The Front Page Cover
~ Featuring ~
Dangers Are Coming to the Rule of Law
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
.
Comey Had liar-Hillary's Back the Whole Time
by Thomas Gallatin: Well, well, well, it looks like James Comey decided to let liar-Hillary Clinton off the hook for her home-brew server months before the FBI had concluded its investigation. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday revealed in a letter sent to current FBI Director Christopher Wray: “According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary liar-Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts. Conclusion first, fact-gathering second — that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy.” The letter was signed by Republican Senators Chuck Grassely and Lindsey Graham.
As we long suspected, the fix was in before the investigation even got rolling. Continuing the investigation for months merely served to provide the façade of a non-biased effort. Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the FBI rejected an open-records request by lawyer Ty Clevenger on the liar-Clinton investigation, stating, “You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal interests of the subject.” This response from the FBI is flat-out ridiculous. One of the biggest stories of last year is not in the public’s interest? Please.
In a related story, on Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the FBI to disclose the details on how it handled its investigation into liar-Clinton. Boasberg stated, “After reviewing the document in camera, the court concludes that it largely rehashes information already made public, thus obviating any need for secrecy.” Slowly but surely the truth behind what all went on in the FBI’s investigation into liar-Hillary’s server-gate is finally coming to light. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Sens Grassley, Graham FBI / DOJ Destroyed
Evidence, Immunity Deals, Cover Up Continues
by rickwells.us
{rickwells.us} ~ It’s been clear since before his July 2016 announcement that Dirty Cop Comey was not giving his all or using logic in the handling of what has now been exposed as a complete con job perpetrated upon the American people... The ultimate outcome of liar-Clinton investigation, her escaping justice, was never in doubt. It was only the means by which it would be accomplished and through which the efforts of the agents would be thwarted. According to heavily redacted transcripts the lawmakers obtained from the Office of the Special Counsel of their interviews with Comey’s staff, particularly his chief of staff, Jim Rybicki and principal deputy general counsel of national security and cyber law, Trisha Anderson, it is abundantly clear that the investigation was all theater put on to deceive the American people... http://rickwells.us/sens-grassley-graham-fbi-doj-destroyed-evidence-immunity-deals-cover-continues/.
Mueller Enlists the IRS
for His Trump-Russia Investigation
by Betsy Woodruff
{thedailybeast.com} ~ Special counsel Bob Mueller has teamed up with the IRS. According to sources familiar with his investigation into alleged Russian election interference... his probe has enlisted the help of agents from the IRS’ Criminal Investigations unit. This unit—known as CI—is one of the federal government’s most tight-knit, specialized, and secretive investigative entities. Its 2,500 agents focus exclusively on financial crime, including tax evasion and money laundering. A former colleague of Mueller’s said he always liked working with IRS’ special agents, especially when he was a U.S. Attorney. And it goes without saying that the IRS has access to Trump’s tax returns—documents that the president has long resisted releasing to the public...Its time to fire Mueller. http://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-mueller-enlists-the-irs-for-his-trump-russia-investigation.
Iran Is Exploiting ISIS In Order
To Take Over Additional Syrian Territory
by J.E. Dyer
{lidblog.com} ~ Since 2014, Iran has been taking advantage of the “fight against ISIS” to move Iranian and Iranian-backed forces into Iraq and Syria... The campaign, spearheaded by Qods force commander Qassem Soleimani, began with Diyala Province in eastern Iraq and has spread through central Iraq to Tikrit, Fallujah, and Ramadi. The campaign also involved a thrust into northern Iraq through As Sulaymaniyah to Mosul. In Syria, the Russian- and Iran-backed campaign to retake Syrian territory from anti-regime forces began in earnest about 11 months ago, with a concentrated initiative launched in late September and early October of 2016. Little of the opposition in western Syria, where the campaign started, involved ISIS... http://lidblog.com/iran-is-exploiting-isis/.
New Missile Designs
Revealed and Three Missiles Launched
by Kerry Lear
{punchingbagpost.com} ~ The Trump administration was right to take a strict stance on North Korea because the country is showing no signs of halting its nuclear missile program... Last week, the North Korean regime showed-off new prototype designs for two new missile systems. This appears to have been a counter move after Washington and Seoul participated in joint military drills in the peninsula. “Publication of the images by North Korea’s state-run Korean Central News Agency marked the latest provocation by Pyongyang since tensions with Washington reached new heights earlier this month,” writes The Washington Times... http://punchingbagpost.com/update-on-north-korea-new-missile-designs-revealed-and-three-missiles-launched.
Dem’s Pakistani Spy’s liar-CLINTON LAWYER –
Tells Judge, “Awan Might Need To Flee US”
by rickwells.us
{rickwells.us} ~ Is it just a coincidence that the Pakistani spy and thief, Imran Awan, who was enabled by Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz and more than two dozen other Democrat Congressmen... has a close aide to and liar-Clinton insider as one of his three attorneys? Sure it is. The fact that he knows things he’s not supposed to know, particularly about the DNC computer system and the information contained on it when it was compromised as well as quite possibly doing “work” for liar-Hillary and liar-Bill on their home bootleg server, has nothing to do with their personal envoy’s involvement. His having been provided access by some top Democrats to classified information and knows many of their secrets is also of no importance. The liar-Clintons are some of the most trusting people on the planet and wouldn’t even consider putting their personal snoop, handler or monitor in place. The liar-Clintons are intimately involved and it’s big... http://rickwells.us/dems-pakistani-spys-clinton-lawyer-tells-judge-awan-might-need-flee-us/
.
.
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{townhall.com} ~ Amid the bad news this summer of racial tensions in Charlottesville and biblical-like floods in Houston and preening saber rattling between Pyongyang and Washington, a dangerous below-the-radar trend has been developing about which all who believe that the Constitution means what it says should be concerned. It is the reckless influence upon local law enforcement coming from the Trump administration.
Here is the back story.
When the states joined the union, they gave certain powers to the federal government, and they kept others to themselves.
The powers surrendered are articulated in the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment clarifies the truism that those powers not surrendered have been retained.
The traditional terminology for the powers retained is the "police power." The police power does not refer to police as in cops on the streets, but it does refer to states' powers to make laws and policies that are often enforced by cops on the streets.
In constitutional parlance, police power is the right and obligation of each state to legislate for the health, safety, welfare and morality of people in the state.
This is basically what state governments -- and local governments with the approval of their state governments -- do. And it is basically what the Constitution was written to prevent the federal government from doing.
Those who wrote, ratified and amended the Constitution all took pains to keep the police power out of the hands of the federal government for several reasons. One was federalism. The states are sovereign entities, 13 of which are older than the federal government. By retaining the police power in the states, the Constitution's drafters provided a check -- a limitation -- on the reach of the federal government.
A second reason for retention of the police power in the states is what President Ronald Reagan whimsically called voting with one's feet. He meant, of course, that since we all have the natural right to travel -- to leave a geographical area that has a government we reject -- we can go to a state more to our liking.
If you don't like the taxes in New Jersey, you can move to Pennsylvania. If you don't like the regulations in Massachusetts, you can move to New Hampshire. You can see the simplicity and constitutional beauty of his argument.
Yet the federal government -- notwithstanding which political party is in power -- has repeatedly found ways around these profound constitutional principles.
One way has been to use the commerce clause, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, to regulate anything that might affect interstate commerce -- from the wheat a farmer grows only for his family's own use to legal marijuana a pain-ridden patient grows only for her own use to countless items that never leave their state of origin or are not commercial in nature.
Another way for the federal government to reach into and control state and local behavior is by legalized bribery. For example, Congress cannot regulate highway speed limits or the minimum blood alcohol content sufficient to trigger DWI prosecutions, but it can offer the states cash to pave highways in return for the states imposing the congressional will on vehicle speeds and on DWI triggers.
And the courts have upheld this -- effectively telling the states that if they want the federal cash, they must accept the federal strings attached. Because the states are all cash-strapped -- and Congress knows that -- the states always take the cash and the strings.
Now back to the troubling trend this summer. The Department of Justice last month told local police in states that prohibit the seizure of a criminal defendant's assets before conviction that the police can just ignore these state prohibitions and follow the looser federal rule -- which does permit seizure of assets before trial, while the defendant is still innocent -- and the feds will share the seized assets with the local police who have seized them.
This is another example of federal bribery of state officials, although as yet untested in the courts.
This past week, the DOJ also announced it will be offering to local police vast amounts of surplus military equipment -- much of it new, fearful and lethal -- from body armor to listening devices to battle tanks.
If police begin to look like soldiers and carry soldiers' gear in soldiers' vehicles, will they begin to think like soldiers, whose goal is not to win hearts and minds and keep streets safe but to destroy the lives and property of the enemy in wartime?
Moreover, the strings attached to this federal hardware giveaway do not require congressional or even local government approval. They require only acceptance by the police and regular local use of the military equipment. Local police should not have this discretion and should not be subjected to this temptation.
Add to all this the recent DOJ threats to prosecute physicians and their patients who lawfully prescribe and use medicinal marijuana, President Donald Trump's personal advice to cops to hate and be rough with certain violent but untried suspects, and his pardoning of a former Arizona sheriff convicted of willfully disobeying a court order to stop arresting people on the basis of their skin color and we have a serious challenge to basic constitutional principles.
Those principles require adherence to the rule of law. And the rule of law mandates that police be local but subject to the Constitution and federal and state laws like everyone else. And it requires fidelity to the Constitution by those in whose hands the voters have reposed it for safekeeping.
The rule of law is the absolute condition for personal liberty in a free society. Without it, we will have the rule of tyrants.
Dangers Are Coming to the Rule of Law
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{townhall.com} ~ Amid the bad news this summer of racial tensions in Charlottesville and biblical-like floods in Houston and preening saber rattling between Pyongyang and Washington, a dangerous below-the-radar trend has been developing about which all who believe that the Constitution means what it says should be concerned. It is the reckless influence upon local law enforcement coming from the Trump administration.
Here is the back story.
When the states joined the union, they gave certain powers to the federal government, and they kept others to themselves.
The powers surrendered are articulated in the Constitution, and the 10th Amendment clarifies the truism that those powers not surrendered have been retained.
The traditional terminology for the powers retained is the "police power." The police power does not refer to police as in cops on the streets, but it does refer to states' powers to make laws and policies that are often enforced by cops on the streets.
In constitutional parlance, police power is the right and obligation of each state to legislate for the health, safety, welfare and morality of people in the state.
This is basically what state governments -- and local governments with the approval of their state governments -- do. And it is basically what the Constitution was written to prevent the federal government from doing.
Those who wrote, ratified and amended the Constitution all took pains to keep the police power out of the hands of the federal government for several reasons. One was federalism. The states are sovereign entities, 13 of which are older than the federal government. By retaining the police power in the states, the Constitution's drafters provided a check -- a limitation -- on the reach of the federal government.
A second reason for retention of the police power in the states is what President Ronald Reagan whimsically called voting with one's feet. He meant, of course, that since we all have the natural right to travel -- to leave a geographical area that has a government we reject -- we can go to a state more to our liking.
If you don't like the taxes in New Jersey, you can move to Pennsylvania. If you don't like the regulations in Massachusetts, you can move to New Hampshire. You can see the simplicity and constitutional beauty of his argument.
Yet the federal government -- notwithstanding which political party is in power -- has repeatedly found ways around these profound constitutional principles.
One way has been to use the commerce clause, which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, to regulate anything that might affect interstate commerce -- from the wheat a farmer grows only for his family's own use to legal marijuana a pain-ridden patient grows only for her own use to countless items that never leave their state of origin or are not commercial in nature.
Another way for the federal government to reach into and control state and local behavior is by legalized bribery. For example, Congress cannot regulate highway speed limits or the minimum blood alcohol content sufficient to trigger DWI prosecutions, but it can offer the states cash to pave highways in return for the states imposing the congressional will on vehicle speeds and on DWI triggers.
And the courts have upheld this -- effectively telling the states that if they want the federal cash, they must accept the federal strings attached. Because the states are all cash-strapped -- and Congress knows that -- the states always take the cash and the strings.
Now back to the troubling trend this summer. The Department of Justice last month told local police in states that prohibit the seizure of a criminal defendant's assets before conviction that the police can just ignore these state prohibitions and follow the looser federal rule -- which does permit seizure of assets before trial, while the defendant is still innocent -- and the feds will share the seized assets with the local police who have seized them.
This is another example of federal bribery of state officials, although as yet untested in the courts.
This past week, the DOJ also announced it will be offering to local police vast amounts of surplus military equipment -- much of it new, fearful and lethal -- from body armor to listening devices to battle tanks.
If police begin to look like soldiers and carry soldiers' gear in soldiers' vehicles, will they begin to think like soldiers, whose goal is not to win hearts and minds and keep streets safe but to destroy the lives and property of the enemy in wartime?
Moreover, the strings attached to this federal hardware giveaway do not require congressional or even local government approval. They require only acceptance by the police and regular local use of the military equipment. Local police should not have this discretion and should not be subjected to this temptation.
Add to all this the recent DOJ threats to prosecute physicians and their patients who lawfully prescribe and use medicinal marijuana, President Donald Trump's personal advice to cops to hate and be rough with certain violent but untried suspects, and his pardoning of a former Arizona sheriff convicted of willfully disobeying a court order to stop arresting people on the basis of their skin color and we have a serious challenge to basic constitutional principles.
Those principles require adherence to the rule of law. And the rule of law mandates that police be local but subject to the Constitution and federal and state laws like everyone else. And it requires fidelity to the Constitution by those in whose hands the voters have reposed it for safekeeping.
The rule of law is the absolute condition for personal liberty in a free society. Without it, we will have the rule of tyrants.
Comments