The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
liar-Hillary: Guilty as Not Charged
by David Limbaugh
~~~
.
Vindictive liar-Hillary Warns of Presidential Abuse
liar-Hillary Clinton has a serious warning about Donald Trump: "Imagine if he had not just Twitter and cable news to go after his critics and opponents, but also the IRS, or for that matter our entire military. Given what we have seen and heard, do any of us think he'd be restrained?
Funny she should mention those things. What, indeed, would it be like to have a president who used the vast might of Washington against private citizens? Why, it might look like the last eight years.
Barack nObama used the IRS to target Tea Party conservatives for years leading up to the 2012 election, and it may never be known how much that boosted his re-election effort. Of course, he won't ever be implicated, having skillfully covered his tracks so the only people ever to be blamed were obscure bureaucrats. This targeting also wasn't known until May 2013, after nObama was safely ensconced in the Oval Office for his second term. And it was only last month that the total enemies list was revealed. The Leftmedia, of course, has been largely mum about the scandal, leaving liar-Hillary free to issue such warnings about Trump with little challenge or comparison beyond media outlets like ours.
Or take the military. While once again nObama's fingerprints would never be found, the U.S. Army once prepped for Tea Party "terrorists" — a scandal we broke. Or there was the DHS effort to train for and combat right-wing extremists, as if American Patriots and not the radical Islamic terrorists nObama refuses to name are the real threat. Did we mention liar-Hillary Clinton keeps an actual enemies list?
So yes, Americans should fear a power-hungry and vindictive president. But that's not some theoretical warning for liar-Clinton to bandy about — it's the outrageous reality of the man she seeks to succeed and emulate. -The Patriot Post
.
The Toll of Transgendered Suicide
Just last week, we noted the unfortunate number of veterans who take their own lives. But veterans aren't the only people disproportionately represented in this terrible statistic. Transgendered people are far more likely to commit (or at least attempt) suicide than any other demographic. A recent example: Bradley Manning, the transgendered soldier who now calls himself "Chelsea" after winning a lawsuit against the Army last year to beginning hormone therapy on the taxpayers' dime, attempted suicide in his Fort Leavenworth prison cell, where he is serving a 35-year sentence for, er, mishandling classified information. Manning made the attempt just days after Barack nObama lifted the ban on transgendered service members.
Using feminine pronouns to describe him, Anne Hendershott, director of the Veritas Center for Ethics in Public Life at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, writes, "In her suicide attempt, Manning joins the more than 41 percent of those identifying as 'transgender' or gender nonconforming who have attempted suicide, compared with 4.6 percent of the overall U.S. population who report a lifetime suicide attempt. It is also higher than the 10-20 percent of lesbian, gay and bisexual adults who report ever attempting suicide."
The reason is simple, profound and anathema to the Left's agenda: People were created in God's image, male and female. Gender-disorientation pathology is one manifestation of the fact we're all marred and broken by sin. People suffering from gender dysphoria have deep issues that are difficult to sort out, but we live in a post-sexual revolution culture that tells them they ought to celebrate and flaunt what's actually very wrong. Thus, many are left seeing no way out. They need help, not a month-long "pride" fest. -The Patriot Post
.
.
Here’s Why There Was a Coup Attempt in Turkey
by Neil Stevens
.
.
{redstate.com} ~ With photos going around the Internet of tanks moving in Ankara, the capital of Turkey, it's easy to imagine a coup is in progress to oust the ruling Justice and Development party, and its President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan... Modern Turkey, founded in the ashes of the Ottoman Empire by Kemal Ataturk, has been designed from the ground up to be a western, democratic state. In fact his name had been Mustafa Kemal, but he was named father of the Turks, much in the way we call George Washington the father of our country. Kemalism, the set of reforms he promoted, included secularism. He was a revolutionary and sought to break the ties with the old order. He did not want Turkey to be bound up in Islamism or anything that would hold the country back from modern progress, going so far as to ban the wearing of a Fez... http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2016/07/15/theres-coup-going-turkey-heres-why./?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
.
State doubles down,
wants to define what's religious
by Bob Unruh
.
.
