RUTHFULLY YOURS

Had Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election – by hook or crook, but mostly by crook – the country would have continued its decline and continued the cliff jumping leap begun by Barack Obama (2008-2016). This is the kind of thing you would be in store for.Exempli gratia:

There would have been no ClintonInvestigation. The country would not have learned about President Clinton’s secret email server. The Supreme Court of the U.S. would have found such an investigation a “blatant invasion and violation of privacy.” James Comey would have returned as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, specially appointed by Clinton on the day of her inauguration in January 2017, some say in perpetuity, although this would be denied by both President Clinton and Director Comey.
Bill Clinton would have been appointed as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
No special Inspector General Report would have been required.
Director Comey would not have ordered an investigation of voter fraud in all fifty states related to the count of the national election, taking the lead from a federal district judge, Comey declares that all state voter registrationlaws are illegal, except in connection to Republican candidates and voters.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/report-agent-peter-strzok-escorted-from-fbi-building/

FBI agent Peter Strzok was escorted from the FBI building Friday as part of the internal investigation into his conduct during the bureau’s probes of Hillary Clinton and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, CNN reported.

Strzok, whose controversial texts to FBI lawyer Lisa Page, his colleague and lover, landed him in the middle of an internal FBI investigation, worked on both the Clinton and Russia probes. He was one of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators before texts showing bias against President Trump got him removed from the team.

Last week’s bombshell report by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, found a previously undisclosed text by Strzok assuring Page that they would “stop” a Trump presidency from coming to pass. The damning text “cast a cloud” over the agency’s investigation and undermined the FBI’s credibility, Horowitz said.

“Pete has steadfastly played by the rules and respected the process, and yet he continues to be the target of unfounded personal attacks, political games, and inappropriate information leaks,” Strzok’s attorney, Aitan Goelman, said in a statement to CNN. “All of this seriously calls into question the impartiality of the disciplinary process, which now appears tainted by political influence.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/clinton-email-investigators-broke-rules-to-please-hillary/The investigators assumed their new boss would reward them for going to extremes to help her.

Review the Clinton email scandal, the Steele dossier, the insertion of at least one FBI informant into the Trump campaign, the misleading of the FISA court by FBI and DOJ officials intent on monitoring U.S. citizens, and, now, the inspector general’s report. There emerges a common denominator: the surety by all involved that Hillary Clinton would be president, and the need to prepare for that fact.

Examine the IG’s transcript of a random, pre-election series of electronic chitchat between high-ranking FBI employees:

15:07:41, Agent 1: “ . . . I’m done interviewing the President — then type the 302. 18 hour day . . . ”

15:13:32, FBI Employee: “you interviewed the president?”

15:17:09, Agent 1: “you know — HRC” [Hillary Rodham Clinton]

15:17:18, Agent 1: “future pres”

15:17:22, Agent 1: “Trump cant win”

“Trump can’t win” explains the salty language also of the Page-Strzok text trove, where the two paramours talk of Trump supporters that they “can smell” and an “insurance” plan to preclude Trump’s nearly nonexistent chances. (“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration . . . that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”)

Perhaps the most iconic example of deep-state bias was the following Page-Strzok exchange:

Page: “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”

Strzok: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-bias-training-1529445819

At a Monday hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Christopher Wray assured lawmakers that he will implement anti-bias training to insure that his agents don’t allow their political views to influence their work. Mr. Wray’s “ Starbucks ” response to bureau scandals suggests that he too requires training.

On Thursday the Justice Department released its inspector general’s report detailing the bureau’s mishandling of the Clinton email investigation and the extreme bias against Donald Trump expressed by some FBI officials. That day Mr. Wray said that he took the report “very seriously,” and then lauded himself and his colleagues for their response. “We’ve already started taking the necessary steps to address” the issues raised in the report, said Mr. Wray. He added:

Because change starts at the top—including right here with me—we’re going to begin by requiring all our senior executives, from around the world, to convene for in-depth training on the lessons we should learn from today’s report. Then we’re going to train every single FBI employee—new hires and veterans alike—on what went wrong, so those mistakes will never be repeated… We’re going to make sure we have the policies, procedures, and training needed for everyone to understand and remember what’s expected of us.

That includes:

Drilling home the importance of objectivity—and of avoiding even the appearance of personal conflicts or political bias in our work…

http://goudsmit.pundicity.com/21294/lying-spying-propagandizing-oh-my
http://goudsmit.pundicity.com
: http://lindagoudsmit.com

The Obama administration has been caught lying, spying, and propagandizing. In a cosmically outrageous attempt to defend the indefensible, the radical leftist Obama lemmings have decided that lying, spying, and propagandizing are not only acceptable – they are desirable – for our own good of course. OH MY!

