The Long Version

Retired broadcast journalist. Blogging helps scratch the itch. Recovering exRepublican – Sober and still Conservative.

Archive for the ‘News’ Category

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’ I.T. Guy – The Facts to Date

leave a comment »

Imran Awan was arrested at Dulles International Airport in Washington DC as he was attempting to board a flight headed to Pakistan. Awan is charged with bank fraud.

Normally a story like this wouldn’t get much attention outside the police blotter in the local newspaper, but this isn’t a normal story. It’s a story that’s about as clear as the Mississippi river but is filled with intrigue and the potential to drag numerous DC acolytes and congressional representatives on the Democratic side of the aisle into a sludge pit.

Here’s what is known and the timeline that lead to the arrest this past week.

Debbie Wasserman-SchultzIn 2004 Congressman Robert Wexler (D) from New York, hired a Pakistani I.T. technician named Imran Awan to handle the technology needs for his office. Little was or is known about Awan. He’s a naturalized citizen according to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was convinced by Wexler to hire Awan as her I.T. specialist, a job he held along with others until his recent arrest when Schultz fired him. But there have been no reports on when he came to the U.S., his background, or even if he’s actually an I.T. specialist. The ambiguity surrounding Awan is surprising, however major news media has all but ignored this story making facts slow to come out.

It is interesting to note that at the time Awan was being hired by Schultz, I.T. contractors were being paid an average of $40,000 to $60,000 a year. Awan was being paid about $120,000 more than double the average salary paid for I.T. work by other congressional representatives. Which brings up question number one; why the inflated salary?

Within a year after Schultz hires Awan he requests more help so they hire his brother Abid Awan. Abid is paid the same salary or about $120,000. The database and workload apparently grew to the point where Awan requested more help. So  they hired his wife and best friend.  Both at similar salaries over $100,000 per year. We know that Awan’s wife, Hina Alvi, had no I.T. experience and his best friend, Rao Abbas, was working at a local McDonalds before being snatched up for a high paying I.T. job by Wasserman-Schultz.  Nothing illegal here, just odd and filled with cronyism and nepotism, two things the Left typically cringe at and protest.  At one point Awan, his family, and friends were making a combined $4 million dollars per year! What kind of I.T. jobs were these folks doing to demand that kind of money? No one is asking that question. The youngest Awan brother, Jamal, got on the House payroll too. He’s only 20 years-old and makes $160,000, much more than others in a similar I.T. position.

Awan and his group begin to branch out. Yes, they continue to work the I.T. gig for Wasserman-Schultz and many other Democrat congressional representatives in Washington, but they also start to buy real estate (houses) in the Virgina area. Where do they go to get their home loans? The Capital Credit Union. The bank of congress.

In 2009 they start a car dealership called Cars International A, LLC, referred to as “CIA” in court documents. The A doesn’t stand for anything but you can’t get CIA without it. So they try their hand at used car sales. At this same time Imran’s brother Abid has his own car repossessed and he begins to experience financial trouble. This usually wouldn’t be of any real interest except for the fact that all congressional I.T. employees must also have security clearances to hold those jobs.  Generally, financial issues like a vehicle repossession or bankruptcy would be cause for a review of the individual’s security credentials. There are sound reasons for this.  Someone with a government security clearance could have access to sensitive materials and could be compromised by foreign agents. Secrets for sale anyone? That’s the concern and that’s why such a review would be a normal protocol in this case, however, in this case no review was made. No questions were asked.

The financial situation for CIA and Abid didn’t get better, in fact it got worse. In 2010 CIA filed for bankruptcy. Now the security clearance credentials would surely be brought into question and possibly revoked, right? No, not really. No one questioned Imran or Abid and their credentials remained intact. In 2012 Abid files for personal bankruptcy. Three’s a charm. His security clearance would most certainly be revoked after a repossession and two bankruptcies. But no. Nothing happened. At this time Abid hopped on a plane to Beruit.  In Beruit he meets with Dr. Ali al-Attar, an Iraqi politician who was instrumental in the Iraq war and has ties to Hezbollah. The good doctor then decides to “invest” in the Awan family and gives them a $100,000 “loan.” Still no questions are asked by any one at the congressional level or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or any of the other congressional democrats paying Awan and his group.