{wnd.com} ~ A church sued over Iowa’s state transgender policy when officials asserted they had authority to control the content of pastor’s sermons... Now the church has filed a request for an immediate protective order in response to the state’s claim of authority to define what is religious. The case is over the aggressive actions by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, which has published guidelines for handling transgender issues in church gatherings that are “open to the public.” The lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Fort Des Moines Church of Christ aims “to stop the commissioners and the executive director of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, the Iowa attorney general, and the city of Des Moines from compelling an Iowa church to communicate government messages to which it objects and from forcing the church to use its building in violation of its religious beliefs.”... http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/state-doubles-down-wants-to-define-whats-religious/#!
.
UN Backed MS-13 to Carry Out
Assassinations of American Police Officers
by Dave Hodges
.
Several times arrested, they have been let loose on America
.
{thecommonsenseshow.com} ~ On Thursday, July 14, 2016, Steve Quayle sent me an article, published by the Associated Press which detailed how the United Nations would be used to enforce martial law inside of the United States... Steve asked me to look into this further. I was in the process of returning from vacation when I received Steve’s message. However, I did reach out to several sources while on the road and what I learned was similar to what I learned from an active DEA agent and two Border Patrol personnel in July of 2014. I was not able to reach the DEA agent, however, I did speak to two Border Patrol agents who were eager to share updated information. In July of 2014, I wrote the following account, provided from two Border Patrol personnel regarding who is in charge of running the American/Mexico border: “Last night, this same Border Patrol Agent called me at the number on my business card. He stated that he had been reading my articles and that he felt that I was expressing a deep understating the problem. However, he unequivocally stated my knowledge of UN involvement on the border was significantly outdated and understated. He stated “the UN is already here and he has seen clear evidence that they are calling the shots on the border”... http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/07/15/un-backed-ms-13-carry-assassinations-american-police-officers/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=un-backed-ms-13-carry-assassinations-american-police-officers
.
On the Nice attacks and terrorism
by Danielle Pletka
.
.
{aei.org} ~ We all say we’re shocked when terrorists spill the blood of men, women and children. And so the ink after Nice will flow generously across the front pages of the world, as it did after Orlando, Brussels, Paris, Dhaka, Istanbul, San Bernardino and on and on and on... But we’re not shocked, really. Rather, these attacks have become an almost rote exercise in identity and issue politics. Twitterati will embrace a trite hashtag and feel warm compassion; political candidates will blame Muslims or guns or nObama or Trump. There will be more stern calls to honestly label the terrorism “Islamic”, as if there is some doubt, and more sanctimonious screeds about loving our Muslim brothers. It’s not that these reactions are wrong — at least not all of them; it’s that as terrorism becomes a regular feature of our lives, we’ve become inured to the horror and indifferent about the solution. Terrorism has become just another reason to reach for whatever particular button leaders would have reached for on that day, whether an attack had happened or not. The truth is that Middle East rooted terrorism has been a growing scourge for decades. Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, ISIS and the many other variants of these Islamist extremists have been killing Americans, Europeans, and thousands and thousands of Muslims for too long. It’s not just Syria that is a hotbed that has catapulted the likes of ISIS to the fore; the Islamic Republic of Iran employs terrorism every day as a regular tool of its foreign policy... http://www.aei.org/publication/on-the-nice-attacks-and-terrorism/?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_content=AEITHISWEEK&utm_campaign=Weekly071616
{aei.org} ~ We all say we’re shocked when terrorists spill the blood of men, women and children. And so the ink after Nice will flow generously across the front pages of the world, as it did after Orlando, Brussels, Paris, Dhaka, Istanbul, San Bernardino and on and on and on... But we’re not shocked, really. Rather, these attacks have become an almost rote exercise in identity and issue politics. Twitterati will embrace a trite hashtag and feel warm compassion; political candidates will blame Muslims or guns or nObama or Trump. There will be more stern calls to honestly label the terrorism “Islamic”, as if there is some doubt, and more sanctimonious screeds about loving our Muslim brothers. It’s not that these reactions are wrong — at least not all of them; it’s that as terrorism becomes a regular feature of our lives, we’ve become inured to the horror and indifferent about the solution. Terrorism has become just another reason to reach for whatever particular button leaders would have reached for on that day, whether an attack had happened or not. The truth is that Middle East rooted terrorism has been a growing scourge for decades. Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, ISIS and the many other variants of these Islamist extremists have been killing Americans, Europeans, and thousands and thousands of Muslims for too long. It’s not just Syria that is a hotbed that has catapulted the likes of ISIS to the fore; the Islamic Republic of Iran employs terrorism every day as a regular tool of its foreign policy... http://www.aei.org/publication/on-the-nice-attacks-and-terrorism/?utm_source=paramount&utm_medium=email&utm_content=AEITHISWEEK&utm_campaign=Weekly071616
.
