Displaying the most recent of 90914 posts written by

Ruth King

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Bush-Era AG: Lynch Made FBI ‘An Arm Of The Clinton Campaign’ “That is a betrayal …” By Jack Davis

By on June 11th, 2017

A former attorney general under President George W. Bush said Friday that ex-Attorney General Loretta Lynch made the Department of Justice “an arm of the Clinton campaign” in her directives to then-FBI Director James Comey about how to characterize the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server while was secretary of state.http://www.westernjournalism.com/bush-era-ag-lynch-made-fbi-arm-clinton-campaign/

During his testimony Thursday to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey said Lynch ordered him to call the probe a “matter” instead of an investigation.

Michael Mukasey, who was attorney general form 2007-2009, said that action amounted to collusion between the Obama-era Justice Department and the Clinton campaign.“What makes it egregious is the fact — and I think it’s obvious that it is a fact — that the attorney general of the United States was adjusting the way the department talked about its business so as to coincide with the way the Clinton campaign talked about that business,” Mukasey said in an interview with Newsmax.“In other words, it made the Department of Justice essentially an arm of the Clinton campaign,” he said.

“That is a betrayal of the department and of its independence to illustrate that clearly that the attorney general was essentially in the tank for Secretary Clinton.”

During his testimony, Comey he got a “queasy feeling” when told how he should refer to the probe.

“The Clinton campaign, at the time, was using all kind of euphemisms — security review, matters, things like that — for what was going on. We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to have to testify and talk publicly about. And I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we had an investigation?” he said.

“And she said, ‘Yes, but don’t call it that, call it a matter.’ And I said, ‘Why would I do that?’”

“And she said, just call it a matter,” Comey said. “And so that concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about the FBI’s work and that’s concerning.”

Other analysts agreed with Mukasey that the collusion between the FBI and the Clinton campaign is troubling.

“In Comey’s testimony Thursday, he basically admitted to colluding with Obama’s justice department to ensure that justice was obstructed in the Hillary Clinton email investigation,” wrote Robert Carbery on InvestmentWatch Blog.

“We all know justice was not served. Comey essentially laid out the case for why she should be indicted during that July presser, only to finish by saying no prosecutor in their right mind would seek an indictment. It pays to be the Clintons,” he wrote.

Joe Borelli, writing for The Washington Times, said the revelations about Lynch were significant.

“The most significant takeaways from the entire hearing did not, in fact, involve alleged inappropriate conduct by the Trump administration, but rather by the Obama Justice Department,” he wrote.

Continue reading →
MEDIA, WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

TV film on migrant Muslims’ hate of Europe’s Jews axed Bojan Pancevski

By on June 11th, 2017

European broadcasters have been accused of censorship after refusing to air a documentary highlighting anti-semitism in Muslim migrant communities.

The film, Chosen and Excluded — The Hate for Jews in Europe, depicts the plight of Jewish people suffering violence at the hands of their Muslim neighbours in cities such as Paris.

The Franco-German broadcaster Arte and WDR, a German public broadcaster, shelved the film, saying it had failed to offer a “multi-perspective” approach and lacked reporting from European countries.

This was in defiance of experts who had been commissioned to evaluate the film and who praised it, calling for its release. Germany’s highest Jewish body also wanted it aired.

Joachim Schroeder, the co-director of the film, said television chiefs had told him the subject of anti-semitism in migrant communities was “very sensitive ” and the documentary had to be “balanced” in presenting the problems facing all minorities.

Continue reading →
WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Islamization of Europe: Erdogan’s New Muslim Political Network by Yves Mamou

By on June 11th, 2017

What is notable is that France’s new Muslim party, the Equality and Justice Party (PEJ), is an element of a network of political parties built by Turkey’s President Erdogan and AKP to influence each country of Europe, and to influence Europe through its Muslim population.

What is their program? The classic one for an Islamic party: abolishing the founding secularist law of 1905, which established the separation of church and state; mandatory veils for schoolgirls; and community solidarity (as opposed to individual rights) as a priority. All that is wrapped in the not-so-innocent flag of the necessity to “fight against Islamophobia”, a concept invented to shut down the push-back of all people who might criticize Islam before they can even start.

