Displaying posts published in

July 2016

Meet the man James Comey indicted over a 21-word email By Jonathan Haggerty

In April, 2003, investment banker Frank Quattrone was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice by then-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York James Comey for one email sent to employees.

Quattrone voiced his discontent with Comey’s recent announcement regarding Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s personal email server. Comey is now the director of the FBI.

Quattrone was the subject of an U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission probe into his dealings at Credit Suisse First Boston, where he allegedly “doled out hot stock offerings” to his friends. Quattrone hosted initial public offerings for companies like Amazon and Cisco in the late 90s, and his activity led to investigation at the height of the tech bubble.

Leading the charge of the investigation was Comey, then-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Comey charged Quattrone for a one sentence email in which he “advised colleagues in late 2000 to destroy documents while regulators were investigating Wall Street investment banks” for the way they shared their “lucrative initial public offerings.”

The email that got Quattrone in trouble was “having been a key witness in a securities litigation case in south Texas, I strongly advise you to follow these procedures.”

The procedures Quattrone referred to involved a suggestion from a coworker in an email chain that employees save subpoenaed documents.

On Hillary, Let the Voters Decide The court of public opinion will make the final judgment. By John Yoo & Robert Delahunty

The people, not the prosecutors, should decide whether Hillary broke the law.

That is the real takeaway from FBI director James Comey’s decision not to refer Hillary Clinton and her aides to the Justice Department for prosecution. According to Comey, Clinton was “extremely careless” by diverting classified information through a home-brewed computer network that deliberately avoided the official system of the State Department — even though the FBI found that Clinton had sent 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains contained classified information, that she had not turned over all relevant e-mails, that she had used her private e-mail system while visiting our adversaries, and that her system had probably been hacked by them.

But Comey found that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges because the FBI could find no “clearly intentional or willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or an obstruction of justice.” This makes no sense because the law at issue, Section 793(f) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, does not require such a high level of intent, but only “gross negligence.” It also makes no sense of the facts, as they are known: Why, after all, create a private e-mail system other than to evade the secure, classified system? We agree with Andy McCarthy’s excellent dissection of the interpretation of Section 793(f) and why the case against Hillary is strong.

Comey’s decision also makes no sense as a matter of past prosecutorial practice. John Deutch, director of the CIA under Bill Clinton, was prosecuted for keeping classified material on unclassified laptops. Clinton national-security adviser Sandy Berger was prosecuted for removing classified documents from the National Archives. And of course David Petraeus was prosecuted for sharing classified information with his girlfriend and biographer. And we should not forget the witch hunt for the leaker of Valerie Plame’s covert identity by independent counsel Pat Fitzgerald, which Comey ultimately oversaw. Comey allowed Fitzgerald to bring charges against Scooter Libby, even though Fitzgerald knew that the leaker was another official.

Hence our takeaway: All of them should have gotten out of their prosecutions by running for president, because that is the only significant difference between Clinton’s case and theirs. In fact, the Clinton case exposed far more of U.S. operations to far more dangerous readers, since our global rivals, who have shown no reluctance to hack U.S. government systems, would have easily broken into her system and read the communications of our top diplomatic officials.

Dictatorship of the Clintontariat by: Diana West

Of course, “FBI Director” Comey will not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. But that is not what is worst about this latest wretched day in American history.

What child, what babe, what fuzzy bunny ever expected that he would? Who among us examined the facts of the case as they emerged and rested assured that Justice would be done — that is, done blindly, with no special-case, extra-stretchy, wink-wink regard for the Clintons?

One law for thee and me and one law for the Clintons and ilk, and who doesn’t know it. That is the greatest offense, and it’s nothing new. Just think “Banana Republic.” Just think Soviet regime — but please, spare us the “American exceptionalism.” Even if the strong man who comes to mind wears a uniform, not a blinding pants suit, much is the same.

Once upon a time this was shocking — I do remember being devastated nearly twenty years ago by the perfidy of Trent Lott’s Senate when they show-trialed Bill Clinton’s impeachment charges. “Henry, you’re not going to dump this garbage on us,” Lott, we later found out, told House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde on meeting with the 13 House Managers to discuss the Senate “trial.” Then, as now, the establishment (party i.d. irrelevant) was fighting for what it prizes most — its prerogatives. It won.

It always does (another reason the anti-estabishment advent of Trump so electrifies us masses).

Another milestone of note (there are so many) came in 2009 when Hillary Clinton came before the Senate in confirmation hearings on her appointment as Secretary of State. She was already encumbered with the heavy baggage (tens of millions in Islamic dictators’ money, etc.) that instantly and emphatically disqualified her for the position. The Senate closed its eyes and voted 94-2 (thanks again, Sens. DeMint and Vitter).

