of California, Berkeley, over an appearance by former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro.
UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said the security measures could cost $600,000. Mogulof called the speech “a successful event” and said the university was committed to hosting speakers like Shapiro in the future.
Stop. Question: just who cost the university $600,000? That’s correct. Its Leftist students. Seems like freedom really isn’t free, is it UC Berkeley? Not when you have rioters for students.
The evening did have its share of hiccups. Police said three arrests were weapons-related. Among them:
— Hannah Benjamin, 20, was arrested for battery on a police officer and carrying a banned weapon.
— Sarah Roark, 44, was taken into custody for carrying a banned weapon.
The arrests were announced on the police Twitter account.
The demonstrators, however, were largely peaceful. Some chanted against fascism, white supremacists and President Donald Trump. Others were holed up inside a student building, waving signs protesting the university’s decision to allow Shapiro on campus.
Inside the hall, Shapiro addressed a friendly crowd. He encouraged people to hold civil discussions with people who have different opinions, saying that’s what America is all about. He condemned white supremacists as “a very small select group of absolutely terrible people who believe absolutely terrible things.”
The campus and surrounding Berkeley streets were under tight security after a series of previous events turned violent.
City and campus officials anticipated protests against Shapiro, and prepared for possible violence with a variety of new strategies and tightened security. It was not immediately clear whether the people arrested Thursday were protesters.
Back to my reference to law enforcement. Four points.
First: Berkeley police agencies decided to utilize actual preparation this time in concert with some proactivity as well, to include the disallowance of persons wearing face covering as is customary with Antifa elements.
Second: Berkeley police agencies came out in force with barriers, gear, presence and plans in place.
Third: They did not stand back as they had in times past, instead making arrests, preventing injury to citizens and protecting property, which proves:
This means that those people injured and those businesses and persons suffering property damage should individually and collectively sue the City of Berkeley, City of Berkeley Police Department, the Mayor of Berkeley and the UC Berkeley Police Department for negligence, as well as advocate prosecution under California penal code 182 PC for conspiracy, RICO, and federal code 42 USC § 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights — as I delineated in this post.
Because up until last Thursday in Berkeley, what happened was this:
Americans were left to fight it out on the streets of the United States as law enforcement officers were either forced to or willingly allowed violence to occur directly in front of their eyes.
And that is absolutely unacceptable, unsustainable and anathema to actual keepers of oaths.
Oh please, let the suits commence.
Finally, as UC Berkeley itself pointed out: walls work.
I advocated for this on my August 29th and August 31st Berserk Bobcat Ballroom radio shows. I also wrote this post on August 31st indicating that lawsuits were well past due on behalf of those persons who were injured by the clear and obvious negligence displayed by certain specific law enforcement agencies when they purposely determined to step back as Antifa appeared, and shirk their law enforcement responsibilities. Their oaths. Their honor.
Then: Laura Ingraham picked up my mantra on Tucker Carlson’s show later in the week. Perhaps it’s time to remove some very select and pointed elements of “qualified immunity” that is commonly granted to law enforcement agencies.
Why does so-called “qualified immunity” exist? Because, on their faces, law enforcement agencies across the nation attempt to do the job to which they’ve been tasked. They try to do the “right thing.” An excellent article is here.
When they fail to do the jobs to which they’ve been tasked, then, in my opinion, qualified immunity should be lost.
That is to say, Leftist law enforcement agencies and their masters will not change their stripe and begin to do the jobs to which they’ve been tasked unless they are sued within inches of their lives. They must be made to pay, and they must be made to bleed.
If for no other reason than to set an example, provide a chilling effect and send a quite clear message.
If you happen to live within the jurisdictions I recommended in terms of suits — the San Jose PD, Charlottesville PD, Berkeley PD and UCD PD — well, sorry. It may possibly suck to be you in the future because I can only hope that your law enforcement agencies are going to be drained and their overarching entities — city and state administrations — will likewise be so as well.
There must be pain, there must be loss and there must be consequences. For what? you may ask.
For not doing your damned jobs.
But listen to this, from a CBS station. It questions yet attempts to justify Berkeley PD’s non-reactive responses.