Suppressed News Of Gruesome
ISIS Torture at Bataclan Concert Hall
by Bethany Blankley
.
.
{lidblog.com} ~ A new report about what really happened at the Bataclan Theatre in Paris, when Islamic terrorists pummeled innocent un-armed concert goers with rounds of bullets last November, has now been made public... after the gruesome torture by the “Islamic State” terrorists were suppressed by the French Govt. The chief witness a police investigator told the story of how he first learned of the torture, “‘After the assault, we were with colleagues at the passage Saint-Pierre Amelot when I saw weeping from one of our colleagues who came outside to vomit. He told us what he had seen. He then confirmed that his colleague had seen ‘acts of torture’ on the second floor of the Bataclan. Mensch explained that a French government committee heard testimony about what really happened at the Bataclan Club. The committee chair, Georges Fenech, complained during the inquiry that accounts of the torture have been kept out of the press by government officials... http://lidblog.com/france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-isis-torture-at-bataclan-concert-hall/
.
Lawmakers renew push for investigation
of liar-Clinton Foundation
by Sarah Westwood
.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn
.
{washingtonexaminer.com} ~ Republican lawmakers are pushing the IRS, the Federal Trade Commission and the FBI to investigate the liar-Clinton Foundation for potential criminal activity... Led by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., more than a half-dozen lawmakers have already signed onto a letter that is expected to generate much deeper interest before it is sent to the three enforcement agencies this week. The letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Washington Examiner, highlights for IRS Commissioner John Koskinen a contradiction between the mission laid out in the original nonprofit filings of the foundation and the international and political activities it carries out today...
.
liar-Clinton in email controversy
by Sarah Westwood
.
.
{washingtonexaminer.com} ~ liar-Hillary Clinton may soon face a second FBI investigation related to her private email use thanks to a criminal referral from congressional Republicans based on misstatements the former secretary of state made under oath... Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, vowed to make such a referral to the FBI Thursday after its director, James Comey, said liar-Clinton's sworn testimony last year before the House Select Committee on Benghazi was not considered as evidence by investigators because his agency did not receive a referral. Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Benghazi committee, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, are set to lead the filing of a joint referral alongside Chaffetz, a committee source told the Washington Examiner. The referral will likely take the form of a letter Friday highlighting discrepancies between Comey's words and liar-Clinton's...She is a boldface liar. She won't get away with it this time. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/perjury-probe-ahead-for-clinton-in-email-controversy/article/2595936?utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Watchdog&utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Watchdog%20-%2007/15/16&utm_medium=email
.
France: The Coming Civil War
by Yves Mamou
by Yves Mamou
.
.
{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ "We are on the verge of a civil war." That quote did not come from a fanatic or a lunatic. No, it came from head of France's homeland security, the DGSI (Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure), Patrick Calvar... He has, in fact, spoken of the risk of a civil war many times. On July 12th, he warned a commission of members of parliament, in charge of a survey about the terrorist attacks of 2015, about it. In May 2016, he delivered almost the same message to another commission of members of parliament, this tme in charge of national defense. "Europe," he said, "is in danger. Extremism is on the rise everywhere, and we are now turning our attention to some far-right movements who are preparing a confrontation". What kind of confrontation? "Intercommunity confrontations," he said -- polite for "a war against Muslims." "One or two more terrorist attacks," he added, "and we may well see a civil war."... http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8489/france-the-coming-civil-war
.
Cruz, Cornyn, Tillis Introduce Back the Blue Act
by Ted Cruz
.
.
