Bottom Up, Truth Out.

email-button

Obama’s first term White House environmental czar, self-described Marxist Van Jones, brought “bottom up” power to post-2009’s popular political lexicon. Basically it means change comes from the bottom, from the masses, forcing the top to their will. There’s a lot of truth to that, 2012-04-04-cnn-startingpoint-vanjones2God knows, but educated ears hear “violent mob” when Van says it, because that is what he means. The underlying principle is sound, however, even if the form it takes in the hands of a Marxist is less than righteous: true power lies with the people, and the people, over the objections of their leaders, can wield it to effect true change.

Well, the people with badges have had enough. By all accounts, the field agents of the FBI are ready to revolt, thus FBI Director Comey’s letter to congress on Friday saying ‘Yeah… Remember when I said under oath that if something juicy came along I’d reboot the Hillary probe? I got a whole truck full o’juicy.’

Left, Cheryl Mills. Right, Huma Abedin

Left, Cheryl Mills. Right, Huma Abedin

Know those 33,000 missing emails? FBI found 650,000 emails on a computer shared by Huma Abedin and her sex pervert husband, Anthony Weiner. Abedin, if you’re unfamiliar, is Hillary’s self-described “second daughter.” Her most trusted aide. Except for Cheryl Mills, who is an attorney, nobody is closer to her than Huma. Huma’s a human pilot fish. Constantly swimming alongside in the sewer of filth Felony Grandma oozes all over the globe.

Well, Friday about noon Comey threw the grenade, then Sunday night the Wall Street Journal dropped the MOAB. Friday we find out Comey’s rebooting the investigation. Sunday we find out it’s because of these newly found 650,000 emails.

Now we wait.

Rich Lowry at NRO pretty well captures the magnitude of it, and I recommend you read it, and follow the embedded link to the WSJ to fill in the details. These are truly historic days, indeed.


The FBI’s Clinton Foundation Probe

By Rich Lowry — October 30, 2016

FBI to NSA “Got HRC’s Rx?”

This is a STUNNING article. It is the backstory on what led to FBI Director Comey’s surreafbi_badge__gunl news conference non-indicting-indicting Hillary Clinton. The day before, the 4th of July (poetically), the FBI asked the NSA “Hey, you guys got Felony Grandma’s medical records? Can we have a look-see? Girlfriend says ‘I can’t recall due to my head injury’ so we want proof she’s full of it.” Comey intervened, said “Don’t you dare,” then 24 hours later, the surreal news conference. Enjoy.


What Happened to the FBI? It’s Been Corrupted by Obama and his Team
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published October 27, 2016

Napolitano: What’s happened to the FBI?

When FBI Director James Comey announced on July 5 that the Department of Justice would not seek the indictment of Hillary Clinton for failure to safeguard state secrets related to her email use while she was secretary of state, he both jumped the gun and set in motion a series of events that surely he did not intend. Was his hand forced by the behavior of FBI agents who wouldn’t take no for an answer? Did he let the FBI become a political tool?

Here is the back story.

The FBI began investigating the Clinton email scandal in the spring of 2015, when The New York Times revealed Clinton’s use of a private email address for her official governmental work and the fact that she did not preserve the emails on State Department servers, contrary to federal law. After an initial collection of evidence and a round of interviews, agents and senior managers gathered in the summer of 2015 to discuss how to proceed. It was obvious to all that a prima-facie case could be made for espionage, theft of government property and obstruction of justice charges. The consensus was to proceed with a formal criminal investigation.

Six months later, the senior FBI agent in charge of that investigation resigned from the case and retired from the FBI because he felt the case was going “sideways”; that’s law enforcement jargon for “nowhere by design.” John Giacalone had been the chief of the New York City, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., field offices of the FBI and, at the time of his “sideways” comment, was the chief of the FBI National Security Branch.

The reason for the “sideways” comment must have been Giacalone’s realization that DOJ and FBI senior management had decided that the investigation would not work in tandem with a federal grand jury. That is nearly fatal to any government criminal case. In criminal cases, the FBI and the DOJ cannot issue subpoenas for testimony or for tangible things; only grand juries can.

Giacalone knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would be toothless, as it would have no subpoena power. He also knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would have a hard time persuading any federal judge to issue search warrants. A judge would perceive the need for search warrants to be not acute in such a case because to a judge, the absence of a grand jury can only mean a case is “sideways” and not a serious investigation.

As the investigation dragged on in secret and Donald Trump simultaneously began to rise in the Republican presidential primaries, it became more apparent to Giacalone’s successors that the goal of the FBI was to exonerate Clinton, not determine whether there was enough evidence to indict her. In late spring of this year, agents began interviewing the Clinton inner circle.

