Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Politics

But There’s No Evidence of a Political Motive

We beg to differ.

Published

on

The unequal treatment at the FBI can he seen in how a Clinton witness got immunity while those associated with Trump get charges.

According to the IG report, there was no political motive that affected the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Do you remember the Clinton witness, Paul Combetta?

Trending: WATCH: Anti-Trump Fox News Host Throws Hissy Fit After Mueller Report Vindicates Trump

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think Democrats will push out Representative Ilhan Omar over her anti-Semitism?

  • Do you think Democrats will push out Representative Ilhan Omar over her anti-Semitism?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Combetta wasn’t charged with anything to convince him to testify. Rather, he was given immunity. How did that work out?

Paul Manafort was actually put in prison yesterday? General Michael Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI under dodgy circumstances. No one was offered immunity.

But the IG reports says there’s no evidence of a political motive!

Andy McCarthy writes in the National Review, “The IG’s Report May Be Half-Baked.”

The IG is going to tell you that while immunity might not have been the best choice, it was a defensible choice — it enabled the FBI to get his testimony faster (i.e., to lie to them in a more timely fashion on the artificially compressed deadline they’d established for closing the case without charges). What is Horowitz not going to consider? That a hundred times out of a hundred, in cases not involving Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy, most normally aggressive federal prosecutors, including Trump-Russia prosecutor Robert Mueller, would have charged Combetta and squeezed him to roll over on his confederates.

Instead, Horowitz says it was a rational decision, so we’re done with that one. Whoa, whoa, wait a second. Was it an appropriate decision? Was it made because they were in a rush to close the case so that Clinton (their preferred candidate) could run against Trump (whom they were determined to “stop”) without the cloud of an investigation hanging over her?

The IG won’t answer that question — not without a canyon’s worth of wiggle room. Utterly biased people may have made manifestly flawed decisions, he tells us, but as long as they were not blatantly irrational decisions, we’re going to call them justifiable and move on. But were the decisions politicized? If a biased person makes a less than optimal decision, isn’t there an itty-bitty possibility that the bias clouded his judgment?

In essence, the IG answers, “Who really knows?” . . . except he says it in a way that enables the FBI to pretend he has found no evidence of bias at all. Observe this gem, from the report’s executive summary:

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions.”

Directly affected? What does that mean? Do the FBI and Obama Justice Department have to stamp the “I’m with Her” logo on Combetta’s immunity agreement before we can say bias directly affected the decision? Could bias have indirectly affected the decision?

Who really knows, right?

Read the full story.

 

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Politics

Biden’s Age Has Democrats Drawing Up Special “Pledge” for Geriatric Joe

As of this writing, no such clause has been floated for fellow democratic candidate Bernie Sanders who is, in fact, older than Biden.

Published

on

Joe Biden

With Joe Biden “not” running for President in 2020, (wink, wink), the democrats have been able to spend their time fawning over a whole gamut of Oval Office wannabes. From the bizarre antics of dirt-eating Beto O’Rourke, to the racially tone deaf lies of Kamala Harris, the democratic field for our next presidential contest is rife with unintentional humor. And that’s before Joe Biden has even officially announced his presidency.  Make no mistake about it; he’s running, but the political PR firm pulling the elderly Biden’s strings have likely warned the former VP about announcing too early. Biden’s “slip of the tongue” was a cheeky way to gauge interest in his potential bid, and belied the longtime DC dweller’s true intentions. The democrats, however, have had a bit of a trepidation about a Biden candidacy, often citing his 76 years on this planet as a detriment.  Now, they’re taking their old-Joe ageism to the next level. According to a Thursday New York Times report, Biden’s advisers are discussing “a possible pledge to serve only one term” and framing Biden’s 2020 campaign “as a one-time rescue mission for a beleaguered country.” Biden is reportedly “uneasy with the prospect of pledging up front not to seek re-election,” though, “believing that it would make him a lame-duck president before he even takes office and cripple his ability to get anything done.” This news comes just days after leaked reports that Biden could be considering Stacey Abrams as a possible running mate, hoping to announce both candidacies at once. Abrams is known for her contentious loss in the 2018 Georgia Gubernatorial race, and for her participation decades ago in a flag-burning protest regarding Confederate symbolism on the Peach State’s flag.

Continue Reading

Politics

Rosenstein Prepares the Democrats for a Major Let-Down in Mueller Report

Rod’s latest, emphatic characterization of Mueller’s final report has taken the wind out of the democratic sails in a BIG way.

Published

on

Rod Rosenstein

President Donald Trump has been absolutely emphatic in his denouncement of the Robert Mueller-led “Russiagate” probe. “No collusion!”.  “It’s a hoax!”. We’ve heard these sentiments over and over again, and, as Mueller prepares to conclude year two of his wide-ranging investigation, the President has been spot-on so far.  Mueller’s only successes have come from charging low-level, former Trump acquaintances with crimes unconnected to the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin, or the Russian government. We also have learned from expert legal observers that we should be expecting the final report to drop sometime soon, based on a number of personnel changes and DC insiders. Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General will be staying on to provide a “heat shield” for the final report…his words, not ours. Rosenstein also detailed a very dreary reality for the democrats in a new letter, explicitly explaining why they shouldn’t be getting their hopes up for some slam dunk against the sitting President. In the letter, Rosenstein makes it clear he believes the Department of Justice will not – and cannot without violating long-standing Department of Justice policy – include disparaging or incriminating information about anybody who has not been charged with a crime. “Punishing wrongdoers through judicial proceedings is only one part of the Department’s mission,” Rosenstein wrote. “We also have a duty to prevent the disclosure of information that would unfairly tarnish people who are not charged with crimes.” According to inside sources, the investigation itself will no longer be seeking indictments, ergo, with the President not being indicted, Robert Mueller would be shirking his prosecutorial creed in releasing any information disparaging Donald Trump. Rosenstein is emphatic on this point: “In fact, disclosing uncharged allegations against American citizens without a law-enforcement need is considered to be a violation of a prosecutor’s trust.” And this isn’t some special,…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend