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?

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.

 

 

Opinion

In Georgia, Pence Makes Ugly Dig Directed at Trump

It’s safe to say these two won’t be on the 2024 ticket together.

Published

on

Tonight, the race for the Georgia governor’s office will continue, as incumbent Republican Brian Kemp faces primary challenger and fellow Republican David Perdue, in a contest with implications far beyond the Peach State.

The race has been billed as a bit of a 2024 preview, if only vicariously, as former President Donald Trump has endorsed Perdue while former Vice President Mike Pence has endorsed Kemp.

As the primary election neared, Pence wasn’t shy about taking some not-so-subtle shots at the former Commander in Chief, either.

On the eve of Georgia’s primary election, former Vice President Mike Pence had a forward-looking message of support for renominating Republican Gov. Brian Kemp.

“When you say yes to Governor Brian Kemp tomorrow, you will send a deafening message all across America that the Republican Party is the party of the future,” said Pence, speaking to a crowd of a few hundred in an airport hangar north of Atlanta on Monday.

Pence’s appearance was an implicit rebuke of former running mate Donald Trump, who has endorsed Kemp’s primary opponent, David Perdue. Pence did not make a direct mention of the former President nor respond to the relentless attacks Trump has leveled against Kemp. But his appearance at the rally the day before the election spoke volumes.

And then:

“When Brian Kemp called me and asked me to come out here and be with all of you, I said yes in a heartbeat,” Pence said.

Pence has been a bit coy, (and rather vague), about his potential plans for a 2024 campaign, and Trump has been quite vocal about the possibility of running against his former veep.

Tonight, the race for the Georgia governor’s office will continue, as incumbent Republican Brian Kemp faces primary challenger and fellow Republican David Perdue, in a contest with implications far beyond the Peach State. The race has been billed as a bit of a 2024 preview, if only vicariously, as former President Donald Trump has endorsed Perdue while former Vice President Mike Pence has endorsed Kemp. As the primary election neared, Pence wasn’t shy about taking some not-so-subtle shots at the former Commander in Chief, either. On the eve of Georgia’s primary election, former Vice President Mike Pence had a forward-looking message of support for renominating Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. “When you say yes to Governor Brian Kemp tomorrow, you will send a deafening message all across America that the Republican Party is the party of the future,” said Pence, speaking to a crowd of a few hundred in an airport hangar north of Atlanta on Monday. Pence’s appearance was an implicit rebuke of former running mate Donald Trump, who has endorsed Kemp’s primary opponent, David Perdue. Pence did not make a direct mention of the former President nor respond to the relentless attacks Trump has leveled against Kemp. But his appearance at the rally the day before the election spoke volumes. And then: “When Brian Kemp called me and asked me to come out here and be with all of you, I said yes in a heartbeat,” Pence said. Pence has been a bit coy, (and rather vague), about his potential plans for a 2024 campaign, and Trump has been quite vocal about the possibility of running against his former veep.

Continue Reading

Opinion

USA Begins Planning to Send Troops to Kyiv

Interesting…

Published

on

For weeks now, the world has been forced to sit back and watch the atrocities occurring in Ukraine with little to no recourse.  This was due largely to Vladimir Putin’s continued threats of a nuclear strike against anyone who might decide to interfere directly, including the United States, NATO, or other western powers.

Furthermore, US President Joe Biden has been clear:  There is no desire to have American troops squaring off with Russians directly, at the risk of conjuring World War III.

Yet still it appears as though some US troops will be making the journey to Ukraine…at least in a very limited manner.

Plans to send U.S. forces back into Ukraine to guard the recently reopened American Embassy in Kyiv are “underway at a relatively low level,” Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday.

The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that officials are mulling plans to send special forces to Kyiv to guard the U.S. Embassy. The effort is a delicate one, as it requires balancing the safety of American diplomats while avoiding what Russia could see as an escalation.

“Some of the things that may have been out there in the media, those are planning efforts that are underway at a relatively low level,” Milley told reporters at the Pentagon, seeming to refer to the Journal’s report.

There was no definitive timeline for the move.

Such plans “have not yet made it to [Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin] or myself for that matter, for refinement of courses of action and what’s needed,” he noted.

Milley would go on to suggest that any such move would require the approval of the President himself.

For weeks now, the world has been forced to sit back and watch the atrocities occurring in Ukraine with little to no recourse.  This was due largely to Vladimir Putin’s continued threats of a nuclear strike against anyone who might decide to interfere directly, including the United States, NATO, or other western powers. Furthermore, US President Joe Biden has been clear:  There is no desire to have American troops squaring off with Russians directly, at the risk of conjuring World War III. Yet still it appears as though some US troops will be making the journey to Ukraine…at least in a very limited manner. Plans to send U.S. forces back into Ukraine to guard the recently reopened American Embassy in Kyiv are “underway at a relatively low level,” Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday. The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that officials are mulling plans to send special forces to Kyiv to guard the U.S. Embassy. The effort is a delicate one, as it requires balancing the safety of American diplomats while avoiding what Russia could see as an escalation. “Some of the things that may have been out there in the media, those are planning efforts that are underway at a relatively low level,” Milley told reporters at the Pentagon, seeming to refer to the Journal’s report. There was no definitive timeline for the move. Such plans “have not yet made it to [Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin] or myself for that matter, for refinement of courses of action and what’s needed,” he noted. Milley would go on to suggest that any such move would require the approval of the President himself.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week