RUTHFULLY YOURS

On Tuesday, I listened to FBI director James Comey on the radio. They broke with the flash that Director Comey would address the media, and I did not want to miss it. I even waited for him to finish before going into my appointment. (I was early, so I had the luxury of 10 minutes.)

My initial reaction to the director’s words was to say to myself: “She’s in bigger trouble than I thought…”

Then came the finish, and I got mad. Yes, I am angry, because the country deserves better. I found this editorial at the Wall Street Journal just right:

So there it is in the political raw: One standard exists for a Democratic candidate for President and another for the hoi polloi.

We’re not sure if Mr. Comey, the erstwhile Eliot Ness, intended to be so obvious, but what a depressing moment this is for the American rule of law.
No wonder so many voters think Washington is rigged for the powerful.

No wonder, indeed! No wonder people feel that some can get away with something and some can’t.

Some Democrats may cheer and say that the whole thing is over, but it is not. In fact, it is just beginning.

It does not take a partisan person to understand that people have suffered serious consequences for doing a lot less. Can you say General Petraeus?

Furthermore, how is the federal government going to prosecute the next person who decides to be sloppy with communications or emails? Will that person claim the Hillary Exemption? I’d bet that there are some defense lawyers out there thinking about new defense strategies.

Of course, it is now up to Mr. Trump to lead the political prosecution of Hillary Clinton. He will have to make the case that Mrs. Clinton cannot be trusted, and Director Comey gave him all the material he needs to put in the teleprompter.

Unfortunately, Mr. Trump wasted the opportunity yesterday by getting into another explanation of how he opposed the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein killed terrorists.

Someone needs to hold a sign at the Trump rallies with a simple message: “The jobs report, FBI, and mess in Middle East, and say nothing else”!

Sorry, but it’s time for Trump to get message discipline or let the delegates choose someone else!

Women’s sanitary pads purchased for the federal prison system and coded as body armor? Cable television purchased by the Coast Guard and $179,418 spent by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on copiers, both of which were coded as guns? Veteran’s Affairs procurement of $31,600 in “assorted bread” coded as “Guns, Through 30MM”?

On Wednesday, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform convenes a hearing with the Bureau of Prisons and other agencies regarding their inventory and accounting practices for firearms and ammunition. We salute their efforts. Here are some questions the committee may want to ask:

Why are there $173,433 in women’s jumpers, sanitary pads, sheets, pillowcases, inmate clothes and shoes, and various beauty supplies tagged as body armor in the prison checkbook?

Did the federal prisons really purchase $1.4 million in “military chemical weapons” since 2006? Or how about $541,351 in purchases under the federal uniform accounting code of “1310: Ammunition, over 30MM up to 75MM”? It’s doubtful that the prison system is buying bunker-busting missiles, so who is auditing the auditors?

Just how many errors have the federal administrative agencies made in the reporting of their guns, ammunition and military-style equipment?

Despite the dirty data and accounting mistakes, our organization at OpenTheBooks.com recently released an oversight report titled “The Militarization of America.” It quantified the escalating size, scope and power of 67 nonmilitary federal agencies, which spent $1.48 billion on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment since 2006. We also found that there are now more federal officers with arrest and firearms power (200,000-plus) than U.S. Marines (182,000).

Here are some of the public policy issues that have come to light because of our oversight report:

In April, 2003, investment banker Frank Quattrone was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice by then-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York James Comey for one email sent to employees.

Quattrone voiced his discontent with Comey’s recent announcement regarding Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s personal email server. Comey is now the director of the FBI.

Quattrone was the subject of an U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission probe into his dealings at Credit Suisse First Boston, where he allegedly “doled out hot stock offerings” to his friends. Quattrone hosted initial public offerings for companies like Amazon and Cisco in the late 90s, and his activity led to investigation at the height of the tech bubble.

Leading the charge of the investigation was Comey, then-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Comey charged Quattrone for a one sentence email in which he “advised colleagues in late 2000 to destroy documents while regulators were investigating Wall Street investment banks” for the way they shared their “lucrative initial public offerings.”

The email that got Quattrone in trouble was “having been a key witness in a securities litigation case in south Texas, I strongly advise you to follow these procedures.”

The procedures Quattrone referred to involved a suggestion from a coworker in an email chain that employees save subpoenaed documents.

Of course, “FBI Director” Comey will not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. But that is not what is worst about this latest wretched day in American history.

What child, what babe, what fuzzy bunny ever expected that he would? Who among us examined the facts of the case as they emerged and rested assured that Justice would be done — that is, done blindly, with no special-case, extra-stretchy, wink-wink regard for the Clintons?

One law for thee and me and one law for the Clintons and ilk, and who doesn’t know it. That is the greatest offense, and it’s nothing new. Just think “Banana Republic.” Just think Soviet regime — but please, spare us the “American exceptionalism.” Even if the strong man who comes to mind wears a uniform, not a blinding pants suit, much is the same.

