By Florida Bill
Inspector General Michael Horowitz...Come out from behind that rock and tell Americans the results of your investigation into the conduct of James Comey as you promised you would do.
Is the former FBI director a "fix" artist and a leaker of privileged documents who supervised a "sham" investigation into the alleged misdeeds of Hillary Clinton?
What is already pretty clear is that Comey lied in public statements after being sworn to tell the truth; that he forwarded privileged documents to the Washington Post newspaper, and that he sought to protect Hillary Clinton from negative attacks. Is the time coming where citizens will hear the truth, unfiltered by a biased media hellbent on destroying President Trump?
FBI Director Christopher Wray, appointed by President Trump in June and confirmed by the Senate in September, has testified before the House Judiciary Committee, and assured everyone that Horowitz is assessing the conduct of the former FBI chief in his investigation of Hillary Clinton and her mishandling of classified emails. Wray also indicated that he, along with everybody else, would like to see some movement on the part of the IG.
We will await his findings and then take the appropriate and necessary action if warranted, Wray told Congressmen on the committee.
Wray is the FBI chief who replaced Comey who was fired by President Trump on May 9. Wray was grilled for several hours by U.S. Representatives who demanded to know the fate of Comey. There are many who believe Comey "tanked" his investigation of Hillary Clinton, ignored her criminal misdeeds, and then conspired with Democrats and biased FBI agents to promote her candidacy for president.
On Jan. 12, 2017, nine days before President Trump was sworn into office, Horowitz announced at a news conference that he would examine the behavior of Comey for possible misconduct in his investigation of Mrs. Clinton and use of her private email server in her basement while she was Secretary of State in the Obama administration. If misconduct is found, Horowitz said he would not hesitate to recommend prosecution. He promised a written report at the conclusion of his work.
IG Horowitz was appointed in 2012 with confirmation by the Senate to provide oversight of the sprawling Department of Justice, which includes the FBI as its key component. The IG supervises a nationwide work force of more than 450 special agents, auditors, inspectors and attorneys with a mission of detecting fraud and mismanagement. The announcement by the IG of his investigation of Comey's probe of Mrs. Clinton, came in the midst of a firestorm of complaints about Comey, and of the "get out of jail free" card which he gave to Mrs. Clinton despite evidence indicating her criminal behavior in the handling of classified emails; and her corrupt supervision of the billion dollar Clinton Foundation.
Following President Trump's victory, Democrats came out swinging. They demanded Comey's resignation, blaming him for Hillary Clinton's failed candidacy because of his bizarre and questionable investigative techniques. Republicans, on the other hand, saw Comey as a manipulator who conducted a "sham" investigation of Clinton, sans a grand jury, predetermined that Clinton would be adjudged innocent of any misdeeds and would ultimately be elected President.
Soon after Trump discharged Comey using his constitutional authority, embittered Democrats sought to turn the tables on President Trump and shift attention away from Comey and his questionable exoneration of Mrs. Clinton.
To accomplish that, and with the assistance of the "fake news" media, Trump was accused of "collusion" with the Russians. Subsequently, a Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, a personal friend of the embattled Comey, was appointed to that post. Currently, Mueller's investigation is spinning its wheels, but has not produced an iota of evidence of "collusion," and Mueller, himself, has failed to live up to his reputation as a professional who will be fair and unbiased. Because of apparent conflicts, and a troubling close friendship with Comey, the respected Wall Street Journal newspaper, and Judicial Watch, a bipartisan government watchdog organization, along with several congressmen, have called upon Mueller to resign as special counsel. At the same time, there have been calls for President Trump to fire him.
The case against Comey is strong, and it would be virtually impossible to envision a path taken by Horowitz that does not identify missteps and misconduct by the former FBI chief as he ran interference for Mrs. Clinton. Comey has even acknowledged in public statements that he downplayed the seriousness of her criminal investigation saying he did so at the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Was the investigation of Mrs. Clinton a "sham"? Horowitz has that question in front of him. Among the facts for him to consider are that Comey never empanelled a grand jury and never questioned Mrs. Clinton under oath and had prepared a statement exonerating her of any misdeeds months before the investigation came to an end.