I emphasize, though: cash must be diverted from customary necessary requirements to lawsuits. If you must suffer as a Leftist law enforcement agency, due to locale, so be it. You, as a local citizen, signed up for this. Your zip code is your vote.
Lawsuit alleges Charlottesville police were ordered to stand down at white supremacist rally
by Andrea Noble
Robert Sanchez Turner claims cops turned blind eye to violence on the ground at Aug. 12 rally.
A man who was assaulted during a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, is suing the city and state police, alleging that officers were ordered to stand down and failed to act even as they witnessed the attack.
According to the federal lawsuit, Robert Sanchez Turner was sprayed in the eye with pepper spray and beaten with canes, and had urine thrown on him during the Aug. 12 rally in Charlottesville, as police officers stood less than 10 feet away and did nothing to stop the assault or arrest the assailants.
“By commanding their subordinates to stand down while hundreds of white supremacists and their sympathizers assaulted and seriously injured counterprotesters, these defendants were essentially accessories to, and facilitators of, unconstitutional hate crime,” states the lawsuit, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.
Nexus Caridades Attorneys, which filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, is expected to announce additional details about the case Friday.
This is just one lawsuit. But I ask: please let it grow and become a national debate.
Report: Lawsuit to target Charlottesville police over rally’s violence
by Josh Delk
Nexus Caridades, a Virginia-based law group, reportedly plans to sue Charlottesville police over the violence that resulted from a white supremacists’ rally earlier this month, citing a client who was injured in the violent clashes.
The case alleges that plaintiff Robert Sanchez Turner sustained injuries in the violence because of the police “standing down” and failing to intervene in the situation, in which white nationalist groups attacked anti-racist protesters, the attorneys told The Daily Progress.
But that’s just one case. On, frankly, the wrong side. The greatest number of potential suits exist on the side of, say, Patriot Prayer or those who are not Antifa-friendly. That is a vast untapped megabucks source for attorneys.
But still: Why?
Because some law enforcement agencies still purposely choose to not do their job in various venues across this nation. Not a decision made by line-level troops. No. But a decision made in concert with various other applicable government levels to include mayors, city managers, bureaucracies, bureaucrats, union members and those beyond civil service.
Those with a Leftist bent, weak of mind, unable to think for themselves, coat-tail hangers, sycophants, Those incapable in independent and/or true critical thinking. Because that is the last thing taught in any college today. Only Lockstep Thinking is promoted and encouraged. Non-variancy. Mindless response.
The pro-bono legal group plans to formally announce the litigation on Friday in Emancipation Park, where the Aug. 12 rally took place. Also targeted in the suit are the city of Charlottesville, its chief of police and the superintendent of the Virginia State Police.
And I say: excellent. Be general and then yet become quite very specific.
Name names. Most cops wear name tags, velcro tabs, name plates, possess badge numbers. Let them also be named. Specifically. Quite very specifically.
You either engage and do your job, or you stand back and allow chaos to ensue.
Because trust me, you beggars, the chaos you allow will soon come to visit itself upon your neighborhood and your family. Damn you for not seeing those consequences.
President Trump was correct. There was blame on both sides. He spoke the obvious truth yet was excoriated via Leftists and the American Media Maggots.
“Mr. Turner was assaulted while police officers watched but failed to act to keep him safe or arrest those responsible for the attacks,” the organization’s public relations director, Jen Little, told the Progress.
The lawsuit follows a report that federal authorities had warned Virginia law enforcement of potential violence at the rally, citing previous clashes between white supremacist groups and anti-fascist “antifa” protesters.
Guess what? True on both sides.
Finally: a Truism from President Trump that the American Media Maggots shan’t acknowledge in retrospect.
“What about the alt-left that came charging at the — as you say, the alt-right?” Trump asked three days after the deadly rally. “Do they have any semblance of guilt? What about the fact they came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do. As far as I am concerned, that was a horrible, horrible day.”
Purposeful indifference. Go RICO, go 182 PC, go 42 USC § 1983. The situation is screaming for it. Name agencies, name administrators and then name very specific individual officers. Go for broke. Break them down. Bankrupt them. Make them bleed.
Anyone remember a quote: “it takes two to tango” — ?
Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, thanks to my shameless contract, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show each Wednesday evening.
Tonight in the Saloon:
Unfortunately The Underground Professor, Dr Michael Jones, was unable to join us due to Hurricane Harvey and its impact in his area of Texas;
Free speech under fire;
The First Amendment under fire;
“The Left’s War On Free Speech,” by Kimberley Strassel, from her speech;
The politicalization of agencies that never should be so;
Revealed: James Comey crafted Hillary exoneration statement BEFORE the conclusion of the investigation itself or even interviews of witnesses or Hillary Clinton herself: the terrible politicalization of the FBI;
FBI investigation of espionage, blackmail charges in Imran Awan case blocked by Obama DOJ appointee who worked for Holder and Lynch;
Let’s go 182 PC, RICO and 42 USC § 1983, the deprivation of civil rights, on those police departments or agencies who fail to perform their law enforcement job or stand down in the face of Leftist administrative direction;
Pelosi condemns Antifa; where is the GOP, en masse, on Antifa?
There is CLEAR evidence that the Berkeley Police Department played favorites in terms of Antifa vs others;
Berkeley PD allowed Antifa to mix with Trump supporters and others;
Then stood back when violence subsequently occurred;
Let’s sack up and name Antifa a terrorist group;
Laura Ingraham steals my idea: it’s time for 182, RICO and other charges against departments, and let’s remove certain aspect of qualified immunity because of the clear and obvious aspects of reckless endangerment to the public at large;
Law enforcement: it’s time to make a stand. Where is your courage? Where are your ethics? Where is your bravery? What happened to the oath you swore?
Berkeley PD: you dishonored your oaths;
What is a Good Sergeant?
Why were there NO Good Sergeants at any Berkeley riots? Do they exist on the City of Berkeley Police Department? I’ve seen none yet;
It’s time to make Leftist law enforcement entities hurt; sue their arses off;
The FBI goes out of its way to prove it can no longer be trusted; “lack of public interest” justifies withholding Hillary Clinton documents via FOIA;
James Comey is corrupt; Andrew McCabe is corrupt; the FBI is corrupt;
We know the FBI itself doesn’t obey laws;
An open letter to Multnomah County Sheriff Michael Reese;
6 officers shot, 2 killed, in two hours, on just one day in August;
Deputy Bob French was killed yesterday, two CHP officers were shot;
Nurse practitioner REFUSES to treat gunshot deputy;
This is where we are now as an American society;
Is this sustainable? Certainly. Only if you want chaos to triumph;
Law enforcement must stop being politicalized, not if you want them to be efficient and unbiased.
If you care to listen to the show in Spreaker, please click on start.
If you care to watch the show on YouTube, please click on start.
Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin(on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.
As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.
Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here. Want to watch the past shows on YouTube? Please visit the SHR Media Network YouTube channel here.
This is Berkeley Police Chief Andrew R. Greenwood, a law enforcement official who, in my opinion, dishonors and politicizes his badge and, worse, is in charge of an entire department. Shame on you, sir. Shame on your cowardly decisions. When you have eight yellow service hash marks on your sleeve, come talk. To me you’re a puerile political sycophant whose jejune views mark you clearly.
Make them general and then make them very specific. Name departments. Then name very specific individuals. Start at the top. Work your way down. You know the drill. Make deals for the bigger fish.Offer immunities for testimony. Leverage. Force. Immunity. End goal in mind.
In my opinion, I would submit that the City of Berkeley, Mayor Arreguin, the city council and Chief Andrew Greenwood are all complicit in a conspiracy, 182 PC, to allow lawful citizens of the State of California and the United States to become injured by indifference, and to allow private and public property to be damaged and destroyed, having received their marching orders not to interfere if the forces of Antifa were having their way.
I would submit that these forces possess a history sufficient to instigate both a federal RICO investigation of the entire Bay Area bureaucracy, and a 42 USC § 1983“deprivation of civil rights” action.
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
It’s long past time for Leftists to be subject to the same lawful scrutiny others are.
Oddly enough, it was Laura Ingraham who suggested precisely the same thing, the next day, on Tucker Carlson’s show.
And I wholeheartedly concur.