“[The Islamist party’s] purpose is to conquer the world, not just have a mandate. Its mechanics were already established…. Islamists took power in the name of democracy, then suspended democracy by using their power…. Convert the clothes, the body, the social links, the arts, nursing homes, schools, songs and culture, then, they just wait for the fruit to fall in the turban… An Islamist party is an open trap: you cannot let it in. If you refuse it, your country switches to a dictatorship, but if you accept it, you are at risk of submission….” — Kamel Daoud, Algerian writer, in Le Point, 2015.

In the legislative elections that will take place June 11 and 18 in France, political parties are finalizing preparations: choosing their candidates, and printing posters and stickers. Business as usual? Not really.

(Image source: Rama/Wikimedia Commons)

One newcomer arose in the political spectrum: a Muslim party, the Parti Egalité Justice (“Equality and Justice Party”; PEJ). What is notable is that PEJ is an element of a network of political parties built by Trukey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP), to influence each country of Europe, and to influence Europe through its Muslim population.
PEJ: A Pro-Erdogan Party in France

The PEJ was created in 2015 in Strasbourg, the de facto capital of eastern France, on the border with Germany. PEJ has already approved 68 candidates — not enough to cover the whole territory but enough to compete efficiently in districts where Turkish and Muslim populations are strongly represented. French citizens of Turkish origin are estimated to represent 600,000 people in France, out of a Muslim population estimated at 5-15 million, but official statistics do not exist.

Another Muslim party, “Français et Musulmans” (“French and Muslims”), is also quietly preparing to erupt on the political scene of the French legislative elections. “Français et Musulmans” originates from L’Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF) which has been rebaptized “Muslims of France”. “Français et Musulmans” is the French branch of Muslim Brotherhood.

The PEJ, is the first party in France established by Turks. PEJ already participated in elections of the Provincial General Assembly in March 2015, but was eliminated in the first round. According to the magazine Marianne: “PEJ is closely connected to Council for justice, equality and peace (Cojep), an international NGO which represents, everywhere it is based, an anchor for AKP”, the party of Turkey’s president, Recep Tayip Erdogan. According to L’Express “many managers of PEJ are also in charge in Cojep”.

What is their program? The classic one for an Islamist party: abolishing the founding secularist law of 1905, which established the separation of church and state; veils mandatory for schoolgirls in public schools; halal food for all schools; support for Palestinians; and community solidarity (as opposed to individual rights) as a priority. All that is wrapped in the not-so-innocent flag of the necessity to “fight against Islamophobia”, a concept invented to shut down the push-back of all people who might criticize Islam before they can even start.

According to the magazine Marianne, Mine Gunbay, responsible for women’s rights in the city council of Strasbourg, fearlessly and tirelessly denounced the metamorphosis of Strasbourg into “political laboratory of the AKP”. Strasbourg is the city where Erdogan was authorized by former president Hollande to hold an electoral rally in October 2015. Legally.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Who Will Police the Police: The Comey Testimonies Victor Davis Hanson

By on June 11th, 2017

Former FBI Director James Comey earnestly lectures about the inaccuracy of leaks and laments that it is not the purview of disinterested federal agencies to correct such erroneous information that the press such as the New York Times recklessly publishes. https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/10/will-police-police-comey-testimonies/

Fine. Yet for the last six months, information in the hands of the FBI, such as the infamous Steele fake-news dossier, a hit piece of opposition research, was leaked by intelligence agencies to the press for political advantage. Comey mirabile dictu himself confesses to planting leaked information to the press of a privileged conversation with the President, via a third-party friend—information that he composed while the Director of the FBI on government time in connection with his job and on a government computer.

In the age of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, why would a Director of the FBI himself leak a key government document to the press in deliberate fashion to undermine the president (and in the process mislead about the chronological sequencing of events that prompted him to leak) rather than provide the memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee? Why would he use a third-party to go to the press?

Non-investigations

Comey corroborates his earlier thrice-stated admissions that Donald Trump was never under investigation for collusion with the Russians to subvert the 2016 election, but suggests now that he could not release such exonerating information to the press because he might later have had to go back to amend it should Trump at some such future time become under investigation.