In an astonishing display of arrogant disregard for the Constitution and its protections, James Clapper unapologetically announced that he spied on President Trump to protect him – REALLY?? Just how stupid do Obama’s sycophants think we are?

The entire Mueller investigation designed to destroy President Trump has boomeranged onto its blatantly anti-Trump team of “investigators” exposing their malice, contempt, and staggering improprieties. Their malfeasance is a continuation of Obama’s egregious politicization of the DOJ, FBI and State Department.

The question for America is “Should we be surprised?” I don’t think so.

When Obama promised to transform America most Americans imagined a better life of peace and prosperity in our republic. They did not envision the foundational principles of the Constitution being shattered in an unprecedented power grab to replace our national sovereignty and Constitutional infrastructure with collectivism and global governance. Lying, spying, and propagandizing are not the tactics American citizens expect the US government to use on Americans! Foreign enemies? Yes. American citizens? ABSOLUTLY NOT!

In a stunning 6.8.18 article KrisAnne Hall describes how Obama changed all that. Richard Stengel, Obama’s head of the office for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the State Department from 2013-2016 supports the use of “fake news.” WHAT??? Stengel unapologetically announced to the Council on Foreign Relations Forum that he is not against propaganda. “Every country does it, and they have to do it to their own population, and I don’t necessarily think it’s that awful.” Really Mr Stengel?? Most Americans would disagree with you. Most Americans do not want or expect to be propagandized by their government. Most Americans expect honesty and transparency from those elected to serve them.

Stengel’s egregious condescending attitude was part of Obama’s transformation-of-America policy. In 2013 Congress passed the mendacious Smith-Mundt Modernization Act that overturned the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act prohibiting the domestic dissemination of US government-produced propaganda. The “modernization” was disingenuously hidden in the National Defense Authorization Act Fiscal Year 2013 as if it was protective of Americans!

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/ig-report-clinton-emails-fix-was-in/The fix was in.

Despite the sprawl of Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz’s 568-page report on the Clinton-emails investigation, there is precious little discussion of the most important issue: The Justice Department and FBI’s rationale for declining to prosecute Hillary Clinton. I believe this is intentional. The inspector general’s message is: “Despite pervasive political bias and investigative irregularities, which I have comprehensively documented, rest assured that nothing too terrible happened here.”

That silver-lining version of this dark spectacle could not have survived a searching analysis of the decision not to indict.

In explaining themselves to the IG, Obama Justice Department and FBI officials contended that the make-or-break issue in the case was whether they could prove mens rea — criminal state of mind. In this instance, that involved former secretary of state Clinton’s knowledge and intent regarding the unauthorized transmission and retention of classified information. Investigators say it dawned on them at a very early stage that they could not. Hence, they urge, their decisions to allow the election calendar to impose a time limit on the investigation, to limit the amount of evidence they considered, to be less than aggressive in obtaining evidence, and to draft an exoneration of Clinton months before interviewing her (and other key witnesses), were entirely reasonable.

Yet their analysis left out the best intent evidence, namely, Clinton’s willful setting up of a private, non-secure server system for all official business

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/southern-poverty-law-center-maajid-nawaz/

British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz complained after it defamed him and hurt fund-raising for his organization. It’s now paying him more than $3 million.

Any free society must expect that a certain number of chancers, hucksters, and shake-down artists will prosper among them. But rarely have they come in so grossly endowed and shameless a guise as the “Southern Poverty Law Center.”

The SPLC was founded in the 1970s, and back then it did some respectable campaigning work to target and shut down — through legal means — actually racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan. All well and good, and the SPLC can still be applauded for this work. And yet students of non-profits and charities worldwide will be familiar with a certain tendency in this field, which is that such organizations rarely shut themselves down. Or, to put it another way, a charity set up to cure a disease may find a cure for that disease and yet strangely also find some reasons to continue. For of course salaries and pensions are at stake. Comfortable halos have been created. Who would want to divest themselves of the gold and glory that comes from such a sinecure? And so the charity will become, for instance, a charity to help people who once suffered from the disease that has now been cured.