It’s past due time for lawyers, guns and money. And terrible lawsuits aimed at police departments.
Let there be no mistake. As most know, I served 41 years as a law enforcement officer for the FBI, US Marshals, a coastal Fornicalia sheriff’s department and finally retired from a 2,000+ sheriff’s department in the belly of the beast with 35 years on.
If there were ever an advocate for law enforcement it is I.
But I cannot conjure or tolerate law enforcement agencies or administrators or officers who abandon their oaths of office for convenience or political correctness or for fiscal safety. Somewhere, at some time, stands must occur.
Courage needs to step up, ethics need to step up, and points must be made.
Otherwise, frankly, all is lost.
I was lost.
I was told in no uncertain terms that, as a Sergeant, I should never take the test for Lieutenant because I had not cooperated with a Captain who wanted to circumvent ethics on behalf of a female recruit he was copulating. And to whom he wished to afford training above and beyond other that of other recruits. I said no, declined the extra training at my range. Further, as a Sergeant, I consulted my immediate Lieutenant who left me hanging in the political breeze because he did not wish to become involved.
And so I retired as a Sergeant. Many suggested and hoped I would make Captain and beyond. That was not in the political cards. It’s a story to tell on another day.
So imagine my chagrin and dismay when various law enforcement officials want to circumvent standards, safety, rules and regulations that otherwise I had to completely obey and honor. You can be ethical. You can do what needs to be done. You can honor your oath despite whatever political outcomes may result.
As in: you dishonored your oaths, Berkeley. You stood by whilst people were injured, you weren’t simply not proactive; you weren’t even interested in being reactive for a time. There have already been four Antifa riots at Berkeley this year.
I ask: where were the Sergeants?
First line supervisors can make or break each and every department for which they work. Why? Because they not only relay but are tasked with enforcing the policies and orders issued by their specific departments, the state in which they reside and the oaths they took to support and defend the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, with those they supervise.
A Good Sergeant is one who looks out for his or her troops, values the troops and knows full well that it is they who truly get the job done, not the Chief and not the Sheriff. Chiefs and Sheriffs come and go like soiled toilet paper, flushed down the political Toilet of Life.
Where were the Good Sergeants working for Berkeley PD? Because, trust me, in a similar circumstance, knowing people were getting hurt in front of me — no matter what my cock-gobbling managers or executive staff said — I would have intervened.
And my troops would have followed me.
Once one element was committed, my element, the others would have followed suit because someone took a stand and waded into the maelstrom.
All it takes is one.
One Good Sergeant.
You Berkeley Sergeants could have made a difference. You were provided numerous opportunities to prove your mettle and your honor. You know who you are. So do your troops.
Berkeley: is that how you want to be remembered?
We are coming closer to a bottom line. What is one of its aspects?
Americans are left to fight it out on the streets of the United States as law enforcement officers are either forced to or willingly allow violence to occur directly in front of their eyes.
Is this what we truly want as a society? I submit: no, we don’t. Chaos would ensue. But oh, be sure, that is precisely what Antifa wants as well as Leftists and anarchists. Chaos.
So I say: let the lawsuits commence.
And they should start with the San Jose Police Department, the Charlottesville Police Department, the Berkeley Police Department and the UC Berkeley Police Department.
Subpoena everything. Collect everything. There is more evidence on the internet than one can swing a dead cat upon. Take it, collect it, collate it, list it, organize it, depose individuals and soon you will have a lawsuit or series of lawsuits that — and I can only hope — put the proverbial Leftist Chilling Effect but upon each and every Leftist law enforcement entity and support bureaucracy in the nation.
Make their dollars and budgets bleed.
Shape up or get out of law enforcement. Go weave baskets. Join Antifa.
[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.
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.
I advocated for this on my 
But listen to this, from a CBS station. It questions yet attempts to justify Berkeley PD’s non-reactive responses.
Those with a Leftist bent, weak of mind, unable to think for themselves, coat-tail hangers, sycophants, Those incapable in independent and/or true critical thinking. Because that is the last thing taught in any college today. Only Lockstep Thinking is promoted and encouraged. Non-variancy. Mindless response.
Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the 
Berkeley: is that how you want to be remembered?
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.