Then it gets even more bizarre. Imran, acting as his wife on a telephone call with the Capital Credit Union, tries to get $283,000 wired to Pakistan for a “funeral.” When the credit union says no, they can’t wire the money for a funeral, Imran changes character and speaks as himself explaining his wife was mistaken and the money is needed for a property purchase. Incredibly, the credit union says OK.

At this point capital police are looking into this and other irregularities surrounding Awan and his group of I.T. techs. However, according to The Daily Caller, “Awan’s wife, Hina, left the country under similar circumstances March 5, after withdrawing the couple’s three kids from school without telling Virginia education officials, packing up all of her possessions, and hiding $12,000 in cash, according to an FBI affidavit. She allegedly had hundreds of thousands of dollars waiting in Pakistan for her — money the FBI says Awan had obtained partly through mortgage fraud and had wired overseas using a false explanation.” She is now being protected by the Pakistani government.

That’s all we know to this point. Does anyone in the mainstream media think that’s worth investigating? Does anyone in congress see a single red flag in any of this information? So far none of the major media have done any in-depth reporting on a story that is begging for a good investigative journalist to take it on.

Some simple questions that came to my simple mind:
Why were these people being paid so much money when the average I.T. Tech was only making $40 to $60K a year?
Was DWS and the DNC being blackmailed?
Why didn’t anyone at the Capital Credit Union raise any alarms during the sketchy bank loan situation?
Why hasn’t anyone questioned the desire of an Iraqi politician to invest $100K in a bankrupt car dealership?

The Awan family I.T. group had complete access to all of the DNC’s private information and all of their emails as well as the emails of dozens of congressional democrats. Yet no one is talking about this in the major media.

This isn’t a democrat or republican issue. This is a serious national security issue and it needs to be addressed now.

These are the facts. This is what we know happened since Imran’s arrest and it’s only because of his arrest that we know this much.

Will this turn out to be much ado about nothing or just the tip of the proverbial iceberg?

Time will tell.

For continued updates on this story follow Luke Rosiak at The Daily Caller

Advertisements

TV News Has the Blues

leave a comment »

I began my career in the broadcast news business in 1990. In 1998 I discovered NewsBlues.com.

NewsBlues.comI visited the website regularly and subscribed to the newsletter. It was always an interesting read and almost always full of juicy insider stuff about the insiders. It was the one place you could go to get all the latest news about the news business from the national networks to the smallest local affiliates. And of course there was always “This Week’s Looker”

That spicy flare came from its editor Mike James who, after 19 years, is retiring.  But it may be his final words that turn out to be the most poignant and remembered of any penned by the testy editor over the past two decades.

His final post was a scathing critique of the industry he covered for 19 years and it was spot on.

Here is an excerpt from that post.

We have watched the unhealthy transformation of TV news: the steady shift to shallow tabloid content; the casting aside of older, experienced talent; the headlong pursuit of younger demographics; the drive to build newsrooms on ethnically-balanced quotas and newscasts on research-driven formulas; the abandonment of investigative journalism out of fear of litigation; the proliferation of 24-hour cable news and its need to fill time with opinion; the politicalization of news and the loss of balance; and the increasingly intense focus to “do more with less.”

And that had led to live shots for the sake of going live; mandatory walk-and-talks; syrupy live TV marriage proposals; weepy personal medical memoirs; mommy blogs and birth celebrations; newsroom sheet cakes; buyouts and layoffs; adrenalin-infused storm chasers masquerading as scientists; local meteorologists with sleeves rolled up interrupting programming for breathless storm alerts in distant counties; bigger, more powerful radars; mobile weather units covered in advertiser logos; beauty queen traffic anchors; TelePrompTer readers in cocktail dresses; endless promotion and slogans and shallow branding; verbless BREAKING NEWS that isn’t; tweets and selfies and sprawling studios meant to overwhelm viewers with style, rather than substance.