Yesterday was no different. The Dictatorship of the Clintonariat rules.

What Is a ‘Reasonable Prosecutor’? By Roger Kimball

There has already been a tsunami of commentary about FBI Director James Comey’s remarkable performance today. Director Comey informed the world that he would not recommend that criminal charges be pursued against Hillary Clinton in the matter of her mishandling of classified material on her hombrew email system. There is much disbelief and anguish about this, a lot of it to the point. I think that my friend Andrew McCarthy was particularly astute with his NRO column. The title sums it up: “FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook.”

Andy homes in on the gaping hole at the center of Director Comey’s argument. On the one hand, Director Comey allows that “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information.” On the other hand, he found “no clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws.”

So, you might be asking yourself, what? As Andy points out,

Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.

Director Comey admits all this, indeed, he took pains to lay it out carefully. But he concludes that because Hillary Clinton did not intend any harm by her negligent behavior, there were no grounds to recommend prosecution. “Our judgment,” he said, “is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

This makes no sense. Andy:

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.

How are we to understand Director Comey’s conclusion? Some commentators — my friends James Robbins and Roger L. Simon, for example — argue that Director Comey’s withering assessment will in the end be more damaging than an indictment because he has pointedly drawn attention to Clinton’s recklessness and incompetence. “Did Comey,” Roger asks, “Actually Destroy Hillary Clinton by ‘Exonerating’ Her?”

My sad suspicion is that the answer is “No.” Why? Because that would only be the case if there were sufficient public outrage to call her to account. Is there?

Cast your mind back over the many, many scandals the Clintons have been involved in: Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, cattle futures, Monica Lewinsky, etc., etc. Has anything ever stuck? As far as I know, the answer is “No.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Daryl McCann: Losing the Winnable War

Ever the prisoner of PC rectitude, President Obama wrongly fears that opposing — or evening naming — global jihadism as the enemy of civilisation is a declaration of war against Islam. By this reticence he has flung petrol on the Islamist fires.

Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War
by Sebastian Gorka
Regnery, 2016, 256 pages, US$27.99

President Obama almost always deports himself in public with poise and dignity. His “New Beginning” speech, delivered at Cairo University on June 4, 2009, was no exception. The address was full of generous sentiment and seeming humility. At one point a member of the audience cried out: “Barack Obama, we love you!” A round of applause greeted the US president’s gracious “Thank you.” President Obama’s 2009 charm offensive throughout the Middle East promised to undo the mistakes of President George W. Bush, and yet his tenure in office has only exacerbated matters. Sebastian Gorka’s Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War goes some of the way to explaining Barack Obama’s failure and a potential way forward for his successor.

At the very heart of President Obama’s misapprehension has been his hubris, the Cairo venture being a case in point. Though Obama acknowledged scientific and other contributions of the Islamic world to the dawn of Europe’s Renaissance, he appeared incapable of comprehending that for many in his audience that day, including high-level members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (which has since been outlawed), the Renaissance and all that subsequently ensued—we might call it secular-powered modernity or individual self-determination—are deeply problematic. Nevertheless, Barack Obama blithely based his foretelling of a united world on the principles of European-style humanism and the particular experience of the United States: E pluribus unum or Out of many, one.

Islamic revivalists, as Sebastian Gorka argues, have a very different interpretation of E pluribus unum. To decode the spirit and ambition of the global jihadist movement, insists Gorka, whose father was a political prisoner in the Hungarian People’s Republic, we should not only employ the term “totalitarian” to delineate our Westophobic enemy but also revisit the origins of the Cold War and the writings of George Kennan and Paul Nitze. We must begin, as Paul Nitze did, with Sun Tsu’s cardinal rule of war—Know both yourself and the enemy if you want to win.

Gorka quotes a key early passage from Nitze’s NSC-68 to define a liberal democracy: “In essence, the fundamental purpose is to assure the integrity and vitality of our free society, which is founded upon the dignity and worth of the individual.” The global jihadist movement, in contradistinction, abhors the idea of individual freedom; to the extent an apologist speaks of choice they invariably mean the “freedom” to submit to religious authority and the “freedom” that results from submission. It is totally at odds with liberty.

The Obama administration contends that Islamic terrorism—or should we say extremist violence—is “the result of poverty, unemployment and lack of political enfranchisement”. Religion, including the Muslim Brotherhood’s interpretation of Islam, does not contribute to terrorism but is a safeguard against it, or so the PC narrative goes. Here we have an explanation for Barack Obama’s forbearing relationship with Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, naivety about the Arab Spring, support for Egypt’s Mohamed Morsi, intervention in Libya and Yemen, appeasement with Tehran, denial about the motives of domestic terrorists and, of course, why Team Obama insisted on front row seats for the Muslim Brotherhood dignitaries attending the 2009 Cairo University address.