When Clinton herself was interviewed on July 2 — for only four hours, during which the interviewers seemed to some in the bureau to lack aggression, passion and determination — some FBI agents privately came to the same conclusion as their former boss: The case was going sideways.

A few determined agents were frustrated by Clinton’s professed lack of memory during her interview and her oblique reference to a recent head injury she had suffered as the probable cause of that. They sought to obtain her medical records to verify the gravity of her injury and to determine whether she had been truthful with them. They prepared the paperwork to obtain the records, only to have their request denied by Director Comey himself on July 4.

Then some agents did the unthinkable; they reached out to colleagues in the intelligence community and asked them to obtain Clinton’s medical records so they could show them to Comey. We know that the National Security Agency can access anything that is stored digitally, including medical records. These communications took place late on July 4.

When Comey learned of these efforts, he headed them off the next morning with his now infamous news conference, in which he announced that Clinton would not be indicted because the FBI had determined that her behavior, though extremely careless, was not reckless, which is the legal standard in espionage cases. He then proceeded to recount the evidence against her. He did this, no doubt, to head off the agents who had sought the Clinton medical records, whom he suspected would leak evidence against her.

Three months later — and just weeks before Clinton will probably be elected president — we have learned that President Barack Obama regularly communicated with Clinton via her personal email servers about matters that the White House considered classified. That means that he lied when he told CBS News that he learned of the Clinton servers when the rest of us did.

We also learned this week that Andrew McCabe, Giacalone’s successor as head of the FBI Washington field office and presently the No. 3 person in the FBI, is married to a woman to whom the Clinton money machine in Virginia funneled about $675,000 in lawful campaign funds for a failed 2015 run for the Virginia Senate. Comey apparently saw no conflict or appearance of impropriety in having the person in charge of the Clinton investigation in such an ethically challenged space.

Why did this case go sideways?

Did President Obama fear being a defense witness at Hillary Clinton’s criminal trial? Did he so fear being succeeded in office by Donald Trump that he ordered the FBI to exonerate Clinton, the rule of law be damned? Did the FBI lose its reputation for fidelity to law, bravery under stress and integrity at all times?

This is not your grandfather’s FBI — or your father’s. It is the Obama FBI.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.

### end ###

#NeverTrump7 = BREAK GLASS in CASE of “A Republic, if you can keep it” EMERGENCY

I’ve had this tweet pinned since before Memorial Day:

A week or so later, I was thrilled beyond description to see this paragraph in The Hill:

And then June 4th I see this, Dear GOP Convention Delegates: Declare Your Independence”  by Steave Deace at Conservative Review, which I have excerpted below the line.

I sure hope this is the beginning of something…

If you’ve ever asked yourself “Why do we have conventions anyway? Who are these delegates? These crazy people on the floor with the straw hats and the pins and the red/white/blue shirts?” Steve offers an answer* but I would like to offer my own.

What if the primary winner dies? (God forbid! And I mean that sincerely. As catastrophic as I believe a Trump – or Hillary – Presidency would be, we don’t want anyone harmed. Ever.) Think about it. What if it’s right now, the beginning of June, 5 weeks from the convention, 5 months from the November election. We’ve just had a year of campaigning. Seventeen candidates, save one, dispensed with. What if something happens?

We couldn’t POSSIBLY get a 50 state mulligan (57 states & territories, actually, but let’s not be persnickety). There’s NO WAY we could have a do-over. For the OBVIOUS logistical reasons, but also the Constitutional question. The people had their say. They cast their votes, chose their delegates. It’s done. You can’t disenfranchise those millions of people. You just can’t.

Thus, the delegates system. THAT’S WHY THEY’RE THERE. “Break Glass in Case of Emergency.” Now, typically, they vote the way their states voted and it’s desperately anti-climactic, the nominee having achieved 50%+1 of his party’s popular vote and 50%+1 (=1237) of his party’s delegates.

But we don’t have that this time. Trump’s achieved roughly 40% of the popular vote of his party. 2 of every 5 Republicans. 3 of every 5 Republicans voted NOT Trump. Perhaps not affirmatively negative (!) but OTHER than, to be sure.

And the delegates “win”? Hardly resounding. Trump will be sent limping to Cleveland. The stupid frickin’ corrupt RNC purposely crowded the field with a dozen candidates knowing Jeb was worse than beige-Volvo-vanilla and needed the field fractured to emerge with the most votes/delegates.

Then Trump happened. And it backfired spectacularly. S-P-E-C-T-A-C-U-L-A-R-L-Y.

I won’t go through the whole history of 2nd ballot Presidents (or 2+ ballots) but it’s happened before. Several times. We got Lincoln that way.

Anyway… Trump should be any sane, sentient, moral person’s own personal red line. I can’t vote for him. I can’t. With Hillary or Donny it’s like being forced to choose which I wanted amputated: Hands? Or feet?

I choose neither.

I choose BREAK GLASS IN CASE OF EMERGENCY.

*I did not include that portion of his article below, but you can see it in his original text.


DEAR GOP CONVENTION DELEGATES: DECLARE YOUR INDEPENDENCE

…(The new book, “Unbound: The Conscience of a Republican Delegate” is) co-authored by Curly Haugland, a 17-year veteran member of the RNC, who also currently sits on the powerful rules committee for the convention[.] The book uses the RNC’s own actual rules to make its case all GOP delegates are not bound to vote for Donald Trump (or anyone else as the nominee) who violates their conscience. …

If Haugland is right, and he is on the rules committee after all, then not a single GOP delegate is bound to vote for Trump as the Republican nominee. Especially given that Trump’s politics and character make him a far better standard bearer for the Democrats.

And lest anyone think this sounds like Obama picking and choosing which laws he’ll uphold, these RNC rules are in place to protect the system from just such a leader. See, this is how a republican form of government works. The popular vote puts a check-and-balance on the political class, but elected representatives (in this case delegates) put a check-and-balance on the unbridled passions of a wayward electorate. It’s why the Founding Fathers gave us mechanisms such as juries and the Electoral College in the first place.

This is now your role in preserving our constitutional republic if you are a GOP delegate.

This is why our representatives take an oath “so help me God” and not “so help me will of the people.”  …Never fear, delegates. You have the green light. Now all you need is the same sense of duty and courage that drove our Founding Fathers to dedicate their lives, fortunes and sacred honors to a cause that would keep generations of Americans free from the various and relentless yokes of tyranny.

Oh, and that doesn’t mean “let’s compromise and move passive-aggressively on the floor to make Ted Cruz the running mate because, unity.” If you admire Cruz’s courage of conviction, and see him as a future standard bearer for our ideals, you will dare not paint him into such a corner. … Cruz has taken more flack on our behalf than pretty much any Republican in recent memory, so he deserves a much better fate than that no-win scenario. Instead, focus your ire where it belongs. …

Don’t let the media that hates you pick your nominee (again). Insist this July that we will be led by a leader who respects the laws of nature and nature’s God, instead of a crude populist whose tantrums seduce us from both the left and the right. The country deserves much better, as does the party of Lincoln and Reagan which you now steward. It’s either that, or we may sadly look back years from now as the moment you helped accelerate American Exceptionalism’s collective fade to black.

###

We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ D.O.J., America.

DOJ CLOSED DUE TO CORRUPTION small copyI love this idea. Love, love, love, love, LOVE this idea. I present this article to you from The American Thinker in part, but heartily recommend it in its entirety. Bolds are mine.


May 22, 2016
Abolish the Department of Justice
By Bruce Walker

The Obama Justice Department has revealed its final descent into naked politics and totalitarian bullying. Lois Lerner and Hillary Clinton, two transparently guilty criminals whose crimes are compounded by the fact that both are also lawyers, will face no indictments and no prosecution. The corrupt bosses of the Veterans Administration likewise face no sanction at all despite the manifest criminality of their actions.

Lying under oath to Congress, failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, conspiring to obstruct justice, and many other clear wrongdoings permeate almost every single crevice of the Obama administration, and yet no one who matters has faced any trouble from the Department of Justice. …

The hyper-politicization of the Department of Justice by the left has been used unceasingly as a bludgeon against conservatives, Christians, and constitutionalists in America… (and) there is no real cure at the federal level. …The only effective solution is to do what may make many gasp, even many conservatives, and simply abolish the United States Department of Justice

How, then, would federal laws and regulations be enforced?

States have full authority to do just that, and Congress can return to state courts and to state authorities the enforcement of federal laws. This is perfectly proper, as many federal laws are already enforceable by state officers. Congress can confer on states the right to enforce its laws, and, indeed, it can confer upon state courts exclusive jurisdiction over “federal questions,” with the single caveat that the Supreme Court would have appellate jurisdiction. This would solve many problems.

…It would mean folks like Lerner and Clinton, whose violations occurred in several states, would not be able to fix the system so that they are immune to prosecution. The powerful would suddenly find it impossible to game the system with fifty different states able to prosecute offenses.

…Returning the prosecution of federal offenses to state criminal justice agencies would have the practical effect of also devolving power back to the states. …This provides a practical check on the abuse of federal power… The diffusion of power that today is so concentrated in a few hands in Washington would be another vital and happy result of devolving back to states the power to enforce federal laws.

The president, of course, would still have the constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed, but nothing in the Constitution says that he must be given an army of federal bureaucrats to do that …Abolishing the Department of Justice is a good place to begin the Herculean task of cleaning this horrid mess.

###