We’ve watched a handful of broadcasting companies leverage investment money to gobble up local TV stations by the hundreds, creating ownership behemoths that threaten the public interest by centralizing news production, eliminating competition and diversity, squeezing advertisers, steam rolling retransmission agreements, and generating obscene compensation packages for a handful of executives. Meanwhile, news staffs have been consolidated and salaries slashed. Local television, now dependent on scale, has expanded its local news hole to accommodate more advertising opportunities to pay the bills.

We’ve witnessed the unsound focus on self-congratulatory industry awards, the preposterous growth of regional Emmys®, and the surrealistic expansion of Edward R. Murrow trophies. We’ve watched major universities move from educating journalists to creating TV personalities, who seem eager to build careers on the shifting sands of social media. And we’ve watched a small university in America’s poorest state become an online factory for TV weather guessers. 

On our watch, America’s trust and confidence in the news media has fallen to an all-time low.

Ouch.

But sometimes a hard slap up side the head is a good thing. For the slapper if not the slapped…

 

 

Written by DCL

May 31, 2017 at 2:47 pm

What a Difference a Day Makes

leave a comment »

Wouldn’t you know it. Dr. Ben Carson endures 24 hours of non-stop abuse from media, Hollywood, and about every Democrat with a verified Twitter account, when the other shoe drops. But this time it drops right on the noggins of all those finger-pointing, name-calling, elites.

Come to find out, in a 2015 speech, President Obama made comments eerily familiar to those of Dr. Carson.

And perhaps, like some of you, these new arrivals might have had some moments of doubt, wondering if they had made a mistake in leaving everything and everyone they ever knew behind…So life in America was not always easy. It wasn’t always easy for new immigrants. Certainly it wasn’t easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily, and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves.

There was discrimination and hardship and poverty. But, like you, they no doubt found inspiration in all those who had come before them. And they were able to muster faith that, here in America, they might build a better life and give their children something more.

The Washington Free Beacon published a side by side video showing both Dr. Carson’s remarks and President Obama’s.

Did any of these folks spring to attack in 2015 when the President compared slaves to immigrants?

 Twitter attacks on Dr. Ben CarsonCelebs attack Ben Carson on Twitter

Don’t expect apologies. Expect them to double down. Expect them to defend a statement made by a black politician with a (D) by his name while excoriating the same statement made by a black politician with an (R) by his name.

Is there really any other difference here?

I’m open to reasoned and civil difference of opinion here, but check your team colors at the door. Look at this example free of the blue or red lenses. Just two men who made a very similar observation. Either what was said was right or wrong. It can’t be right for one and wrong for another.  If we go there, if we actually start to condone that kind of thinking and follow it with action, we are all in big trouble.

Let the honest discussion begin.

Be Careful How You Use the Word – Immigrant

leave a comment »

“That’s what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity,’’ he said. “There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.”

At first all I’d heard, read, and saw was the ridicule, the disgust, the mockery, and the judgements.  I figured it must be really bad. Dr. Ben Carson, a man I respect because I think he’s just a good decent human-being was being crucified all over the media and social media. This must be it, I thought. His foray into the cesspool of politics has finally come around to bite him and he’s done something really horrible.

Then I read the quote.

I immediately saw what everyone was hysterical about.  He used the word “immigrants” where he shouldn’t have used that word. Not in today’s social/political climate, anyway. But I didn’t immediately interpret it as a slight toward the slaves who were brought over here or Black History in America. Some will say, “that’s because you’re white.” OK, but I still know the history and I can still read and understand words put in phrases and this one didn’t strike me as more egregious than Obama’s gaffe when he said he’d visited all 57 states. The Right took that into Islamic conspiracy world but the major media was quick to dispel it and help calm the waters. Not so this time.

