RUTHFULLY YOURS

Politicians and media outlets have forfeited any semblance of trustworthiness in their manic efforts to bring down President Trump. Consider, for example, how Mrs Clinton’s supporters demanded the FBI chief be fired only to immediately reverse themselves when news of his dismissal broke.

Much of the response to President Trump’s sacking of James B. Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has been patently hypocritical and partisan. This is not hard to demonstrate. More challenging, and perhaps much more important, is to understand the wider context of the latest outburst of Trump Derangement Syndrome. What might be the real reasons, the ideological circumstances, which explain the determination of the mainstream media, the Democratic Party, bureaucratic executives, CEOs, Hollywood activists, educators, the professoriate and so on – the whole Left Power Elite, in other words – to damage and defame the Trump presidency at every turn.

The charge of hypocrisy almost goes without saying. Ever since Comey informed the Senate Judiciary Committee, on October 28, that the FBI was re-opening its investigation of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information during her time as US secretary of state (2009-13), the anti-Trump forces having been baying for Comey’s blood. Their indignation, given the announcement came just 11 days before Election Day, is understandable.

Not even the fact that, on November 6, two days before the election, he once again closed the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure at the Department of State, could he assuage their outrage. On May 3 this year, in front of Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI Director claimed to feel “” at idea that he could have played any role in effecting the outcome of the election. No mainstream journalist, no Hollywood activist, no Democratic Party spokesman is on record respecting James Comey’s insistence he did right thing: “Lordy, has this been painful. I’ve gotten all kinds of rocks thrown at me and this has been hard, but I think I’ve done the right thing at every turn.”

Certainly Clinton has never forgiven Comey. As recently as two weeks ago she was still blaming Comey’s October 28, 2016, letter to Congress – along with “Russian WikiLeaks” and, of course, misogyny – for her electoral defeat. Perhaps the pretence of Rep. Maxine Waters (D-California), once considered something of an outlier in the Democratic Party but these days no more unbalanced or outrageous than her colleagues, encapsulates up the situation best. President Trump’s dismissal of Comely cannot be supported because it does not meet the “smell test”, and yet were Hillary Clinton the occupant of the Oval Office, Waters would now be supporting Comey’s sacking: “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.”

The partisanship of the media against President Trump is obvious to anyone who is not, well, hyper-partisan against Donald J. Trump. For the mainstream media – in not only America but also the UK and Australia – the White House dismissal of FBI Chief Comey smacks of President Nixon’s Watergate cover-up and, more specifically, the “Saturday Night Massacre” of October 20, 1973, in which special prosecutor Archibald Cox was sacked and, nine months later, Richard M. Nixon departed 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue by helicopter in disgrace. This, surely, is to confuse adolescent fantasy with political commentary. The sacking of James Comey, as a number of wags wryly observed, constitutes a cover-up in search of a crime. The Democratic Party’s “tin foil hat” conspiracy that President Trump happens to be an agent of Putin’sRussiaisonlypuerile but, once and for all, allows the Republicans to clean the slate on the so-called McCarthy-era witch-hunts of the 1950s. The moral high ground occupied by American-style liberals, at any rate on the question of guilt-by-association, is over.

Progressives have been lamenting the erosion of “democratic norms” in the Trump era, but they’d have more credibility if they didn’t trample constitutional norms in their own rush to run President Trump out of town.

Start with Democratic Senator Mark Warner’s assertion on Fox News Sunday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions should play no role in vetting the next director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

“I think it’s inappropriate that the attorney general, who was supposed to recuse himself for anything dealing with the Russian investigation, and clearly the Russian investigation is tied into who the next FBI director is going to be because the President fired [FBI director James] Comey because of his ties to the Russian investigation,” Mr. Warner said Sunday.

Fox’s Chris Wallace : “You don’t believe he [Mr. Sessions] could be part of this?”

Senator Warner: “I don’t believe he should be part of this review process if he can have a true recusal.”

Mr. Wallace didn’t follow-up, so we will. Mr. Sessions has recused himself from the Russia probe, but the FBI director reports to the Attorney General on hundreds of other matters beyond that one investigation. The AG has not recused himself from those matters. Mr. Warner seems to be saying that Mr. Sessions’s narrow recusal disqualifies him from supervising the FBI director at all.

The long knives are out. The ultimate doomsday scenario for a constitutional republic in peacetime—calls for impeachment of the president—has now been augmented by a growing chorus of voices demanding a far less dramatic but nonetheless profoundly serious step: appointment of a special prosecutor. Even for this less drastic move, the calls are way off base. At a minimum, the suggestion is premature.

The developing narrative, trumpeted on the weekend talk shows, is that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein must appoint a special prosecutor to restore his long-established reputation for integrity and professionalism. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the entire matter.