Once upon a time this was shocking — I do remember being devastated nearly twenty years ago by the perfidy of Trent Lott’s Senate when they show-trialed Bill Clinton’s impeachment charges. “Henry, you’re not going to dump this garbage on us,” Lott, we later found out, told House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde on meeting with the 13 House Managers to discuss the Senate “trial.” Then, as now, the establishment (party i.d. irrelevant) was fighting for what it prizes most — its prerogatives. It won.

It always does (another reason the anti-estabishment advent of Trump so electrifies us masses).

Another milestone of note (there are so many) came in 2009 when Hillary Clinton came before the Senate in confirmation hearings on her appointment as Secretary of State. She was already encumbered with the heavy baggage (tens of millions in Islamic dictators’ money, etc.) that instantly and emphatically disqualified her for the position. The Senate closed its eyes and voted 94-2 (thanks again, Sens. DeMint and Vitter).

Yesterday was no different. The Dictatorship of the Clintonariat rules.

Why aren’t both parties jumping at the chance to offer the new jobs and economic growth that a common-sense infrastructure proposal would bring? With economic activity weak, confidence ebbing and monetary policy all but exhausted, a voter can’t be faulted for asking this question. Upgrading our country’s crumbling infrastructure is tangible and forward-thinking fiscal policy.

House Speaker Paul Ryan is rolling out a six-point GOP legislative agenda that unfortunately omits any mention of such infrastructure investment. In my view, without such investment both parties put in jeopardy achieving many other elements of their platforms.

Both presumptive nominees still have an opportunity to shape the next Congress’ legislative agenda. By taking on the cause of infrastructure repair and upgrade, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump could demonstrate their clear understanding of some of our country’s economic problems and the common-sense, economic solution that has material bipartisan support. Each could signal willingness to fight on all Americans’ behalf against the wrongheaded thinking that considers such investment wasteful.

Some object to such funding because they equate it with “stimulus spending” that offers no sustainable benefit and increases the federal deficit. In truth, infrastructure investment increases economic activity, leads to higher incomes and generates a decades-long rise in tax revenues — sufficient not only to satisfy, with interest, the debt initially incurred, but also to generate profit. Once begun, long-lived projects could also bolster confidence and spur private investment and consumption.

Commendably, Clinton has offered a comprehensive infrastructure plan and has committed to submitting it to Congress within her first hundred days in office. In addition, the Democratic Party has just released a draft of its 2016 platform, which includes infrastructure investment https://demconvention.com/platform/. With this infrastructure plank in place, voters could realistically expect a Clinton administration and Democrats in Congress to get behind a major and economically critical initiative. However, the Democrats do not currently hold either the House or the Senate, which could put a damper on or even derail a Clinton proposal. Republican opposition in Congress could still prevent passage of such an initiative.

Trump, on the other hand, could have Republican majorities in both chambers and, as president, might secure the necessary votes (across party lines) to get such legislation passed. The sticking point: He has not yet offered a comprehensive plan or consistently advocated for such a plan.

On July 1, 2016 the title of a Washington Times published report, “Nearly 1 million immigrants — including more than 170K convicts — ignoring deportation,” makes clear that the term “immigration law enforcement,” under this administration especially, is an oxymoron.

Reportedly 170,000 of these aliens have serious criminal histories and pose an immediate threat to the residents of the towns and cities where they live and may continue pursuing their criminal “careers.” “Sanctuary cities” that shield them from detection by the federal government may attract these aliens, thereby endangering their decent law abiding residents. A recent article published by the Discovery Institute, “Sanctuary Cities Can Provide Safe Havens For Terrorists,” focused on the threats sanctuary cities pose to national security and quoted from one of my recent commentaries.

My recent article, “Obama’s Victims: Released Criminal Illegals Commit Rape, Murder, Molestation” explained how the administration’s malfeasance has undermined public safety and has resulted in more innocent people being assaulted and killed.

The laws of nature are immutable; the speed of light does not depend on a cop with a radar gun and a summons book. Our legislated laws, however, are meaningless and worthless if they are not enforced.

Law enforcement is a labor-intensive job. In order for law violators to be punished for their transgressions their crimes need to be discovered and they need to be identified. It is essential that an adequate number of law enforcement officers are “out there” to do this work and to make the physical arrests.

Today there are likely fewer than 3,000 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents actually enforcing our immigration laws. More than half of the estimated 6,000 ICE agents are dedicated to enforcing our customs laws which have nothing to do with immigration law enforcement. To put this in context, there are more than 20,000 Border Patrol Agents, more than 45,000 employees at the TSA. NYC has more than 35,000 police officers protecting the “Big Apple.”

Simply stated, in this life and death “game” of hide and seek, there are precious few agents seeking an overwhelming number of aliens who are hiding.

There are fewer than 300 immigration judges who hear immigration cases. It was recently disclosed that on those all-too-rare occasions when an illegal alien is arrested, it may take two years for that alien to have his deportation (removal) hearing. Most of these aliens are not kept in custody and often simply disappear. Many times such aliens will find the opportunity to engage in a marriage — often a fraud marriage, to remain in the United States. There are agents available to uncover such fraud scams.

For years our political leaders, from both political parties, have attempted to focus the debate about immigration on securing the border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico.

Congresswoman to Air Force: Put down the tuba, pick up a gun

Rep. Martha McSally has this piece of advice for the Air Force: Ditch the bands and put musicians to work in jobs that boost U.S. national security.