It’s noteworthy, I believe, to show that nowhere can I find a definition of the word immigrant or immigration or migrate that specifies volunteerism. In other words, according to the dictionary, that volume which defines our use of words, an immigrant is simply someone “who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.” It doesn’t specify whether they came by choice or not. But that can be termed splitting hairs. OK, fine.

A decade or more ago, maybe 20 years now, his comment wouldn’t have garnered much attention if any. The word – immigrant – didn’t hold the same political meaning or have the same emotion attached to it in the common lexicon like it does today.

In my observation, however, there seems to be a double standard when it comes to gaffes by public figures, especially politicians. Everyone makes dumbass comments now and then, but some seem to be immune from the kind of public scrutiny, mockery, or humiliation or the magnitude being extended in this case.

Does the Right mock the Left when they make similar gaffes in public? Yes, certainly, but the Right doesn’t have CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, The New York Times, or Saturday Night Live to ingrain it into our psyche for all time over a week-long news cycle.

So this past week, armed with Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, led by celebrities and politicians alike,Anger at Ben Carson comments on slavery and immigration and with the help of the mainstream media, an avalanche of criticism, denigration, and even outright hate, has rained down on Dr. Carson.  I don’t have a problem with fair-minded criticism, but the majority of what I’ve read and heard can’t be defined as such.  It’s just gleeful contempt for a man most of them dislike for mainly one reason, I believe…

He’s black and he’s not a Democrat.

So, point your finger if you must. Claim that Dr. Carson doesn’t know the history of his own people if that gives you a superior tingle. Call him the most horrible person on earth because he dared compare slaves to immigrants, but consider how silly, petty, and insignificant it really is. No one ends up better for it. No one.

I’m certain Dr. Carson knows his history well. The intent of his comment was to commend those who came before him and to suggest even they, in their horrible and dire circumstance must have hoped for a better future for their posterity. His poor choice of words to describe their circumstance, the context of his speech, and the turbulent political atmosphere in which he spoke them, led to this ridiculous firestorm of anger and righteous indignation. We’ve got to get better than this.

The Left has long held claim to a monopoly on compassion and tolerance. Where is the application of this claim? Hint: It can’t be selectively applied.

So we add another word to the “words to use cautiously in public if at all” list.

Or what if we discussed why the word choice was poor, allowed the offender a mea culpa, forgave and moved on?

 

Written by DCL

March 7, 2017 at 4:57 pm

New Year, Same Old New York Times

leave a comment »

Well that didn’t last long.

It didn’t take much time at all for the New York Times to steamroll its own mea culpa after the November election. A time when Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and Executive Editor Dean Baquet offered a half-hearted apology to America, but an apology none-the-less, with regard to the way the Times had covered the election and for the most part America’s heartland.

As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

Within that quote is a thinly veiled admission to the fact that the Times has not been exactly honest in its reporting. This isn’t news to anyone who doesn’t exist on the Left side of the political spectrum.

But now we see the Times is the Times and it’s probably going to take some serious time and perhaps hard times before the paper actually does what it says it will do.

Case in point, a recent article by the Times on former Texas governor Rick Perry who was pegged by Donald Trump to be the next energy secretary.  As the Washington Examiner points out and proves, the Times took a single quote, misinterpreted it, created a story around it, which was then picked up by every other Times wannabe on the planet, smearing Rick Perry in the process.

If I didn’t know better, I’d think the article was written by a first year journalism student who doubled as the president of the Democrat club.

So this is how the Times “rededicates” itself to the fundamental mission of Times journalism? Same as it ever was…

Read the full story here at the Washington Examiner

Even New York Magazine couldn’t back up the Times or condone the story.

Who’s going to revive the lifeless body of journalism in this country? I don’t see any legitimate organizations who can step in at this point.

Sad Times.

Written by DCL

January 19, 2017 at 1:44 pm

Posted in News, News Media, Politics

Mrs. Clinton’s Struggles with the Truth

leave a comment »

Hillary doesn't think she lies.Hillary Clinton will now become a part of political history books as she and her husband finally ride off into the sunset of political life…or so we think.

