Archive for the ‘Investigations’ Category
God bless Tucker Carlson for calling out Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, for saying that he knew that Russians hacked into John Podesta’s email account. During the debate, which lasted a little less than 9 minutes, Tucker asked Schiff about a letter Democrats sent to President Obama.
The letter they sent urgently requested his administration look into whether Russians hacked into Democrats’ email accounts. This is a political stunt because they know the intelligence community can’t complete that type of investigation in a month.
During the interview, Schiff repeatedly said that Russians hacked into Mr. Podesta’s email account. When pressed how he knew that, Schiff said that it was the opinion of intelligence agencies that Russians had hacked Podesta’s emails. That isn’t the same as saying Schiff had verifiable proof that Russians had hacked Podesta’s email account. Without proof, it’s just an opinion.
At another point in the debate, Carlson asked Schiff why the letter didn’t criticize the Obama administration for their lax cyber-security. Schiff said that he’d made some opening statements at committee hearings, as though that’s going to get the public’s attention. That’s a CYA move. If Schiff were truly distraught over Russians hacking into government email accounts, he should have held a press conference on the subject. Either that or he could’ve gone on national TV and made that announcement. The fact that he didn’t indicates that this is just another scam by Democrats. Here’s the video. Judge for yourself whether Schiff is a weasel:
Technorati: Adam Schiff, House Intelligence Committee, John Podesta, Barack Obama, Cybersecurity, Russian Hackers, Intelligence Community, Democrats, Election 2016
It isn’t a secret that Steny Hoyer is a partisan hack who doesn’t have consistent principles. That’s apparent in Hoyer’s latest statement to the press. Monday morning, Hoyer issued a statement, saying “One of the basic principles that safeguards our democracy is the separation of the personal business interests of our leaders from the government business with which they are entrusted while in office. That is why I am deeply concerned by reports over the past few days that Donald Trump is continuing to promote his personal business ventures as he prepares to assume the presidency. Reports of his meeting with Indian business representatives and reports that he used a phone call with Argentinean President Mauricio Macri to lobby on behalf of a Trump-branded building project are, if accurate, unacceptable behavior for the incoming President of the United States.”
Don’t mistake my opinions with defending Donald Trump. I won’t defend the indefensible. Another thing I won’t do is tolerate political hacks that use situational principles. I define situational principles as principles that are used on political opponents but aren’t used on political allies.
I checked Hoyer’s Whip webpage to see if he’d issued any statements criticizing Hillary Clinton’s pay-for-play scheme through the Clinton Foundation. Thus far, I haven’t found anything resembling that. This statement, however, complains about the House Oversight Committee’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation. While Hoyer stopped short of defending the Foundation, that didn’t prevent him from launching a blistering political attack against Republicans:
With their barrage of unwarranted attacks through subpoenas and letters, House Republicans are engaged in a blatant and partisan campaign to discredit Secretary Clinton at the expense of American taxpayers and Congressional resources. Investigation after investigation has found no wrongdoing, and Director Comey made clear that there was no criminal activity. House Republicans’ attacks against Secretary Clinton have become an obsession, and they have been dragging the American people along with them on a political witch hunt while ignoring critical challenges that ought to be the focus of Congress’s attention instead.
Apparently, the American people thought the Clinton’s pay-to-play disturbing. First, every poll released in the final month noted that the American people didn’t trust Mrs. Clinton. Next, I think it’s interesting that Hoyer thinks investigating the Clinton Foundation’s self-enrichment plan isn’t using Mrs. Clinton’s official governmental responsibilities for personal enrichment.
Clearly, donors thought that donations to the Clinton Foundation bought them additional access to Mrs. Clinton. That’s what this article indicates:
Foundation officials delayed release of the quarterly report of its latest donors on its website until the after the Nov. 8 presidential election, which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost to Republican rival Donald Trump.
The low number of new donors may indicate potential contributors were frightened away by repeated news reports that the Clinton charity is under FBI investigation regarding multiple allegations of “pay-to-play” influence-peddling schemes involving both Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, as well as their key political aides.