This is an Orwellian argument—given:

(1) that it is becoming clear that almost all scurrilous rumors about Donald Trump were leaked to the press by the FBI and other federal agencies—while exculpatory facts, such as that Comey was not investigating Donald Trump, were not leaked;

(2) that Comey had in fact previously repeatedly done just the opposite of what he said he could not do in the Trump case—namely that he had first disclosed publicly that Hillary Clinton was no longer the subject of a “matter” (in obedience to Loretta Lynch’s mandatory euphemism aimed at helping the Clinton campaign), then later amended that public admission by saying that she was, in fact, again under renewed investigation, and then amending again that amendment by stating that she was no longer a subject of an investigation. In other words, there was no such FBI policy of prudently keeping silent on the progress of an investigation;

3) that any American citizen in theory could be a future target of any theoretical investigation; but, of course, that fact is no reason for a federal agency to fail to concede that it is not conducting an ongoing federal investigation of said citizen being battered by press leaks and unfounded allegations—unless the aim of a federal agency was to spread doubt about its intentions and thereby cast a prejudicial cloud of suspicion over an individual not under investigation. In Comey’s world, we can all live under a cloud of future investigations, should a mum FBI wink and nod, bob and weave to the press and public about whether we are currently under an investigation—as we are libeled and smeared.

He Said/He Said

Comey states that he was so concerned about a private conversation with Donald Trump (whom he admits once again was not pressuring him to stop a federal investigation of purported Russian collusion) that he immediately went to his government car to write a memo based on his interpretation of the conversation (again, subsequently to be leaked to pet journalists through a third-party friend and as yet strangely not made public). But was this standard Comey practice after meeting with administration officials whom he suspected might be inordinately pressuring him on investigations?

Continue reading →
WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

France: Islamic Antisemitism, French Silence by Guy Millière

By on June 11th, 2017

The files of the National Bureau for Vigilance Against Antisemitism (BNVCA) document that all of the anti-Semitic attacks committed in France for more than two decades came from Muslims and Islamists.The French authorities know this, but choose to hide it and look in another direction.

None of the French organizations supposedly combating anti-Semitism talks about Muslim anti-Semitism: therefore, none of them combats it.

A survey carried out for the Institut Montaigne a few months ago showed that anti-Semitism is widespread among French Muslims. Apparently, 27% of them (50% of those under 25 years old) support the ideas of the Islamic State (ISIS).

Paris, April 4, 2017, 4:00 am. A Malian Muslim named Kobili Traore breaks into the apartment of one of his neighbors, Sarah Halimi. He knows she is a Jew. In the past, He has repeatedly uttered anti-Semitic insults at her. Halimi and her family had filed complaints and asked the police to intervene. Each time, the police respond that Traore has not committed a criminal act, and that they did not want to be accused of anti-Muslim prejudice.

That day, Traore decides to go from words to deeds. He beats Halimi violently. He tortures her. She screams. Neighbors call the police. This time the police do something — but not enough.

When they arrive at Halimi’s door, they hear Traore shouting Allahu Akbar, and shaytan (“demon”). In a jarring breach of duty, they decide to run away. They walk out of the building and call for reinforcements.

The reinforcements arrive more than an hour later, at 5:30 am. It is too late. Halimi had been thrown out the window by Traore a few minutes earlier. She is dead. Her body lies on the sidewalk three floors below. It is clearly an anti-Semitic murder committed by a Muslim who invoked the name of Allah.

Continue reading →
BOOKS Comments turned off

Endgame in the Pacific In the war’s grim final months, the human cost of invading Japan weighed upon America’s leaders. James D. Hornfischer reviews ‘Implacable Foes’ by Waldo Heinrichs and Marc Gallicchio. See note please

By on June 11th, 2017

One of the reasons for my fascination with books about World War 11, is the fact that was the last war America fought for unconditional surrender. Shinto imperialism and barbarity, and Nazi aspirations and genocide ended with total surrender and the world changed forever. Wars since then- even the Korean War with so many casualties and fatalities ended with a parallel leaving the Kim thugs in charge- and the various Middle East wars have been incursions changing nothing……rsk

In April 1945, as German troops surrendered en masse to American forces wheeling through the Ruhr Valley, news from the western Pacific seemed equally hopeful: Landings on the island of Okinawa had been largely unopposed. It was a high-water mark for public optimism regarding the prospects for the unconditional surrender of Japan and the return, at last, of peace.

That month, a U.S. government bureau forecast that an economy shackled by the restrictions of war production would make a smooth transition to normalcy. Although unpopular controls such as the curfew on nightclubs and bans on horse racing would soon be lifted, industrialists and labor unions alike were pushing back against the Army’s voracious needs and the government’s far-reaching management of the economy. President Harry Truman dared hope that Japan could be forced to quit before the home front finally turned on him, imperiling the yearslong struggle to defeat Japan on terms set long ago by Franklin D. Roosevelt and his Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Then Germany surrendered, and the Japanese emperor’s Okinawa garrison showed its teeth. Those two developments threatened to change everything.