While she says she will never run for office again, Mrs. Clinton is well-known for saying one thing and doing another.  Her relationship with the truth is strained to say the least, but as these 9 examples will show, she has no problem telling the public tall tales regardless the seriousness of the subject matter.

Hillary’s 9 biggest whoppers:

1. Clinton lied about the cause of the 2008 financial crisis. “We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s,” Clinton said. “That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.”

Actually, as the Daily Wire has previously explained, the economy Ronald Reagan inherited from Jimmy Carter was in worse shape than the Great Recession, and the financial crisis was actually caused by Clinton’s husband’s policies forcing banks to give out loans to people with bad credit.

2. She falsely denied her previous support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. When GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump called out Clinton for previously calling TPP “the gold standard of trade deals,” Clinton flatly said “no” and accused Trump of living “in your own reality.” The former Secretary of State attempted to worm her way out of it by claiming that she had “hoped it would be a good deal” but couldn’t support the finalized version.

This is a lie. The Washington Post‘s Glenn Kessler points out that in 2012, Clinton’s full quote on TPP was: “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.”

As Kessler notes, Clinton’s statement was crystal-clear at the time; she did view the TPP as a good deal, not that she “hoped” it would be a good deal.

3. Clinton lied about the effectiveness of stop-and-frisk. After falsely accusing Trump of painting “such a dire negative picture of black communities in our country,” Clinton brought up a blatant falsehood about stop-and-frisk.

“Stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional and, in part, because it was ineffective,” Clinton said. “It did not do what it needed to do.”

Clinton’s statement flies in the face of publicly available evidence. As the Daily Wireexplained here, not only is stop-and-frisk not racist, it has proven to be an effective means of reducing crime, as “murders declined almost 80 percent and major felonies by almost 75 percent from the early 1990’s to 2013 thanks to ‘proactive policing,’ which includes the practice of stop-and-frisk.”

4. Clinton claimed that violent crime is on the decline. It’s not. Following Clinton’s aforementioned falsehood about stop-and-frisk, she then unleashed yet another untruth: “In fact, violent crime is one-half of what it was in 1991. Property crime is down 40 percent. We just don’t want to see it creep back up. We’ve had 25 years of very good cooperation.”

The Daily Wire debunked this, as the FBI recently released a report showing that violent crime increased by 3.9 percent from 2014 to 2015, including a 10.8 percent increase in murders, 5.8 percent increase in rapes and 4.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults. Clinton used 1991 as the baseline year to hide the recent increase in violent crime.

5. Clinton continued to pander to the Black Lives Matter movement by peddling the myth of systemic racism. Here is what Clinton had to say about it:

Too many young African-American and Latino men ended up in jail for nonviolent offenses. And it’s just a fact that if you’re a young African-American man and you do the same thing as a young white man, you are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated. So we’ve got to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. We cannot just say law and order. We have to say — we have to come forward with a plan that is going to divert people from the criminal justice system, deal with mandatory minimum sentences, which have put too many people away for too long for doing too little.

The statistics prove Clinton wrong. There is this 1985 study:

“Even allowing for the existence of discrimination in the criminal justice system, the higher rates of crime among black Americans cannot be denied,” wrote James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein in their classic 1985 study, “Crime and Human Nature.” “Every study of crime using official data shows blacks to be overrepresented among persons arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for street crimes.” This was true decades before the authors put it to paper, and it remains the case decades later.

“The over-representation of blacks among arrested persons persists throughout the criminal justice system,” wrote Wilson and Herrnstein. “Though prosecutors and judges may well make discriminatory judgments, such decisions do not account for more than a small fraction of the overrepresentation of blacks in prison.”

As well as the following data:

Mac Donald writes in The War On Cops, “The statistics on the race of criminals as reported by the crime victims match the arrest data. As long ago as 1978, a study of robbery and aggravated assault in eight cities found parity between the race of assailants in victim reports and in arrests–a finding replicated many times, among a range of crimes.”