{cruz.senate.gov} ~ U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) today introduced the Back the Blue Act, a bill that would increase penalties against violent criminals who intentionally target law enforcement officers... provide new tools to help law enforcement protect themselves, and open up grant funding to strengthen relationships between law enforcement and their communities. “The sacrifice and bravery of law enforcement officers in the face of danger are part of the basic fabric that keeps our society together,” Sen. Cruz said. “This bill better protects our nation’s finest by providing stronger tools for the prosecution of those who would harm law enforcement. We must stand in solidarity with our police officers, firefighters, first responders, and federal officers who selflessly run into harm’s way to protect our families and our communities. This should not be a partisan issue. This should be an issue that brings us together, united as Americans. I’m proud to stand with the men and women of American law enforcement and urge all of my Senate colleagues to do the same.”... https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2736
.
Judge Jeanine – Terror Attacks Expose
nObama’s One Word Legacy
by Rick Wells
.
.
{rickwells.us} ~ Judge Jeanine recalls June of 2014, when she was first learning of ISIS and her recommendation to bomb the daylights out of them. She describes herself as an amateur, but still she was able to recognize what needed to be done... If nObama had taken her advice then, while they were still the JV team, this problem wouldn’t exist today. Frustrated, Judge Jeanine says, “If this ‘president’ would stop apologizing for what we do, what we are, and stop saying, ‘you Christians, it’s your turn,’ as he did at a prayer breakfast, then maybe America would be united in a way where we understand that they’re coming, they’re here, we’re next.” Judge Pirro insists on viewing nObama from the American perspective, which is a mistake. nObama doesn’t want us to understand what he’s doing or to be united. He’s worked hard to divide us. If the American people knew what he was up to, he’d be in prison. Judge Jeanine expresses her anger, saying, “If we’ve got people standing in the blood of innocent victims when they go for an innocent celebration, then we’ve got to recognize that we’ve got a problem at the top in this country... http://rickwells.us/jeanine-terror-attacks-obamas-legacy/
{rickwells.us} ~ Judge Jeanine recalls June of 2014, when she was first learning of ISIS and her recommendation to bomb the daylights out of them. She describes herself as an amateur, but still she was able to recognize what needed to be done... If nObama had taken her advice then, while they were still the JV team, this problem wouldn’t exist today. Frustrated, Judge Jeanine says, “If this ‘president’ would stop apologizing for what we do, what we are, and stop saying, ‘you Christians, it’s your turn,’ as he did at a prayer breakfast, then maybe America would be united in a way where we understand that they’re coming, they’re here, we’re next.” Judge Pirro insists on viewing nObama from the American perspective, which is a mistake. nObama doesn’t want us to understand what he’s doing or to be united. He’s worked hard to divide us. If the American people knew what he was up to, he’d be in prison. Judge Jeanine expresses her anger, saying, “If we’ve got people standing in the blood of innocent victims when they go for an innocent celebration, then we’ve got to recognize that we’ve got a problem at the top in this country... http://rickwells.us/jeanine-terror-attacks-obamas-legacy/
VIDEO: at the site
.
.
liar-Hillary: Guilty as Not Charged
by David Limbaugh
.
.
{townhall.com} ~ It's no mere academic question: Do we believe in the rule of law anymore? Are we a nation of laws or of men?
The cherished idea of the rule of law in our system is about everyone's being subject to the law in equal measure. The law, including criminal law, applies even to our political leaders.
Both members of the American power couple known as the liar-Clintons have escaped accountability all of their adult lives, so it comes as no shock that liar-Hillary Clinton is once again being allowed to skate, even though the head of the very body tasked with investigating her -- the FBI -- has detailed precisely how liar-Clinton did in fact break the law.
FBI Director James Comey laid out, with specificity, how liar-Clinton violated our national security laws, but then he proceeded to explain that he was nevertheless declining to refer liar-Clinton for federal prosecution.
Comey acknowledged that the federal criminal statute in question, by its terms, requires "gross negligence" -- and not specific intent -- and that liar-Clinton's behavior was "extremely careless." We can split hairs all we want, but there is little, if any, difference, factually or legally, between gross negligence and extreme carelessness. Comey, despite his refusal to equate the two, is essentially saying it's a moot point because he finds no precedent for anyone's ever having been prosecuted under the statute in question (Title 18, Section 793(f) of U.S. Code) for gross negligence. It would be "unfair," he says, to make this a case of first impression.