This startling, nearly forgotten story is well documented in “Implacable Foes,” a valuable and revealing study by Waldo Heinrichs and Marc Gallicchio, historians at San Diego State and Villanova, respectively. The authors remind us how public weariness with the war and the difficulty of redeploying armies world-wide for a reckoning with Tokyo imperiled Truman’s plan to defeat Japan and avoid the type of economic disruptions that tested the nation after World War I.

Though the military campaigns carried out by the forces under Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Adm. Chester Nimitz from February 1944 forward are covered in this book, those oft-told tales are not the main event. The authors’ major contribution lies in bringing to life the turmoil of a home front “going sour,” as Secretary of War Henry Stimson put it, which pushed the finale of the Pacific campaign toward the precipice of possible failure or abandonment. Though that outcome was never in actual view, war planners did fear, as casualties mounted, what the authors call “a public psychology of complacency, slackening effort, and a drift of labor away from war work.” The special military advisor to the president, Adm. William D. Leahy, believed that at some point the clamor to bring the boys home could become irresistible.

From day one, Iwo Jima was a meat grinder. In late 1944 the volcanic isle had been so lightly defended that it could have been taken by a regiment. But by D-Day, Feb. 19, 1945, it had become a hive of stone. The Marines suffered more than 25,000 casualties in taking it. Though MacArthur used his well-cultivated relationships in the press to lobby otherwise, his own campaigns were equally costly.

Continue reading →
EDUCATION Comments turned off

The Right Way to Protect Free Speech on Campus Communities of higher learning should work to make all of their members feel included, writes the president of Middlebury College, but not at the cost of free speech and robust debate By Laurie L. Patton

By on June 11th, 2017

Dr. Patton is the president of Middlebury College and a scholar of South Asian history, culture and religion.

In my inaugural address as the new president of Middlebury College a year and a half ago, I spoke of my hope to create a robust public square on campus. I said that I wanted Middlebury to be a community whose members engage in reasoned, thoughtful debate openly and without fear, where we are resilient in argument and generous to those we disagree with, and where the conversational circle expands to take in more and more people. I had no illusions about how difficult and messy it might be to achieve these goals, but I also had no doubt that we needed to pursue them.

We experienced a hard test of these aims in early March, when student demonstrators at Middlebury shut down a speaking event featuring the political scientist Charles Murray. A rash of similarly disturbing incidents on other campuses this spring has reminded us of the fragility of the principle of free expression and why all of our institutions, but especially our institutions of higher learning, must be vigilant in safeguarding it.

At Middlebury’s commencement last month, as I shook the hands of 550 graduating seniors, it was difficult to overlook the challenge that lies before them. These young people—our newest alumni—are a remarkable group, full of promise and hope. But the unfortunate reality in America today is that they are embarking on their life’s journey at a moment when our nation is sharply divided—politically, economically, culturally, and in seemingly every other way. As historian Jon Meacham said to our graduates in his commencement address, “A decade and a half into the 21st century, what do we love in common? The painful but unavoidable answer is: not enough.”
It was precisely this dynamic of polarization that played out when Charles Murray came to Middlebury. Students from a conservative campus group, the American Enterprise Institute Club, had invited him to talk about his 2012 book “Coming Apart,” which explores the roots of class division in white America. In publicizing the event, the students had cited the need for vigorous discussion and asked the community to listen to Dr. Murray and challenge his ideas. His 1994 co-authored book, “The Bell Curve,” which linked race with IQ, has long been the focus of controversy and served as the backdrop for how many on campus saw the event.

A number of groups at Middlebury were upset by the prospect of Dr. Murray’s appearance and asked the administration to cancel the event. In the spirit of a robust public square, we thought it was important to allow students and others in the community to engage with Dr. Murray about the issues on their minds.

Students protested when Dr. Murray took the stage. They prevented him from speaking and went on to disrupt attempts to continue the program, including a question-and-answer session moderated by Prof. Allison Stanger, via video feed—a backup plan that we had created to ensure that the talk could continue even if it was disrupted in the hall. Later, when Dr. Murray, Prof. Stanger and a Middlebury administrator left the building, a crowd of about 20 people, most of them outsiders but some students as well, physically confronted them and surrounded their car. Prof. Stanger was injured in the melee.