She also points out that criminologist Alfred Blumstein determined in 1993 that “blacks were significantly underrepresented in prison for homicide compared with their presence in the arrest data.”

In other words, the notion of systemic racism oppressing blacks is nothing more than a phantom pursued by race-baiters like Clinton to pander to the Black Lives Matter crowd.

6. Clinton also claimed that violent crime was decreasing in New York City. This, too, is false. Here is the exchange Trump and Clinton had about this:

CLINTON: Well, it’s also fair to say, if we’re going to talk about mayors, that under the current mayor, crime has continued to drop, including murders. So there is…

TRUMP: No, you’re wrong. You’re wrong.

CLINTON: No, I’m not.

TRUMP: Murders are up. All right. You check it.

CLINTON: New York — New York has done an excellent job. And I give credit — I give credit across the board going back two mayors, two police chiefs, because it has worked. And other communities need to come together to do what will work, as well.

Trump is correct on this and Clinton is not. Heather Mac Donald has noted that as the stop-and-frisk practice came to a halt in New York City, “homicides rose 20 percent” in 2015 and “gun crime was experiencing its first two-year consecutive increase in nearly two decades.”

There’s also this:

7. Clinton portrayed herself as a leading figure in slapping sanctions on Iran. This couldn’t be further from the truth. “I voted for every sanction against Iran when I was in the Senate, but it wasn’t enough,” Clinton said. “So I spent a year-and-a-half putting together a coalition that included Russia and China to impose the toughest sanctions on Iran.”

However, a 2014 report from The Daily Beast revealed that Clinton’s State Department “repeatedly opposed or tried to water down an array of measures that were pushed into law by Democrats and Republicans in Congress” that involved putting sanctions on Iran. For instance:

The most egregious example of the administration’s effort to slow down the sanctions drive came in late 2011, when Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez openly chastised top administration officials for opposing an amendment to sanction the Central Bank of Iran that he had co-authored with Sen. Mark Kirk. Leading administration officials including Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman publicly expressed “strong opposition” (PDF) to the amendment, arguing that it would anger allies by opening them up for punishment if they did not significantly reduce their imports of Iranian oil.

Clinton’s top deputies fought the amendment at every step of the legislative process. Clinton’s #2 at the State Department, Bill Burns, even joined an emergency meeting with top senators to urge them to drop the amendment. They refused. The amendment later passed the Senate 100-0. Menendez said at the time that the administration had negotiated on the amendment in bad faith.

It’s difficult for Clinton to seriously portray herself as a champion of Iran sanctions when her State Department repeatedly opposed them.

8. Clinton lavished praise on the Iran deal for supposedly stopping Iran’s nuclear program when it really didn’t. “My successor, John Kerry, and President Obama got a deal that put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot,” Clinton said. “That’s diplomacy. That’s coalition-building. That’s working with other nations.”

In actuality, Iran openly flaunted the fact that they were violating the agreement’s cap on their nuclear program, and yet Obama delegated authority to a joint commission that provided permanent exemptions to Iran on their violations. Obama and Kerry knew this, yet declared that Iran was in “full compliance” with the deal.

9. Clinton continues to lie about her private email server. “I made a mistake using a private e-mail,” Clinton said. “And if I had to do it over again, I would, obviously, do it differently. But I’m not going to make any excuses. It was a mistake, and I take responsibility for that.”

But she really hasn’t taken any responsibility for it because no form of punishment has been handed out to her, and the fact that she tried to delete the evidence suggests that she never viewed it as a mistake. Instead, Clinton continues to repeatedly lie about it.

This list was previously published on The Daily Wire by Aaron Bandler

Written by DCL

January 10, 2017 at 11:53 am

Posted in News, Politics

James Comey Knows the Clintons Well

leave a comment »

The rift between America’s Left and Right moved this week.

Hillary Clinton has done it again.  She has evaded the grasp of the long arm of the law.