So are we to conclude that statutory language of Congress has a "sell by" date? That if no one is prosecuted under the clear words of a statute, the meaning of those words changes over time? Or does it change only if the acts of a special public official are involved?
Ask yourself: Would law enforcement officials conferring about whether to bring charges against a nonpublic figure or nonpublic official tie themselves in pretzels to avoid bringing criminal charges? That has not been my experience as an attorney.
Should the overriding concern here be fairness to liar-Clinton or respect for our national security secrets? Surely, in a matter of such grave magnitude, it would be fair to hold liar-Clinton accountable for knowingly commingling private and public and classified emails. Other subparagraphs of this very statute, e.g., Section 793(a), require specific intent for criminal liability, which means that Congress had to have deliberately set the standard lower in 793(f) -- the section that applies to liar-Clinton here. Why would Congress do that? Well, because the stakes are so high in these situations. Our national security is so important that a person entrusted with secret or classified information should know, whether she does in fact know, how dangerous it is to engage in the grossly reckless conduct liar-Clinton engaged in.
Moreover, having consciously declined to follow the clear language of the statute, Comey also decided that liar-Clinton did not have specific intent, because that standard, in his view, requires that a person knowingly broke the law. When I studied criminal law, specific intent didn't usually require proof that a person knew her acts violated the law, only that she specifically intended to commit the acts that were unlawful.
When a prosecutor brings a criminal case against a defendant, say, for bank robbery, does any reasonable person believe that the prosecutor has the burden of proving the defendant was conversant with the statute forbidding bank robbery? No, he just must prove the person intended to rob the bank -- an act forbidden by the law.
But even if we accept Comey's bizarre redefinition of specific intent, is it conceivable that liar-Clinton, with all her vast experience with classified material, was unaware that what she was doing was criminally wrong? No, liar-Clinton specifically intended to commingle her emails -- personal, private, public, classified -- knowing it would put national security at grave risk.
In addition, reportedly, liar-Clinton's lawyers permanently deleted 30,000 emails. Would any reasonable person believe that liar-Clinton was unaware they were going to do this? Would they have had any reason to allegedly obstruct justice in this way if these emails hadn't been damning for liar-Clinton? Would law enforcement give any other person the benefit of the doubt in this situation?
Regardless of what you assume about Comey's integrity or whether you agree with his decision not to refer any charges for prosecution, how could he possibly say, with a straight face, that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute on the facts of this case -- facts that demonstrate liar-Clinton violated the plain language of the statute?
Democrats keep saying Republicans are engaging in a partisan witch hunt -- as if Republicans aren't rightly outraged that Comey virtually admitted liar-Clinton violated the clear language of the statute yet decided not to prosecute.
liar-Clinton put our national security at risk. She put us all at risk while entrusted with the high and solemn duty of safeguarding our national security, and she is closer to being rewarded for it than she is to being punished. Is it any wonder that people have wholly given up on the system?
Given his record and his reputation for integrity, I will not jump to the conclusion that Comey is intentionally playing politics here, but I do believe it is plausible that he and his team are succumbing to a strong desire not to be accused of partisanship and therefore bent over backward to avoid prosecuting her. Call it the Justice Roberts effect.
It is a sad day for the rule of law and for the state of our national security because Comey's decision takes the teeth out of the law and strongly weakens any deterrent force of the statute.
Comey may have succeeded in convincing himself that he is ensuring that liar-Hillary Clinton is not subject to a different standard than the ordinary citizen, but through his explanations alone, he has convinced us of the exact opposite.
The cherished idea of the rule of law in our system is about everyone's being subject to the law in equal measure. The law, including criminal law, applies even to our political leaders.
Both members of the American power couple known as the liar-Clintons have escaped accountability all of their adult lives, so it comes as no shock that liar-Hillary Clinton is once again being allowed to skate, even though the head of the very body tasked with investigating her -- the FBI -- has detailed precisely how liar-Clinton did in fact break the law.
