RUTHFULLY YOURS

In 1994, Hillary Clinton took questions under a portrait of Abraham Lincoln. Wearing a pink pantsuit, she offered what would become her customary mix of lies and defensiveness, admitting to something and then trying to shift the blame, denying that she had broken the law and then claiming ignorance.

It was an act that we would see over and over again for the next few decades, but back then it was still new when Hillary Clinton claimed that she couldn’t remember anything, that the whole Whitewater affair was an invasion of her privacy and that she had never meant to do anything wrong.

Some twenty years later, we have spent the past few months witnessing the same performance.

She blamed sexism for Whitewater. “It’s a little difficult for us as a country, maybe, to make the transition of having a woman like many of the women in this room, sitting in this house.” Her supporters claim that her email scandal is caused by sexism rather than her blatant violation of the law.

“I do feel like I’ve always been a fairly private person leading a public life,” Hillary Clinton whined about the examination of her shady investments. This time around she claimed that her whole rogue email server filled with classified documents was an attempt at protecting her classified yoga routines.

The truth, then and now, is that Hillary Clinton is a public figure who claims that her private life is being invaded whenever she gets caught violating the law.

Then there are the vague statements that almost sound like apologies, but aren’t. “I’m not in any way excusing any confusion that we have created,” she said of Whitewater. But the only confusion was Hillary’s efforts to make her critics appear to be confused. On her emails, she said that she was “sorry that it has raised all these questions.” Which is another way of saying that she was sorry she got caught.

Finally there is the politician who would be president playing dumb. Hillary Clinton didn’t understand how investments worked back then. She doesn’t understand how emails work now. When all else fails, Hillary Clinton will plead incompetence and then claim that she wants to focus on fixing health care.

Investments are confusing. Email accounts are confusing. Someone please put her in charge of something simple. Like health care for the entire country. Or maybe just the entire country.

No one trusts her and no one believes that she will ever be held accountable.

The investigation into the Clinton Foundation didn’t come up at all during FBI Director James Comey’s press conference Tuesday, prompting pundits like Fox News national security analyst K.T. McFarland to ask why.

“Isn’t there a second FBI investigation? A criminal FBI investigation into the Clinton foundation? What is status of that?”

Fox News reported Tuesday evening that despite the FBI’s ruling on her emails, “Hillary Clinton may not be completely in the clear. ”

“The Clinton Foundation may still be the subject of its own investigation,” Megyn Kelly reported Tuesday evening on The Kelly File. “Director Comey made no mention of the foundation today or whether the FBI is investigating it, at all.”

According to Chief Intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge, Republican Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Jason Chaffetz pressed Comey after his statement at FBI headquarters about whether there would be charges against Clinton’s aides, and whether the entire investigation was closed.

“I specifically asked him what about the other people — what about the IT guy, what about the inner circle, what about the other things. And he quickly said, ‘I can’t tell you about that yet.'” Chaffetz explained on Special Report.

As Fox News reported back in January, the FBI expanded its investigation into Clinton’s emails to include the possible intersection of State Department business and the Clinton Foundation and whether public corruption laws were violated (as chronicled in Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash”).

Herridge noted that it wasn’t typical for Comey to not take questions after making a statement. “He seemed to anticipate the backlash,” she said.

Republicans in Congress have called for Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey to answer questions regarding the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Comey will appear before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday to defend his decision not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton for her use of a private email server while secretary of State. Lynch, who recently faced heavy criticism over her secret meeting with former President Bill Clinton in Phoenix, was called by Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to appear before the House Judiciary Committee next week.

Via the Wall Street Journal:

On Tuesday, Mr. Comey said Mrs. Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of emails containing classified material, but that the FBI was not recommending pressing charges against her. Many Republicans were critical of the decision and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) had called for a hearing on the issue.

“The FBI’s recommendation is surprising and confusing. The fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated the law,” Mr. Chaffetz said in a statement Wednesday. “Congress and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI’s investigation.”

Mr. Ryan has also said Mrs. Clinton should not receive classified information in briefings given to her as the Democratic presidential nominee.

Ms. Lynch is also set to testify before Congress regarding the Clinton email investigation, said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) in a Wednesday statement. A Justice Department spokesman affirmed Ms. Lynch plans to testify next week but said that the appearance had been confirmed since May. CONTINUE AT SITE

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.