What’s that?  Hillary never broke the law during Chinagate, Travelgate, Filegate, her cattle futures miracle, or the Clinton Foundation and she certainly didn’t break the law with her email servers.  FBI Director James Comey said so.

Yes he did, yes he did.

But do those words really ring true?

Hillary Clinton and James Comey

FILE -In this file photo combo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, left, and FBI Director James. Comey. (AP Photo/File)

According to a lot of lawyers, judges, and legal experts weighing in on the Director’s statement on July 5, no.  The common sentiment coming out of the Monday quarterbacking is that James Comey made it very clear Hillary Clinton did everything required to be prosecuted for a felony violation of Section 793f of the federal penal code (Title 18), which says anyone with lawful access to highly classified information who acts with gross negligence in removing and causing to be removed from its proper place of custody, transmitting it or causing it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it is guilty of a crime.

Comey himself conceded Mrs. Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless” with classified material and there is a very real possibility that her reckless behavior likely led to foreign intelligence agents, including those hostile to the United States, gaining access to those classified communications.

But Director Comey recommended no prosecution for the violations of law he very clearly articulated during his statement.

According to Andrew McCarthy, former assistant US attorney for the Southern District of New York known for his prosecutions of the Blind Sheik and the terrorists who bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Comey and the FBI effectively rewrote the statute.

McCarthy wrote in the National Review on July 5th, “In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.” FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

The second guessing and re-analyzing of this decision will continue for…well…a long damn time. Probably and likely right up to the election in November.

From a legal perspective Comey’s decision has been shredded.  In concluding his statement before a congressional committee today, Comey said, “I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.”

I want to believe that. I really do. Throughout this investigation I wanted to believe the FBI and its Director would do exactly what he claims to have done.  But I don’t.  Here’s why.

The Whitewater investigation or Whitewater scandal as it was later known, involved real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and 1980s.

The investigation was done to determine whether Bill Clinton used his political position and influence as governor of Arkansas (in the 1980s) to secure an illegal loan to benefit Bill and Hillary’s business partner Jim McDougal. Several people involved in Whitewater went to jail, but no criminal prosecution followed Bill and Hillary Clinton.

James Comey was the Deputy Special Counsel on the Whitewater investigation….

American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Rise to Power, a book authored by Christopher Anderson a former contributing editor for Time Magazine, goes into great detail about Comey’s past dealings with the Clintons

Lloyd Billingsly writes in Frontpage Mag, “After Bill Clinton left the White House, one staffer told Andersen, the entire focus was on “getting Hillary back in.” The road led through New York, where Hillary took aim at the Senate seat vacated by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Hillary was not from New York and had never spent more than a few days there, so she needed creative ways to attract votes.

New Square, a Hasidic enclave 30 miles northwest of Manhattan, had voted as a bloc in previous elections and campaign workers urged Hillary urged to stop there. In New Square, four members of the Skver sect had been convicted in 1999 of bilking government aid programs for some $30 million. During her visit, Hillary denied that any pardon was discussed.

During the final days of his presidency, Bill Clinton opted to reduce the prison terms of the New Square offenders, and after 9/11 that sparked an investigation. As Anderson notes, “Hillary received an unexpected gift in late June when, without explanation, U.S. Attorney James B. Comey closed the New Square clemency case.

Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich also drew an investigation and Andersen finds it odd that the Bush administration would “help the Clinton’s out” by refusing to release documents related to the pardons. And “in accordance with his boss’s wishes, U.S Attorney James Comey gave Bill and Hillary a pass.”

Now we see the paths of James Comey and the Clintons crossing again, and again Mr. Comey is in a position to let the long arm of the law grab Mrs. Clinton and hold her accountable, and again Mrs. Clinton slips free.

Just a guy doing his job according to the law?  Or something else?

About half of the people in this country think it’s one, while the other half thinks it’s the other.

And the divide widens.

Written by DCL

July 7, 2016 at 2:21 pm

Posted in News