The thing that this election taught us is that people are tired of DC insiders being hypocrites. I suspect that people think of Hoyer as being a classic DC hypocrite. This video is proof of that:
Technorati: Steny Hoyer, Hillary Clinton, Clinton Foundation, Pay for Play, Democrats, Donald Trump, Mauricio Macri, Conflict of Interest, Republicans, Election 2016
This NY Times editorial highlights why the NY Times editorial page isn’t taken seriously anymore. For instance, they wrote “Mr. Sessions has been the Senate’s most ardent opponent of fixing the immigration system. In 2015 he proposed a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone re-entering the country illegally after being deported. That could increase the federal prison population by as much as 30 percent. As Mr. Trump’s chief law enforcer, he is likely to fully support efforts to enlist local law enforcement in a widening dragnet for people without papers. He also, during the campaign, endorsed the idea of a ban on Muslim immigrants.”
The horror of that. Sen. Sessions actually thinks that laws should be enforced. What that quote shows is that the NY Times noticed that the Obama administration didn’t enforce this nation’s immigration laws. It’s long past time to enforce the laws already on the books. Further, why wouldn’t Sen. Sessions enlist the help of local law enforcement?
As for the NY Times’ statement that Sen. Sessions “endorsed the idea of a ban on Muslim immigrants”, the reality is that he supports stopping the refugee resettlement program. Sessions’ thinking is that it isn’t smart letting in people whose identity can’t be verified from nations with problems with terrorism.
What’s frightening is that the NY Times apparently thinks that enforcing the laws on the books and protecting this nation’s citizens against potential terrorist attacks.
Count Mr. Sessions, as well, among those Trump allies calling for a special prosecutor to continue investigating Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, a decision that, if he is attorney general, would be his to make.
Why shouldn’t the Clinton Foundation’s pay-for-play practices be investigated? Based on what WikiLeaks exposed, there’s certainly justification for investigating the Clintons. Shouldn’t the Clintons live by the same rules as everyone else?
We expect today’s senators, like their predecessors in 1986, to examine Mr. Sessions’ views and record with bipartisan rigor. If they do, it is hard to imagine that they will endorse a man once rejected for a low-level judgeship to safeguard justice for all Americans as attorney general.
I guess this means the NY Times isn’t undecided on Sen. Sessions. While that isn’t surprising, it is disappointing.
This article reminded me of something I’d hoped I’d forgotten forever. The article reminded me that the Clintons are the original Alinskyite administration. Seriously, long before Tony Rezko had corrupted the Obamas, the Clintons were painting their political opponents as political boogeymen.
Newt Gingrich was the Clinton’s first boogeyman. Dick Armey was the Clintons next boogeyman. Tom DeLay was the final boogeyman of Bill Clinton’s administration. They taught the Democratic Party how to paint conservatives as boogeymen. During the Obama administration, Democrats painted ALEC, the Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity, the TEA Party and, most importantly, the Koch Brothers as political boogeymen.
Before she’s even been elected, Mrs. Clinton is attempting to paint FBI Director Jim Comey as the latest boogeyman. That’s the Clinton’s habit. The Clintons understand that they’re seen as sleazy people. That doesn’t bother them a bit because they’re comfortable with rolling around in the mud. That’s who they are. That’s who they associate themselves with.
In the 1990s, after President Clinton got caught with his pants down, literally, Hillary dispatched Jim Carville to intimidate Paula Jones. Carville’s now-infamous line was “If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.”
Trey Gowdy, quite possibly the sharpest person in Congress, isn’t buying into Mrs. Clinton’s attempts to tarnish Dir. Comey’s reputation:
Here’s part of what Rep. Gowdy said in response to the Clinton campaign’s attempt to paint Dir. Comey as the villain:
GOWDY: Yeah, that’s an old trick, Bret. Blame the cops. If you’re being investigated, you blame the cops. Jim Comey is not responsible for a single one of the facts at hand. He didn’t tell her to use a private server. He didn’t tell Huma not to turn over all of her devices. And God knows he didn’t tell Anthony Wiener to allegedly send sexually explicit texts to allegedly underage people so Comey’s not responsible for any of this. The timing is a direct and natural consequence of decisions that Hillary Clinton made. So I get that Podesta is upset. Bret, remember that he didn’t even know about the email situation and then he thought that it had been taken care of by Cheryl Mills and Patrick Kennedy so I get that he’s frustrated. He’s just frustrated at the wrong person.
Mrs. Clinton established the home-brew server to hide emails from FOIA requests. If Mrs. Clinton hadn’t insisted on hiding public information from the public, none of this would have become an issue. Period. She would’ve coasted to the White House if not for this email scandal.
