What's the Difference Between an Investigation and a Cover-up?

There are some very interesting revelations in this link. It does discuss the difference between a normal investigation, in which someone is brought in to answer questions (what you might call a normal interrogation), and something called a "proffer" - which, until now, I'd not heard of.

It's worth checking out the link.

Share

So, What is All of This 'Conspiracy' About?

Boy, oh, boy.

You know how, in conversations with old people, they often spend a LOT of time re-living the old days?

How they steer conservations to remembrances of how "it used to be done"?

So many times, they start a conversation with, "In MY day..."

We sometimes smile at the actions, letting them, once again, take center stage. Sometimes, we repress a sigh, as they highjack every get-together with their insistence on dragging the group back into the past, when they were Kings of the World.

Or, at least, King of the Mini-Hill.

We have many elderly people in Congress and the Senate. Some of them REALLY, REALLY, REALLY want to re-live the Watergate Days.

When they, with the active help of the media, forced a President to resign.

When they, in their eyes - and, despite many illegal and unethical acts on THEIR part - were the Good Guys.

When they were Young and 'Brave'.

Although, curiously, not in ANY danger of death or imprisonment - save for the few who committed overt acts of terrorism. And, even those few - if they were members of the Elite Privileged Class (trademark pending) - suffered, at most, a few months in jail. Unless the evidence was overwhelming. And to fight the charges might implicate other, more privileged terrorists.

I'm talking to YOU, Bernadine Dohrn.

So, it's totally understandable that the older people who largely populate the legislative chambers of the Federal Government would want to re-live an earlier time of their lives, by staging a tableaux of Watergate II - The Revenge!

Bookworm has an excellent re-cap of the situation (perhaps, I should say, 'matter'?). It's long, but worth it for the comprehensive nature of her analysis.

Share

Is Comey Being Persecuted?

Short Answer:  No

Long Answer:  Hell, no!

Here are some links that might persuade the open-minded to reconsider their support of Comey's testimony:

• Early in Comey's career, he handled the Anthrax Poisoning Case - badly.
• Details of the Martha Stewart and Frank Quattrone cases - Comey displayed incompetence, dogged refusal to follow the law, truly twisted reading of the law, and, in general, the same partisan, hate-the-rich attitude that he directed to try to bring Trump down. I am NOT saying that Trump or any of these other people are saints; I AM saying that they deserve the same protections from government that ALL Americans are guaranteed under the Constitution.
• Here is a summary of the MANY cases in which Comey displayed confidence in his case, vindictiveness in pursuing questionable 'suspects', and generally following a Javert-ian, dogged pursuit of Democrat 'enemies'.

Share

MacArthur, Redux

Comey's performance before Congress reminds me of Gen. MacArthur's appearance, after his justified firing by Truman.

Both men couched their actions in defiance of what their boss directed as 'answering to a higher imperative'. In MacArthur's case, he disagreed with Truman's directives to confine his response to containment. He also took his complaints to an adoring press. When Truman tired of his posing and self-serving actions, he fired him.

MacArthur then appeared before Congress and gave his 'Old Soldiers Fade Away' speech, to tremendous applause and copious approving press coverage.

Then - he did, in fact, fade away. Never held another position in government, found himself ignored by those that had egged on his actions.

Comey may find that his 'fame' is also fleeting. Oh, the Progressive/Leftist establishment may use him as a figurehead for a time. They would be well advised to keep an eye on him - those who use deception and treachery as a tactic will not change.

Share

Abuse of Power

The Spying on US Citizens is looking more and more like Business as Usual, and less like a one-time thing for Obama's administration.

There are many ways to deal with this besides prosecuting it as a crime. There is administrative - investigate, and if there is a finding that Rice abused her powers, yank her pension, right to use her former position as a reference, and allow those persons injured to sue and collect damages from her.

Put her under subpoena, and order her to testify - under oath - who knew about this abuse, besides her.

How can we determine whether this was an abuse?

...how do we know whether unmasking is a massive abuse of power or a perfectly appropriate exercise of discretion? We apply common sense.

Was the questionable unmasking a single, isolated instance, or was it part of a pattern?

Obama's time in office was FULL of patterns of behavior, almost all unacceptable in a republic of citizens.

There is much evidence of a pattern:

• In Mideast negotiations, the spying was real, and, at least in part, directed at Americans supporting Israel.
• OTHER administration officials - besides Susan Rice - are not cooperating with the investigation.
• 11 Things the Media won't tell you - the OFFICIAL MEDIA, that is.
• The Adolescent Excuse from Obama's People - "Yes, we did it, but EVERYONE ELSE did so, too."

And, yes, I do believe that it's time for use to start asking:

What did he know, and when did he know it?

On a POSITIVE note, Dr. Ben Carson's appointment to Head of HUD seems to have been a GOOD thing - at least for the taxpayers. $500 BILLION in errors - some of them unauditable (That's accountant-speak for - the people spending the money, or committing us to spending the money - have little to no paper trail. That means that they spent money that wasn't theirs without receipts/contracts/proof that the recipient did what they said they would do for the money)

Share