McSally, R-Ariz., on Tuesday said that the service easily complains about its manning levels, and officials make it “their newest excuse” for prematurely retiring essential, close-air support aircraft like the A-10 Warthog, yet “we have hundreds of people playing the tuba and clarinet.”

“If we really had a manning crisis, from my perspective, we would really tell people to put down the tuba and pick up a wrench or a gun,” McSally said at a House Armed Services Committee hearing at which Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joseph Dunford testified. “But we’re not at that place, and I’m just concerned over these conflicting statements.”

The Air Force’s band programs have about 540 enlisted airmen, and almost 20 officers, according to the service. Officials and airmen have picked apart some of the service’s more unusual career fields — including amateur show band Tops in Blue — for using funds that could go for other platforms.

McSally, and other members of Congress who rally behind the A-10, have criticized the Air Force’s reasoning for putting the Warthog in the boneyard as early as 2018. The decision to retire the A-10 would require divesting two A-10 squadrons, or 49 planes, that year, 49 aircraft in fiscal 2019, 64 in fiscal 2020, and 96 in fiscal 2021, an Air Force spokeswoman told Defense News on March 17.

This at a time when the A-10 has been heavily used in the fight against the Islamic State group, throughout Europe and the Pacific.

“We’ve mothballed the equivalent of four A-10 squadrons since 2012, we have only nine remaining, and there are actually less airplanes in them than we used to have,” McSally, a former A-10 pilot, said.

Hillary Clinton broke the law, but she should not be charged with her crimes. That is the gist of FBI director James Comey’s surreal Tuesday-morning press conference, in which he explained how on hundreds of occasions Clinton and her support staff violated the law during and after her tenure as secretary of state — but announced that the FBI, nonetheless, is not recommending criminal charges.

Comey justified his decision on the grounds that the FBI found no “clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws.” But the applicable law, 18 U.S.C. §793(f), does not call for any. The standard is “gross negligence,” and Comey’s statement gives ample evidence of that.

Of the 30,000 e-mails Clinton turned over to the State Department in 2014, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains contained information that was classified at the time the message was sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was “Top Secret,” and seven contained “Special Access” intelligence, the most sensitive classification available. Messages containing classified information were also found among thousands of e-mails not provided by Clinton’s lawyers — who, Comey reports, deleted e-mails that were not in fact “personal” and “cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” It turns out, too, that Clinton set up not just one but “several” personal servers during her time at State.

Furthermore, there is no doubt that Clinton’s recklessness put national security at risk. According to Comey, the FBI knows for certain that “hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account” and that she “used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” And, says Comey, it’s entirely possible that our enemies gained access to Clinton’s personal e-mail account, since her use of one was “known by a large number of people and readily apparent.” “Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position . . . should have known that an unclassified system was no place” for the e-mails she was sending and receiving, Comey said. “None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system.”

And yet, according to Comey, “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case on the basis of the evidence above. If true, that’s a damning indictment of prosecutors as a class.

Notably, though, “reasonable prosecutors” have brought charges against persons accused of much less. U.S. Navy officer Kristian Saucier faces ten years in prison for taking pictures of the engine room of his submarine with his cell phone. Bryan Nishimura, a naval reservist who served in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2008, was fined and given two years of probation for downloading classified military information to his personal device and taking it back to his California home. And General David Petraeus received a $100,000 fine after he admitted sharing classified information with his mistress.

Legal, but Not Political, Clarity on the Clinton Emails
James Comey, the director of the F.B.I., may have relieved Hillary Clinton of a legal burden on Tuesday, but he left her with a substantial political one. While announcing that the bureau would not recommend criminal charges against Mrs. Clinton for her handling of classified material on nonsecure personal email servers, Mr. Comey issued a strong rebuke of her practices, which he called “extremely careless” — and for which she has never given the public a full explanation. He was right on both points.

Mr. Comey explained that there was no clear evidence Mrs. Clinton or her colleagues had intentionally broken any federal laws on classified information, and he said that “no reasonable prosecutor” would pursue an indictment in the case.

This legal decision is undoubtedly correct. The F.B.I. investigation, which began a year ago, examined tens of thousands of emails sent to and from Mrs. Clinton during her leadership of the State Department. It found that eight email threads contained information that was classified “top secret” at the time, the highest classification level. Several dozen more contained information that was either “secret” or “confidential,” the lowest level.

For at least two reasons, Mr. Comey said, this did not amount to criminal wrongdoing. First was the lack of evidence that Mrs. Clinton or her colleagues had intended to break any laws. Second, prosecutions of similar cases in the past have relied on some combination of elements that were missing in this case: the intentional mishandling of classified information, indications of disloyalty to the United States, and efforts to obstruct justice.

But Mr. Comey was clear that while these email habits weren’t criminal, Mrs. Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” He added that “any reasonable person” in Mrs. Clinton’s position should have known that she was playing with fire.

Mr. Comey’s remarks also contradicted Mrs. Clinton’s repeated assertion that she didn’t send or receive material that was “marked classified” at the time. She did.

He went on to say, “None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff.”