The basic complaint is that the newly appointed second-in-command at the Justice Department lost public confidence by crafting a three-page memorandum to the attorney general that severely criticized then-FBI Director James Comey, whom President Trump quickly fired. At least one senator has already mocked Mr. Rosenstein’s May 9 memorandum as “laughable.” They are wrong.

Let’s see what the Rosenstein memorandum actually says. It is titled “Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI.” Mr. Rosenstein rightly praises the bureau as “our nation’s premier investigative agency.” Mr. Rosenstein singles out Mr. Comey for high praise as “an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice.” The memorandum goes on to praise the FBI chief for his long and distinguished public service.

Mr. Rosenstein then turns to the director’s profound failures during his stewardship of the FBI. Above all, the new deputy attorney general states: “I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary [Hillary] Clinton’s emails.” In this Mr. Rosenstein echoes the vehement complaints by Democrats during the 2016 campaign, and indeed comments only last week by Mrs. Clinton herself. Even Republicans had raised an arched eyebrow at what the director did and when he chose to do it. The deputy attorney general goes on to express befuddlement that Mr. Comey still refuses “to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.”

The memorandum then identifies the fatal offense of any FBI leader—the usurpation of the authority of the Justice Department itself. In a power grab, Mr. Comey had announced the ultimate prosecutorial decision, namely that Mrs. Clinton would not be prosecuted. The FBI director had no authority to do that. That was not all. Mr. Comey, the memo went on, “compounded the error” by holding a press conference releasing “derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation.” This was all way outside the foul lines of Justice Department professionalism.

Succinctly, but with devastating effectiveness, the Rosenstein memorandum demonstrates Mr. Comey’s egregious violations of long-settled Justice Department practice and policy. Mr. Rosenstein draws from the director’s testimony before Congress and his unprecedented letter to Congress days before the election. He addresses Mr. Comey’s argument that had he failed to insert himself once again into the presidential campaign—as voting was already under way in many states—it would have constituted “concealment.”

Balderdash, the deputy attorney general concludes, albeit in more polite language. Prosecutors, to say nothing of FBI directors, are not to set out a confidence-shattering bill of particulars with respect to any potential defendant’s conduct, and certainly not a presidential candidate in the heat of a national campaign.

Finally, the Rosenstein memorandum sets forth paragraph after paragraph recounting the scathing criticism of the director’s woefully timed election interference. The deputy attorney general demonstrates that his own conclusions are shared by a wide range of respected former officials of the Justice Department in both Democratic and Republican administrations. One example: President Clinton’s deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, is quoted as condemning Mr. Comey for having “chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions.” CONTINUE AT SITE

One of Washington’s favorite games is afoot and the rumor mill is running hot with names of potential replacements for FBI Director James Comey.

In hard news, the association representing FBI agents has endorsed former Rep. Mike Rogers for the position. Rogers is a former special agent at the bureau, well liked on the Hill, and considered an expert on terrorism and national security. His name was mentioned prominently in connection with several intelligence agency positions during the Trump transition. If Trump wants a safe pick, Rogers is probably the one.

But, as The Daily Caller points out, the DoJ has apparently narrowed its list of candidates to four—and Rogers isn’t among them.

In a bid fill the empty slot as soon as possible, a source with knowledge of the interview process told Politico that officials will interview acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, GOP Sen. John Cornyn, former DOJ Criminal Division Chief Alice Fisher and former U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia from Manhattan.

President Donald Trump abruptly fired James Comey from the position Tuesday, a move that surprised Comey. He wasn’t informed of the move in advance and realized what had happened while he was speaking to bureau employees in Los Angeles and news flashed on the screen behind him. He initially thought it was a funny prank. But that prank turned out to be entirely genuine.

The decision was so quiet that White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon also discovered the news in the same way as Comey, namely from TV. Trump reportedly kept important staff in the dark because he was concerned about the news leaking.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein are set to conduct interviews starting in the afternoon on Saturday. These four candidates are not the only people under consideration for the position. More candidates will likely be interviewed at a later date. Around 11 people in total are under consideration.

Sessions and Rosenstein are separately conducting interviews for interim FBI director, a spot currently held by Andrew McCabe.

President Donald Trump told reporters Saturday it’s possible he could nominate someone for the position as early as next Friday before he leaves for a trip abroad. While on Air Force One, Trump said that the candidates for FBI director are “outstanding people” and “very well known.”

‘Jumped the shark” is an overused expression straight out of 1970s situation comedy. It is the most charitable interpretation of the moment President Donald Trump pressed “Tweet” on Friday morning. After nearly four months of the once jaw-dropping novelty of presidential tweeting (the equivalent, in dog years and media exhaustion, of five sit-com seasons), the routine has grown stale, the former reality-TV star apparently out of “don’t touch that dial” ideas.

So, while his staffers fanned out to douse overheated media-Democrat Watergate analogies to his firing of FBI director James Comey, the president was on social media suggesting that he might be recording his conversations in the White House:

Is there a Rosemary Woods for Twitter?

Alas, this was not the only piece of bizarre Trump-Comey news. It was reported by several media outlets that the then-director was summoned to a late-January dinner at the White House, where Trump pressed him for a loyalty pledge. Comey is said to have demurred, promising the president nothing more, or less, than honesty. If it happened, and happened that way, Comey is to be lauded for giving one of the only two appropriate responses. The other would have been to resign.

The story is disputed: Comey’s side of it comes from secondhand sources. For his part, Trump told NBC News that it was Comey who wanted the meeting so he could lobby to keep his job — although Trump became non-committal when asked whether it was he or Comey who initiated the dinner invitation.

Trump further maintains that the dinner was the first of three times that Comey assured him that he was not under investigation. To be clear (as National Review explains in an editorial): Comey has testified that the FBI was conducting a counterintelligence investigation of Russia’s meddling in the election. Though he said the investigation is exploring ties between Trump associates and Russia, a counterintelligence investigation is not a criminal investigation.

There is thus no reason to believe that the president is or has been the subject of a criminal investigation, even though Trump can’t seem to help himself from raising that specter. The president also reloaded and shot himself in the other foot, telling NBC that Comey’s pursuit of the Russian meddling probe did, in fact, influence his decision to fire Comey. Trump made clear that this is because he sees the investigation as baseless, not because he has anything to fear. Still, this new version of events contradicts the White House line from days earlier: viz., Comey’s termination was based on his deviations from law-enforcement protocols and had nothing to do with Russia.

It is the latest in a series of depressing chapters. Most pressingly, it will be more difficult now for the president to recruit a highly respected, instantly credible law-enforcement pro — a Ray Kelly type, to my mind — to replace Comey.

“We know Director Comey was leading an investigation in [sic] whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, a serious offense.” So inveighed Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D. N.Y.), according to a report by PJ Media’s Bridget Johnson. Senator Schumer added, “If there was ever a time when circumstances warranted a special prosecutor, it is now.”

No, it’s not.

Readers of these columns will recall that I am a naysayer on the constitutional chimera interchangeably called a “special prosecutor” or an “independent counsel.” I won’t rehash all the arguments yet again. Suffice it to say there is no such thing as a prosecutor who exercises prosecutorial power independent of the executive branch. Were the Trump administration to cave in to media-Democrat pressure and appoint a “special prosecutor,” that lawyer would be chosen by the Trump Justice Department and answer to the president.

As night follows day, the next line of politicized attack would be that President Trump had rigged the investigation by choosing a crony to make the scandal disappear.

Special prosecutors notoriously guarantee a number of headaches for an administration. Unlike other prosecutors’ offices, they do not have to limit the resources devoted to a single case because of other enforcement needs. Their investigations inevitably metastasize far beyond the original inquiry because there is no supervisor to keep them focused on the subject matter and ensure that the investigation is completed in a reasonable time. The arrangement is a perverse assignment of a prosecutor to a single target (or set of targets) with a mandate to make a case against him – whatever case can be made, however long it takes. Because political cases have a high public profile, and the special prosecutor would inevitably be accused of a whitewash if he decides an indictment is not warranted, there is unusually great pressure to file some charge – even if it is a “process crime” (i.e., an offense, such as making false statements to investigators, that relates not to the conduct that was under investigation but to obstruction of the investigation itself).

Just as important, special prosecutors severely degrade an administration’s capacity to govern. They paralyze officials, pitting them against each other when they should be cooperating on the president’s agenda. They divert time, energy, and resources away from the conduct of official responsibilities so that the prosecutor’s investigative demands can be answered.

The only upside an administration supposedly gets in exchange for bearing these debilitating burdens is that appointing a special prosecutor signals to the public that the administration is not afraid of an “independent” investigation. But if the president is going to be accused of rigging the investigation anyway, what’s the point?

Let’s put all that aside for a moment, though. If we’re already talking about a special prosecutor, it means we have ignored what is supposed to be a rudimentary requirement: the crime.

You don’t need a prosecutor unless you first have a crime.

If the point of the exercise is to explore threats posed by Russia, that’s not a job for a prosecutor; it is a job for the president, the intelligence agencies, and Congress. We have prosecutors to prosecute crime; absent crime, there is no place for them. And special prosecutors only come into the picture when the suspects are people (generally, executive branch officials) as to whom the Justice Department has a conflict of interest. But those suspects must be suspects in a crime – not just in some untoward or sleazy form of behavior.

So what is the crime? What is the federal criminal offense that could be proved in a court of law under governing law and evidentiary rules?

“Collusion” – the word so tirelessly invoked – is not a crime. It is used pejoratively, but it is just a word to describe concerted activity. Concerted activity can be (and usually is) completely legal. Lots of unsavory activity in which people jointly participate is legal, even if we frown on it. In order to be illegal, concerted activity must rise to the level of conspiracy.

A conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime. Not to do something indecorous or slimey; it must be something that is actually against the law, something that violates a penal statute. In the crim-law biz, the crime that conspirators agree to try to accomplish is known as “the object of the conspiracy.” If the object is not against the law, there is no conspiracy – no matter how much “collusion” there is.

So, in the ballyhooed “Russia investigation,” what is the object of the purported conspiracy? Notice that although Senator Schumer casually asserts that “a serious offense” has been committed, he does not tell us what that offense is.

That’s because there isn’t one.

Sorry to be the downer at the pep rally, but it is simply not a federal crime for a foreign country to intrude on an American election by spreading information or misleading propaganda that favors one candidate or damages another. To draw an analogy, it is shameful for the American media systematically to scald Republicans while carrying the Democrats’ water; but there is nothing illegal about it.

An outlandish billboard depicting President Donald Trump surrounded by a nuclear blast and money signs resembling swastikas was funded with taxpayer dollars, Judicial Watch alleged Thursday.

The billboard, erected in downtown Phoenix on March 17, also features a pin of a Russian flag on the president’s lapel. And if you look closely, the mushroom clouds look like clown faces. The work was commissioned by “arts advocate” Beatrice Moore, a longtime patron of the arts, and created by Los Angeles-based artist Karen Fiorito.

Fiorito told azfamily.com back in March that she chose the offensive symbolism to reflect “power, money, and dictatorship.”

When neighbor Jeff Whiteman first saw the Nazi Trump image staring “right back at him through his kitchen window,” he was appalled. “It’s pretty drastic. I thought swastikas were very crude and violent,” he said.

But Fiorito was unapologetic. “There are people who say, ‘Well, it’s offensive,’ but the current administration, its policies, the people that are put in power are offensive to me,” she said.

“I worked with Karen Fiorito over 10 years ago, and she created the anti-Bush W billboard for this site then,” Moore posted on her Facebook page on March 17. “Deciding we needed an anti-Trump billboard, I contacted Karen and hired her to design the current signage for the billboard, which we had printed and installed.”

James the Great and James the Less: Clapper defends Comey

James Clapper, Obama’s DNI chief, tried to aid James Comey, Obama’s FBI director. Clapper, in an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, said Comey felt uneasy about having dinner with President Trump on January 27, 2017 because he felt it might compromise the FBI.

According to Clapper:

“He mentioned that he had been invited to the White House to have dinner with the president and he was uneasy with that[.] … Comey didn’t want to create “the appearance of compromising the integrity of the FBI.”

Too bad NBC had Andrea Mitchell instead of real journalist interview Clapper. A journalist would have questioned Clapper by asking:

Did Comey believe that the integrity of the FBI was compromised when Terry McAuliffe, friend of Hillary, donated $700,000 to the political campaign of Jill McCabe, wife of assistant FBI director Andrew McCabe? McCabe was involved in investigating Hillary for her illegal use of a private unsecured email server. Did Comey ask McCabe to recuse himself, or better yet, give back the $700,000? Was McCabe warned, reprimanded, or otherwise spoken to about this?
Was the integrity of the FBI compromised when Comey questioned Hillary not under oath and gave immunity to Hillary’s assistants? Granting immunity is usually the function of the Justice Department in consultation with the FBI.
Was the integrity of the FBI compromised when Comey took it upon himself to make the decision whether to indict Hillary instead of following procedure to give the results of the investigation to the Justice Department for its review as to whether to indict?
Was the integrity of the FBI investigation of Hillary compromised when Bill Clinton met with Comey’s boss, Obama’s attorney general, Lynch, days before Comey gave Hillary a pass?
Was the integrity of the FBI compromised when Comey listed all the facts that warranted an indictment of Hillary but declined to indict because he added the requirement of “intent” that is not in the statutes – and worse, the issue of intent is for a judge or jury to infer from the facts?

The bottom line is that it is not the integrity of the FBI that is the issue. It is the integrity of James Comey.

Of course, Clapper is not the best witness for credibility. He admitted that he lied to Congress about the NSA’s bulk collection of data – not exactly a minor issue.

Or maybe Comey can use John Brennan, but Brennan also lied when he denied that the CIA had hacked the computers of Senate staff members.

Who else from the Obama administration can help Comey? Susan Rice, the liar of Benghazi? Hillary? Bill Clinton, perjurer?