So it is — though in far worse form — with the KKK and the SPLC. Of course as the KKK dwindled to an all but negligible fringe, the SPLC could not afford to bask in its victories. There was still cash to collect. Indeed more cash than ever. And who but a fool, or an honest man, would leave tens of millions of dollars on the table? So it is that in recent years the SPLC reoriented itself. It became an organization that looked into all those things that were not racist but that might be deemed right of center. It decided to look into not terrorism and racism but “extremism.” It decided, in particular, that it should become the self-appointed arbiter of what is acceptable in American life and what is unacceptable. For years the mainstream press, lazy on its memories of the SPLC’s past manifestation, indulged it in its new self-definition. Indeed for a few years the words “whom the SPLC has described as” wormed their way into some of America’s — and the world’s — most otherwise respectable and usually fact-reliant publications.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/19/a-comedy-of-corruption-or-a-bureau

If the stakes were not so high, the 568-page report issued last week by the Justice Department Office of the Inspector General (“A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election”) might be seen as a species of comedy, something out of Plautus, perhaps (starring Peter Strzok as the Miles Gloriosus and Lisa Page as Philocomasium), or Dickens’s Little Dorrit with its Office of Circumlocution.

Item: The report “did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed.” Ha, ha, ha.

As Andrew Klavan observed, that is simply inspector-generalese for, “No one confessed or left a paper trail.”

No, Kimberly Strassel was right in her recent column for the Wall Street Journal: the IG report is dripping with evidence of political bias. It’s just that it deploys the evidence like a troupe of players on the stage and then tells you that the burglary you just saw enacted might have been the innocent parson out for a stroll.

Item: After discussing some of the thousands of text messages between Peter Strzok—the top FBI honcho who ran both the pretend investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified materials and the first phases of Trump-Russia fantasy—and his lover Lisa Page (then counsel to Andrew McCabe, who was the FBI’s deputy director at the time), the report concludes that Strzok’s decision to focus on the counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign rather than the Clinton email criminal investigation “led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision was free from bias.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/the_ig_report_theyre_guilty_but_its_okay.html

The IG report is really Comey 2.0. Comey spent a long time describing how Hillary had broken the law but then concluded that it was okay. Similarly, the IG report lists example after example of political bias but declares that it had no impact on the Hillary email whitewash.

The IG report on the Clinton email investigation is proof positive that the entire DC justice establishment is corrupt; that they view themselves a rulers not public servants.

First we were told that Comey was a straight shooter whom we could trust. Then we were told the same about Mueller, Rosenstein, and now the IG. Yet in every case we’ve discovered that they are biased political actors who put the interests of the Deep State and the Democratic Party ahead of their sworn duty to uphold the law. It’s time for all conservatives to acknowledge that there are few if any honest people at the top levels of the FBI or the DoJ.

Not surprisingly highly biased people will resort to big lies to protect their power and the big government ideology they embrace.

The big lie in the Comey report was that because Hillary supposedly had no intent to mishandle classified data there was no crime. Yet a Navy seaman who demonstrated no intent to mishandle classified data was sent to prison. Further, the law says that intent is not a requirement.

There are many laws that can be broken even if the person lacks intent. Take manslaughter — if person A kills person B accidently because person A was very careless, then person A is guilty even though they never intended to kill person B.

http://www.atimes.com/tag/spengler/
The US president’s opponents in the the upper chamber aim to overturn his carefully constructed compromise with Beijing over the Chinese telecom giant ZTE

The bright line that separates Donald Trump’s foreign policy from his predecessors is the question of regime change. Between the collapse of communism in 1989 and the departure of the Obama Administration, the American foreign policy establishment embraced the “end of history” premise that liberal democracy would replace all the autocracies of the past, and that the goal of American foreign policy was to hasten the inevitable march of history. Trump, by contrast, puts American interests first and will make deals that reinforce the position of the Chinese, Russian, or North Korean regimes if the outcome is in America’s interest.

Now Trump’s opponents in the Republican Party – the neo-conservative caucus including Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – have thrown a monkey wrench into the works, in the form of legislation that would overturn Trump’s carefully-constructed compromise with China over the Chinese telecom giant ZTE.

American diplomacy achieved a landmark result in Trump’s Singapore summit with Kim Jong-un, offering the repugnant North Korean leader legitimacy and the prospect of regime continuity in return for his nuclear weapons program. The president’s “Art of the Deal” negotiating style had less to do with the constructive outcome than old-fashioned diplomacy under the skillful guidance of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: Consultation with allies, back-channel exchanges with the other side, and a proposal that both sides could live with. Asia Times published on June 10 former South Korean Foreign Minister Yoon Young-Kwan’s guide to getting a “yes” from Pyongyang, and a Pompeo adviser told me that South Korean insights were incorporated into the American initiative.