Washington, D.C.: A new poll suggests that large majorities of Americans agree with the common sense proposition that we should stop importing jihadists. A murderous attack in Orlando heightened concern that we already have too many here.

A public opinion survey conducted this month by Opinion Savvy found that 71% of respondents support “identifying foreign supporters of Sharia law prior to their admission to the United States.” Of those favoring such identification, 80% believe Sharia-supremacists should not be admitted into the country.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump put this issue on the political map last year by calling for a temporary pause in admissions of Muslims until a way can be found to determine whether they are potential terrorists. He cited troubling findings of a 2015 poll of U.S. Muslims conducted for the Center for Security Policy. Twenty-five percent of respondents believed “violence against Americans here in the United States could be justified as part of the global jihad” and fifty-one percent believed “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed by [Islam’s totalitarian] Sharia” code, rather than the Constitution.

In recent days, Mr. Trump has mused publicly about how to differentiate between would-be Muslim immigrants who pose a threat and those who do not. He has suggested applying his proposed restriction to all would-be immigrants from certain countries tied to terrorism.

One of Mr. Trump’s top advisors, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, however, argues that defining test should instead be adherence to Sharia. On Fox News Sunday, Speaker Gingrich said: “I would apply a test for Sharia and a test for loyalty to ISIS rather than geographic test, because we’re fighting people all over the world who are dangerous to us. So, it’s hard to say which countries really are the Islamic terrorist countries.”

Anger, Honor and Freedom: What European Muslims’ Attack On Speech Is Really About Abigail Esman

“Clash of civilizations,” some say. Others call it the “failure of multiculturalism.” Either way, the cultural conflicts between some Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide continue to play out as Western countries struggle to reconcile their own cultures with the demands of a growing Muslim population.

But herein lies the problem: in many ways, the two cultures are ultimately irreconcilable. There is no middle ground. And hence, the conflicts and the tugs-of-war continue.

Over the past two months, the events surrounding controversial Dutch columnist Ebru Umar have encapsulated that “clash” at its core, a salient metaphor for the tensions, particularly in Europe, between the West’s Muslim populations and its own. More, they illuminate the enormity of the problems we still face.

Umar is no stranger to the spotlight, or to the wrath of Dutch Muslims who read her many columns, most of them published in the free newspaper, Metro. For years, the Dutch-born daughter of secular Turkish immigrants has raged against the failure of other Dutch-born children of immigrants, mostly Moroccan, to assimilate into the culture of their birth. She loudly condemns Dutch-Moroccan families for the shockingly high rates of criminality and violence among Dutch-Moroccan boys – as much as 22 times the rate of Dutch native youth – a phenomenon she ascribes to their Islamic upbringing and their parents’ refusal to allow their children to mingle among the Dutch.

But her critiques have earned her no converts. Instead, Dutch-Moroccan youth, whom she calls “Mocros,” have regularly taunted her, both online and in the street.

This past April, however, Umar added a new team of enemies to her portfolio: when, in response to Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erodogan’s demand that a German satirist be prosecuted for insulting him on TV, Umar tweeted “f***erdogan,” Dutch Turks turned on her in fury. “How dare you insult our president!” cried these Dutch-born subjects of Holland’s King Willem-Alexander. And while Umar took a brief holiday on the Turkish coast, one such Dutch-Turk turned her in to the police. She was arrested at her vacation home in Kusadasi, and though released the following day, was forbidden to leave the country. The charge: Insulting the Turkish president. It took 17 days before discussions between Holland’s prime minister and Turkish authorities enabled her to return to the Netherlands.

But she could not return home. In her absence, Umar’s home had been burgled and vandalized, the word “whore” scrawled on a stairway wall. Death threats followed her both in Turkey and on her return. When it became clear she could not ever return to the apartment she had lived in for nearly 20 years, she announced on Twitter (Ebru Umar posts constantly on Twitter) that she would be moving out.

Meantime, in Metro and elsewhere, she continued her criticism of Moroccans and, as she herself notes, of Islam overall.

U.S. Bankrolling Hezbollah by Majid Rafizadeh

Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, said that U.S. sanctions would have no impact on the organization, as it already obtains complete financial and weaponry assistance from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

After the flimsy and uncompleted nuclear agreement, the Obama Administration immediately began transferring billions of dollars to Iran’s Central Bank. One of the payments included $1.7 billion transferred in January 2016. $1.4 billion of this sum came from American taxpayers.