FBI Director James Comey laid out, with specificity, how liar-Clinton violated our national security laws, but then he proceeded to explain that he was nevertheless declining to refer liar-Clinton for federal prosecution.
Comey acknowledged that the federal criminal statute in question, by its terms, requires "gross negligence" -- and not specific intent -- and that liar-Clinton's behavior was "extremely careless." We can split hairs all we want, but there is little, if any, difference, factually or legally, between gross negligence and extreme carelessness. Comey, despite his refusal to equate the two, is essentially saying it's a moot point because he finds no precedent for anyone's ever having been prosecuted under the statute in question (Title 18, Section 793(f) of U.S. Code) for gross negligence. It would be "unfair," he says, to make this a case of first impression.
So are we to conclude that statutory language of Congress has a "sell by" date? That if no one is prosecuted under the clear words of a statute, the meaning of those words changes over time? Or does it change only if the acts of a special public official are involved?
Ask yourself: Would law enforcement officials conferring about whether to bring charges against a nonpublic figure or nonpublic official tie themselves in pretzels to avoid bringing criminal charges? That has not been my experience as an attorney.
Should the overriding concern here be fairness to liar-Clinton or respect for our national security secrets? Surely, in a matter of such grave magnitude, it would be fair to hold liar-Clinton accountable for knowingly commingling private and public and classified emails. Other subparagraphs of this very statute, e.g., Section 793(a), require specific intent for criminal liability, which means that Congress had to have deliberately set the standard lower in 793(f) -- the section that applies to liar-Clinton here. Why would Congress do that? Well, because the stakes are so high in these situations. Our national security is so important that a person entrusted with secret or classified information should know, whether she does in fact know, how dangerous it is to engage in the grossly reckless conduct liar-Clinton engaged in.
Moreover, having consciously declined to follow the clear language of the statute, Comey also decided that liar-Clinton did not have specific intent, because that standard, in his view, requires that a person knowingly broke the law. When I studied criminal law, specific intent didn't usually require proof that a person knew her acts violated the law, only that she specifically intended to commit the acts that were unlawful.
When a prosecutor brings a criminal case against a defendant, say, for bank robbery, does any reasonable person believe that the prosecutor has the burden of proving the defendant was conversant with the statute forbidding bank robbery? No, he just must prove the person intended to rob the bank -- an act forbidden by the law.
But even if we accept Comey's bizarre redefinition of specific intent, is it conceivable that liar-Clinton, with all her vast experience with classified material, was unaware that what she was doing was criminally wrong? No, liar-Clinton specifically intended to commingle her emails -- personal, private, public, classified -- knowing it would put national security at grave risk.
In addition, reportedly, liar-Clinton's lawyers permanently deleted 30,000 emails. Would any reasonable person believe that liar-Clinton was unaware they were going to do this? Would they have had any reason to allegedly obstruct justice in this way if these emails hadn't been damning for liar-Clinton? Would law enforcement give any other person the benefit of the doubt in this situation?
Regardless of what you assume about Comey's integrity or whether you agree with his decision not to refer any charges for prosecution, how could he possibly say, with a straight face, that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute on the facts of this case -- facts that demonstrate liar-Clinton violated the plain language of the statute?
Democrats keep saying Republicans are engaging in a partisan witch hunt -- as if Republicans aren't rightly outraged that Comey virtually admitted liar-Clinton violated the clear language of the statute yet decided not to prosecute.
liar-Clinton put our national security at risk. She put us all at risk while entrusted with the high and solemn duty of safeguarding our national security, and she is closer to being rewarded for it than she is to being punished. Is it any wonder that people have wholly given up on the system?
Given his record and his reputation for integrity, I will not jump to the conclusion that Comey is intentionally playing politics here, but I do believe it is plausible that he and his team are succumbing to a strong desire not to be accused of partisanship and therefore bent over backward to avoid prosecuting her. Call it the Justice Roberts effect.
It is a sad day for the rule of law and for the state of our national security because Comey's decision takes the teeth out of the law and strongly weakens any deterrent force of the statute.
Comey may have succeeded in convincing himself that he is ensuring that liar-Hillary Clinton is not subject to a different standard than the ordinary citizen, but through his explanations alone, he has convinced us of the exact opposite.
Comments