It’s a given that the Clintons will use Alinsky’s tactics to push their way through their scandals. Their habit is to make things about the boogeymen they’ve created, not the boogeymen they are.
Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, John Podesta, Anthony Weiner, Boogeymen, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Dick Armey, James Comey, Democrats, FBI, Investigation, Trey Gowdy, Republicans, Election 2016
This article highlights what happens when a campaign gets caught with its pants down. Actually, it’s happening because a pervert married to one of the campaign’s top people got caught with his pants down. But I digress.
The truth is that there’s tons of blame to go around in the aftermath of the FBI’s announcement that they’re re-opening their investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal. One staffer was upset with Mrs. Clinton. That anonymous staffer was quoted as saying “I’m livid, actually. This has turned into malpractice. It’s an unforced error at this point. I have no idea what Comey is up to but the idea this email issue is popping back up again is outrageous. It never should have occurred in the first place. Someone somewhere should have told her no. And they didn’t and now we’re all paying the price.”
How do you say no to a mean-spirited, manipulative, corrupt bitch intent on hiding information? Good luck with that.
After the FBI news broke on Friday, the campaign seemed resigned to Trump and other Republicans campaigning on the email issue in the final days of the race. “In the short term at least, this does provide Republicans with something they can all hang their hat on, at a time when they’ve been fighting with each other so much — so that can have a salutary effect by shoring up the GOP base and distract from the daily drama around Trump himself,” one longtime Clinton adviser said.
I don’t know who’s sleazier — Wiener or Mrs. Clinton. If that question doesn’t turn your stomach inside out, nothing will.
This is a good place to stop at:
It’s Huma Abedin’s computer. Shouldn’t she know what’s on her laptop? If the Clintonistas are upset, they need only look at each other.
James Comey has notified the appropriate committees that he’s re-opening his investigation into Hillary Clinton. According to the article, “FBI Director James Comey wrote in a letter to top members of Congress Friday that the bureau has ‘learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.'”
The letter was sent to Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as well as ranking members of those committees. Rep. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Robert Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and Sen. Charles Grassley, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also were sent this letter.
The key part of Director Comey’s letter is the second paragraph, which says “In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday and I agreed that the FBI should take proper investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether these emails contain classified information, as well as assess their importance to our investigation.”
Here’s the text of Director Comey’s letter:
As much as I’d like to see the FBI recommend Hillary for prosecution, I’m still skeptical that’s what will happen. First, it’s virtually impossible for me to picture the FBI doing the right thing. Let’s be honest, too. There’s verified proof that Hillary sent classified information via her private server. Regardless of what happens with the investigation, this will have an impact on down-ticket races. Here’s a copy of the letter Marco Rubio just sent Patrick Murphy, his challenger:
Technorati: James Comey, FBI Investigation, Hillary Emails, Hillary Clinton, Patrick Murphy, Democrats, Marco Rubio, Jason Chaffetz, Chuck Grassley, Bob Goodlatte, Devin Nunes, Ron Johnson, National Security, Republicans, Election 2016
Donald Trump wasted a valuable commodity this week — time. The week started right, with him winning the first third of the debate. Then he forgot his purpose and started chasing ghosts. The lesson that his advisors need to teach him is that he needs to focus on things that will help him connect with blue collar workers. The other thing that Mr. Trump must highlight is the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play scandal and the FBI’s faux investigation.
By highlighting the FBI’s faux investigation, Mr. Trump would connect with Bernie Sanders’ voters that think that the system is rigged. The FBI’s faux investigation would play well with suburban voters who think Mrs. Clinton isn’t trustworthy. It’d be great if he could flip those voters. At this point, Mr. Trump’s campaign would probably be satisfied if it drove Mrs. Clinton’s turnout with suburban voters down.
The Clintons are disgusting, immoral people who’ve lived in the mud their entire lives. Spending 5 more weeks there to win the presidency means nothing to them. Trump’s path to victory is to highlight the things that matter most to people. When in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Mr. Trump should highlight Mrs. Clinton’s statement that she’s going to put coal companies out of business. Wherever he goes, he needs to highlight his plan for energy independence, then contrast that with Mrs. Clinton’s green energy policies.
Part of Mr. Trump’s presentation on green energy should highlight the rigged game that Solyndra tapped into. Mostly, though, Trump should highlight the fact that coal-mining and fracking jobs are just waiting to be filled. Ask people if they want to subsidize Mrs. Clinton’s and President Obama’s special interest allies or whether they’d like to keep doing what’s worked for the last half-century.
If Trump gets back on message, he’ll put pressure on Mrs. Clinton because people want change. They don’t want Mrs. Clinton’s more-of-the-same policies.
Technorati: Donald Trump, Change Election, Energy Independence, Blue Collar Voters, Fracking, Republicans, Hillary Clinton, FBI Investigation, Clinton Foundation, Pay-to-Play Scandal, Solyndra, Crony Capitalism, Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2016
Since the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC, Scott’s widow has accused the officers involved in the Scott shooting of shooting him without justification. That’s another myth that’s being accepted as verified fact by Democratic politicians. This Washington Post article provides a timeline of events that give us an accurate picture of what’s truth.
For instance, the article says that “Due to the combination of illegal drugs and the gun Mr. Scott had in his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for public safety concerns. Officers departed the immediate area to outfit themselves with marked duty vests and equipment that would clearly identify them as police officers. Upon returning, the officers again witnessed Mr. Scott in possession of a gun. The officers immediately identified themselves as police officers and gave clear, loud and repeated verbal commands to drop the gun. Mr. Scott refused to follow the officers repeated verbal commands.”
Additionally, the article says that “Mr. Scott then exited the vehicle with the gun and backed away from the vehicle while continuing to ignore officers’ repeated loud verbal commands to drop the gun. Officer Vinson perceived Mr. Scott’s actions and movements as an imminent physical threat to himself and the other officers. Officer Vinson fired his issued service weapon, striking Mr. Scott. Officers immediately rendered first aid and requested Medic to respond to the scene.”
Most importantly, this is part of the report:
Homicide Unit Detectives interviewed multiple independent civilian witnesses at the scene and at police headquarters. Those witnesses confirmed that officers gave numerous loud verbal commands for Mr. Scott to drop the weapon and also confirmed that at no time did Mr. Scott comply with their commands.
A lab analysis conducted of the gun crime scene investigators recovered at the scene revealed the presence of Mr. Scott’s DNA and his fingerprints on the gun. It was also determined that the gun Mr. Scott possessed was loaded at the time of the encounter with the officers. The investigation also revealed that Mr. Scott was wearing an ankle holster at the time of the event.
Finally, there’s this:
That’s the gun Scott allegedly wouldn’t drop when told to by police officers. That’s the gun that allegedly has Scott’s DNA on it. It’s important that a thorough investigation is completed of this incident so that we get past this election-season myth that police officers have suddenly turned into bloodthirsty killing machines.
Where there’s forensic evidence that a police officer shot a man without justification, prosecute that officer to the fullest extent of the law. It’s equally important that Democrats stop characterizing the police as bloodthirsty criminals. Their rhetoric might get innocent officers killed.
Based on information revealed during Hugh Hewitt’s interview of Jim VandeHei, Jim Comey’s reputation is shot. At the start of the interview, Hewitt stated “Jim, I want to read the beginning of an email I got from a former AUSA, assistant United States Attorney, who I’ve known for many, many years, absolutely legit guy, and have been tracking down bad guys for a long time. He’s married to an FBI agent. It reads, ‘Now that the contents of that first FBI summary have been released, my wife tells me that Comey has lost all credibility in the FBI. Remember he’s a DOJ veteran, not a Bureau veteran, and that makes a difference with the troops. My wife, a 25-year agent, tells me that since that document became public, and based on what’s in there Comey decided to not recommend prosecution, his name among the agents is dirt. The most practical reason for that feeling is that they all know stories about agents or other federal employees who have befallen similar circumstances, and some have been prosecuted while just about all others have been fired. And the issue with the missing Blackberrys, IPad, AND the Apple Laptop and Thumb drive that had ALL her archived emails on them, is just unbelievable to agents who work on matters involving classified information.’ I, Jim VandeHei, have heard this complaint over and over again. I held all the clearances in the Reagan years. And I always said the short end was if I left anything in my desk, I’d be disciplined. If I took it home, I’d be fired. If I gave it to someone, I’d be prosecuted. Have you heard this refrain yourself?”