Thanks to President Obama and the continuing lifting of sanctions, the money that Iran is receiving from the U.S., from international trade, and from increased oil sales is most likely being directed toward Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guards, Iran’s major beneficiaries, which keep attempting to scuttle U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region.

Nearly 34 years after its inception, Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shiite militant group, has publicly admitted that it is fully receiving its money and arms from the Iranian government.

Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, ridiculed the recent U.S. sanctions targeting Hezbollah. His speech was broadcast by the Al-Manar, the Shiite party’s TV station, which isfunded by the Iranian government. Nasrallah said that the U.S. sanctions would have no impact on the organization, as his group already obtains complete financial and weaponry assistance from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Shiite leader pointed out that “We do not have any business projects or investments via banks…” He added that Hezbollah’s survival depends on Iran: “We are open about the fact that Hezbollah’s budget, its income, its expenses, everything it eats and drinks, its weapons and rockets, come from the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he said, and pressed the notion that his group “will not be affected” by any type of sanctions.

Nasrallah’s recent speech was also part of a ceremony that marked 40 days after the death of a high level Hezbollah commander, Mustafah Bedreddine, in the Syrian capital of Damascus. Nasrallah has recently vowed to increase Hezbollah’s military presence in Syria, and assist Bashar Al Assad’s forces, although Hezbollah has suffered significant losses in the latest fighting in Aleppo, Syria.

In 2016 as our politicians dawdle, our infrastructures crumble: Clarence Schwab

Why aren’t both parties jumping at the chance to offer the new jobs and economic growth that a common-sense infrastructure proposal would bring? With economic activity weak, confidence ebbing and monetary policy all but exhausted, a voter can’t be faulted for asking this question. Upgrading our country’s crumbling infrastructure is tangible and forward-thinking fiscal policy.

House Speaker Paul Ryan is rolling out a six-point GOP legislative agenda that unfortunately omits any mention of such infrastructure investment. In my view, without such investment both parties put in jeopardy achieving many other elements of their platforms.

Both presumptive nominees still have an opportunity to shape the next Congress’ legislative agenda. By taking on the cause of infrastructure repair and upgrade, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump could demonstrate their clear understanding of some of our country’s economic problems and the common-sense, economic solution that has material bipartisan support. Each could signal willingness to fight on all Americans’ behalf against the wrongheaded thinking that considers such investment wasteful.

Some object to such funding because they equate it with “stimulus spending” that offers no sustainable benefit and increases the federal deficit. In truth, infrastructure investment increases economic activity, leads to higher incomes and generates a decades-long rise in tax revenues — sufficient not only to satisfy, with interest, the debt initially incurred, but also to generate profit. Once begun, long-lived projects could also bolster confidence and spur private investment and consumption.

Commendably, Clinton has offered a comprehensive infrastructure plan and has committed to submitting it to Congress within her first hundred days in office. In addition, the Democratic Party has just released a draft of its 2016 platform, which includes infrastructure investment https://demconvention.com/platform/. With this infrastructure plank in place, voters could realistically expect a Clinton administration and Democrats in Congress to get behind a major and economically critical initiative. However, the Democrats do not currently hold either the House or the Senate, which could put a damper on or even derail a Clinton proposal. Republican opposition in Congress could still prevent passage of such an initiative.

Trump, on the other hand, could have Republican majorities in both chambers and, as president, might secure the necessary votes (across party lines) to get such legislation passed. The sticking point: He has not yet offered a comprehensive plan or consistently advocated for such a plan.

You can’t avoid the truth, sad as it may be: Trump is the only revolution we’ve got. Bruce Kesler

Hillary Clinton is corrupt and corrupting of everyone she touches. President Obama has engaged in outrageous executive conduct so often as to be numbing. Those in powerful positions throughout this administration behave like lawless thugs and keep getting away with it. The courts have been packed with judges who find excuses to not enforce the laws or who create ones out of ideology contrary to intent. The major media shamelessly look away or cover up for the lawless and abusers, and seek every opportunity – or blow out of proportion every trivial thing – to damn opponents of the regime. Much of the Republicans in office lack the guts or integrity to fight back, outside of mewing noises.

Where does that leave us now?

The Tea Party movement occurred at a point in time between elections, and succeeded in electing many who promised to be better. Some have been. Many have been useless or become tools. Now, it is election time, and the demonstration we require is at the ballot box.

Donald Trump is far from the perfect leader. But, then it takes someone with gumption and determination who will not be intimidated to take on the rot that permeates our government and self-appointed ruling class. And, Trump is the only revolution we have available.