Like many at Middlebury, I was deeply upset by these events. As a community of learners, we must extend the same privileges and rights of speech to others as we would ask others to extend to us. Given my call for more resilient conversations and debate, the disruption of Dr. Murray’s talk was especially disheartening.

The college immediately asked independent investigators to give us an impartial account of what happened. They reviewed photographic and video evidence, interviewed a number of eyewitnesses and gathered other statements and accounts. Their work provided the basis for disciplinary proceedings under the college’s long-established, community-based judicial procedures. The college charged a number of students with violating policies that prohibit disruptive behavior at community events and that call on students to “respect the dignity, freedom and rights of others” and forbids “violence or the use of physical force.”

The Community Judiciary Board (which is made up of students, faculty and staff members) heard the most serious of these charges, made the final determination of wrongdoing and assigned sanctions. Neither I nor anyone in the senior administration had the authority to impose penalties unilaterally.

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Jay Sekulow: Comey Committed a Federal Crime By Debra Heine

By on June 11th, 2017

Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, said Friday that former FBI director James Comey admitted under oath that he committed a crime when he testified before the Senate Thursday.

In an op-ed at Fox News, Sekulow called Comey the “leaker-in-chief.”

Not only did Comey’s testimony clear President Trump – admitting under oath that the President was not under any investigation – his testimony unmasked Comey’s real motivation in all of this.

It was a stunning revelation. Comey – the nation’s top intelligence official – admitted under oath that he leaked privileged documents to a friend to give to reporters at the New York Times. Memos that he had written in the course of his official government duties about privileged conversations with the President. The reason: Comey testified that he did so to manipulate the situation and force the appointment of a Special Counsel. (And, as we know – that’s ultimately what occurred.)

That’s right – the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations admits to being the leaker-in-chief – taking it upon himself to do what others are being prosecuted for – leaking information in order to damage the President and the Trump Administration.

[…]

Comey’s admission that he is a leaker also raises serious legal questions. In my view, Comey broke the law: 18 U.S.C. § 641 provides that it is a federal crime to, without authority, convey a record of the United States, in this case an FBI record he admits under oath he leaked after being fired.

“Let’s look at what took place here,” Sekulow told Fox host Sean Hannity Friday evening. “The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation has a meeting with the president of the United States. He takes notes from those meetings. He does not release them to anyone purportedly at that time. He puts them in the drawer of his office, I guess. He does this, by the way, according to his testimony, in his FBI vehicle, on an FBI computer, and he just saves it — just puts in a drawer — I’m gonna save it for later. Later, [it] comes out because he gets terminated.”

Continue reading →
HOMELAND SECURITY Comments turned off

How Muslims Take Control of America By Amil Imani

By on June 11th, 2017

American Mosques: Warehouses of Jihad

They do it first by establishing mosques in every town and city. These meeting places are perfect warehouses of not only indoctrination, but future terrorists, who are made to read and understand the principles of jihad, martyrdom, and Dar-al-Harb (“land of war” – any place not Islamized).

Mosques cost money, and the money for these warehouses of hate is coming straight from Saudi Arabia. These mosques are being infused with an activist strain of Islam, Wahhabism. If you have to ask where the Saudis are getting their money, you are not paying attention…it’s coming from you. According to “The Mosque in America: a National Portrait,” a survey released in April 2001, there were at least 1,209 mosques in the U.S. Today, it’s estimated that that number has quadrupled.

Mosque Leaders Promote Sharia

Mosque elders tend to be sent to the U.S. with one clear mission: make sharia law the supreme rule within the United States, using any and all tactics necessary. Next, from within the safety of their local mosques, they begin to use their revolting practices, riotous youth, and wild sermonizing to force genteel Americans to relocate to safer, less threatening neighborhoods and cities. Of course, not all Americans will move or can afford to do so. To take control of a town, Muslims will not need to evict everyone. They probably need about 25% in order to make life very unpleasant for those who do not go along with their demands.

Political Islamist Infiltration

They will elect Muslims to all positions of local influence, who will create and enforce policy according to the Quran. Once they have control over a town, they will begin to establish informal sharia, and there’s nothing the government can (or will want to) do about it.

Sharia is the brutal means by which Islam controls its populations by force, intimidation, and punishments for offenses to Allah. Already, in many European countries, national governments have, out of fear, given Islamic fascists the right to establish their own shadow governments within the borders of countries like Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, and England, where they can control their own populations without accountability. Proposals for sharia are being taken seriously by Canada.

This is an admission that Islam is not just a religion. It is a cult. It seeks total control over a person’s mind and body. As such, our Constitution is totally incompatible with it. Muslims will push politicians for local control and self-determination of their own laws. In this way, America will become two nations: a weakened traditional one and a growing, menacing Islamized one.

Islamists Ally with Leftists

At the same time, Muslims will ally with leftist politicians, who will gladly cede some of their power to this group of enforcers, so conservative politicians and Christians who advocate self-defense and sane social policies are kept out of office. Money that was once used to build mosques will now be used to buy politicians. On university campuses, Islam will be portrayed as righteous and peaceful, while Christianity will be associated with evil Western and American values. Rebellious American youths (BLM, OWS, antifa, etc.) will eat it up.

There will be increasing local and regional incidents of crimes and threats against Christians, Jews, and anybody who speaks out against the religion of hate. Terrorism is a completely legitimate tool of Islam and was widely practiced and advocated by Muhammad. Remember: all words in the Quran are perfect, immutable laws defining an eternal ethic:

Against them (the unbelievers) make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. (Quran 8.06)

Continue reading →
NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

James Comey: The Cowering Inferno By Jan LaRue

By on June 11th, 2017

Jan LaRue is senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.
Former FBI director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday suggests that the first question to FBI director nominee Christopher Wray at his Senate confirmation hearing should be: “Are you currently going through menopause?”

Comey said he was confused, uneasy, troubled, concerned, shocked, very disturbed, and stunned during his conversations with President Trump. The only missing menopausal symptoms are night sweats and weight gain.

Comey should have been sweating when he “woke up in the middle of the night” and decided to potentially violate federal law by using a close friend to leak contents of a government memo to a reporter at the New York Times, which Comey wrote while FBI director on an FBI computer while in an FBI car.

Comey’s bombshell – that he’s a leaker – came during questioning by Sen. Mark Warner:

I created records after conversations. I think I did it after each of our nine conversations. If I didn’t, I did it for nearly all of them, especially the ones that were substantive.

Much of the media reaction to Comey’s testimony, including some in the “fair and balanced” wing, began: “President Trump had a bad day.”

Really? It’s like a headline announcing that a guy was spared from an 11th-hour execution that reads: “Condemned Missed Traditional Last Meal.”

Comey’s angry, self-serving opinion of President Trump as a liar is the swamp “gospel” of self-evident “truth” by much of the spinner class. The real news – that Comey confirmed that Trump was never under investigation on Comey’s watch, never interfered with the Russian investigation, and didn’t order him to stop investigating Gen. Michael Flynn – is their “oh, yeah, by the way” subtext.

Comey admitted having “a queasy feeling” when he obeyed former attorney general Loretta Lynch’s order to downplay the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton. She told him to call it a “matter,” just as Clinton was spinning it.

That’s the same Lynch who met with Bill Clinton in a plane on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport while his wife was under criminal investigation by Lynch’s DOJ. Good thing for Lynch that Bill wasn’t the Russian ambassador.

Comey’s queasiness didn’t prompt him to memorialize Lynch’s instruction. He told Sen. Tom Cotton that he didn’t record conversations or memos with the attorney general or any other senior member of the Obama administration.

Nor did Comey mention Lynch’s order in his infamous July 2016 statement recommending against indictment of Clinton:

Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

Comey made it his job to decide that Clinton shouldn’t be charged with violating numerous federal laws after laying out the case for her indictment. But he told the Senate committee it wasn’t his job to decide if Trump had obstructed justice.

Comey didn’t cave to “pressure” from Trump. He didn’t obey what he now perceives as Trump’s “order” to drop the investigation of Gen. Flynn.

Comey said he didn’t have the “presence of mind” to tell Trump it was inappropriate. He said he was not strong, not “captain courageous.” Wonder Woman in need of hormones, possibly.

Yet Comey never considered resigning or telling the White House counsel about his feelings about Trump’s “inappropriate” behavior. He did tell Attorney General Jeff Sessions not to leave him alone with Trump.

There’s a headline AARP should be hyping to seniors everywhere: “Giant Terrorist Tracker Cowered by 70-Year-Old.”

Continue reading →