VandeHei’s response was telling:
It’s interesting that you say that, and I think, yes, is the answer. And I think where the disconnect is, is are you in a military family? And do you know people in a military, or in your case, people who are in the Justice Department or the FBI? I have two brothers-in-law who are serving, and I was in a wedding this past weekend in Kerrville, Texas, where lots of Marines were there. And people who would be inclined, I think, several that I was talking to, to be inclined to support Hillary Clinton, and the only thing that they focus on, and the reason that they could never find themselves voting for her, is this very reason. They either themselves or know other people who have been sanctioned or had issues for doing far, far less than what they believe Hillary Clinton did with classified material. And I think if you’re not talking to people in the military, if you don’t have family members in the military, you don’t have deep enough appreciation for how much focus they put on this, and how much they tie it to your character and to your performance.
It’s clear that Comey’s reputation with the rank-and-file investigators is irretrievably tarnished. Once you destroy your credibility, it’s virtually impossible to regain it. If it’s possible, it’s only possible to retrieve it over time and by constantly being honest. Trust isn’t rebuilt overnight.
Considering all the times Comey afforded Mrs. Clinton extra-special treatment, which is brilliantly documented in Ben Shapiro’s article, there’s little reason to think that Mr. Comey conducted a legitimate investigation:
According to new documents from the FBI’s investigation of Clinton, the agency was fully aware that Clinton lied when she said she set up a private server in order to utilize one Blackberry device; she used 13 mobile devices and two phone numbers. The FBI knew that Clinton’s aides destroyed old Blackberrys by cracking them in half or hitting them with a hammer. The FBI knew full well that Clinton had passed classified information over her private server; she admitted that she didn’t even know how classified information worked, instead stating that she thought the “C” appearing at the top of documents probably had something to do with alphabetizing files. The FBI recognized that Clinton wiped her server after a New York Times article revealed her private sever and email use; that she brought her Blackberry into a secure State Department area; that she never turned over nearly 18,000 work-related emails; that she discussed an undercover asset on the server and put his family in danger; and that she refused to take Blackberrys from the State Department out of fear they could be discoverable under Freedom of Information Act requests.
Based on this information, it’s clear that the fix was in. That’s why Dir. Comey’s reputation is shot.
Thanks to his attorney’s statements, Officer Jeronimo Yanez’s side of the story is getting out. Tom Kelly, Officer Yanez’s attorney, is getting word out that there’s much more to the story than what’s been told thus far, saying “The shooting had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the presence of that gun”, adding that Mr. Castile “was not following the directions of the police officer.”
This investigation is just getting started, meaning that they’re just starting to connect the dots. Still, it’s clear that a significant portion of the early reporting didn’t tell the whole truth. I suspect that we still aren’t getting everything but the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together a bit better.
One thing, though, that’s clear is that Gov. Dayton’s initial statements on the Philando Castile were ill-advised. That’s when he said “Would this have happened if those passengers would have been white? I don’t think it would have. I’m forced to confront — and I think all of us in Minnesota are forced to confront — this kind of racism exists, and that it’s incumbent upon all of us to vow that we’re going to do whatever we can to see that it doesn’t continue to happen.”
It was always known that Diamond Reynolds’ account wasn’t the final word. It was dramatic. It showed part of the story. It was never going to be the final word on what happened. It’s been known that Gov. Dayton’s statements would quickly proven as ill-advised.
Gov. Dayton should’ve waited. Had he done so, he might’ve learned this:
An audio clip purporting to capture the moments just before Castile was stopped by Yanez seems to indicate that the officer believed he and Reynolds ‘looked’ like suspects in a robbery.
“I’m going to stop a car, I’m going to check ID’s,” the officer can be heard saying in the recording, obtained by KARE 11. “I have reason to pull it over. The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery.”
The officer then tells dispatch he believes the driver looks like one of the suspects because of his ‘wide set nose’. Less than two minutes later an officer screams that shots have been fired and that it’s a ‘code 3’. The license plate mentioned by police in the recording matches the plate of the car Castile was driving, and the location the officers give to dispatch matches where the traffic stop took place.
It is not yet clear what alleged robbery the officer in the recording was referring to.
In light of the fact that there is audio indicating that the stop was happening because the officer thought the car was used in a robbery, it isn’t difficult to think that Officer Yanez was worried for his safety. Couple that with the claim that Officer Yanez told Castile not to move. If it’s proven that Officer Yanez issued that command and that Castile didn’t obey Officer Yanez’s order, that’s a potentially explosive situation.
It’s time to consider the possibility that this tragedy wasn’t about racism but that it might’ve been about a potentially dangerous situation and a motorist who didn’t obey a police officer’s commands.