Director Comey looked the other way as Mrs. Clinton ignored subpoenas for documents and emails, including 33,000 which were scrubbed permanently from her computer. Grants of immunity were provided by Comey to her closest aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills for unknown reasons. Thousands of Clinton emails were later discovered on the computer of Abedin's estranged husband, Anthony Weiner, an ex New York congressman now serving a prison sentence as a sex offender.
Comey has also been said to have ignored allegations of Mrs. Clinton's allegedly corrupt practices in directing the operations of the billion dollar Clinton Foundation which was receiving donations from foreign officials while she was Secretary of State. In one case, the foundation received $145 million dollars from Russians who had gained access to 20 per cent of America's uranium reserves after Mrs. Clinton approved the transfer.
Horowitz has been silent concerning his investigation. In November, he was ordered to appear before a congressional committee, where he reported that his investigative team had interviewed many witnesses and would complete its work by March or April of next year, and written conclusions will be provided at that time.
xxx
By Florida Bill
A couple of years ago, the wires were buzzing with news of the feud between Fox TV's Megyn Kelly and then candidate Donald Trump.
They initially paired off during a debate as Kelly, a former attorney with a Chicago law firm, roasted Trump, then one of 17 candidates for President, for having called some women "pigs and disgusting animals." In the weeks following, Trump attacked the comely Kelly as an inept "bimbo," who got so angry and emotional that blood was coming from her eyes and everywhere else. His twitter rage went on for weeks and months.
When the dust from that noisy affray finally lifted, Kelly was a new face on NBC, earning $15 to $20 million annually, and Trump went on to become the nation's 45th President. All in all, it was kind of a "Thrilla in Manilla" as Muhammad Ali used to say, with everyone winning.
Now the 47-year-old Kelly has taken on the egotistical Jane Fonda, an octogenarian who has defeated aging with a bucket of botox and plastic surgery. Her philosophy seems to be, admire me, but don't ask how I did it.
Last September, Fonda was a guest on Kelly's new morning show to promote her new film and to demonstrate her personal ageless countenance and ability to cultivate a supple spine. Kelly strayed from the script and asked Fonda about the plastic surgery which had ironed out her wrinkles and made her look like anything but an old bag of 80. Fonda pretty much dodged a discussion on that subject, but she was angry.
Through the next months, Fonda appeared on various TV specials, showcasing her looks while promoting her latest film, "Our Souls at Night", co-starring Robert Redford, no spring chicken himself. In her chats with the all-knowing TV pundits, Fonda upbraided Kelly for her impertinence and inappropriate inquiries about her cosmetic surgery. Kelly was inept as an interviewing host and has a lot to learn, asserted Fonda.
After Fonda took pot shots at Kelly as a TV amateur with much to learn, and doomed to fail, Kelly came back swinging with the same calm determination with which she had belittled Trump for his barnyard talk about women.
Fonda, said Kelly, has spoken openly about her joy in giving a cultural face to older women. Well, the truth is, most older women look nothing like Fonda, who turned 80 in December of 2017.
Fonda had discussed her cosmetic surgery on Entertainment Tonight, and with magazine writers, Kelly said, but now is bellyaching that the questions of her cosmetic surgery by me were "inappropriate" and off limits.
This is a woman whose name is "synonymous with outrage," said Kelly. No one should ever forget her treatment of our military during her visit to North Viet Nam. Soldiers and millions of Americans still refer to her as "Hanoi Jane," because of her sweet talk and hand holding with the country's enemy while sitting behind enemy guns which had been used to shoot down American pilots. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was much clamor calling for Fonda to be formally charged with treason, but it never happened to the disappointment of ex-GIs.
After Kelly reacted during an interview on Variety, the liberal Fonda crowed on the "View" and tore her apart as a "bitch," and "just awful" and "doing it for ratings." The liberal axe was out, but the blade was dull and Kelly probably gathered more fans than she lost. Who knows, maybe she even got a raise?
Since Fonda seems to have been willing to discuss her nips and tucks in the past, can we assume that she turned so prickly about it this time because she was in the presence of another beautiful woman more than 30 years her junior? C'mon Jane, everybody knows that it takes more than good genes to look like you do at 80.
xxx
By Florida Bill
No one knows for sure if President Trump characterized Haiti and other nations as "shithole countries." He says that he did not, and several other persons including Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia, who were sitting near him when he spoke at a private meeting, agree he never used that unflattering epithet.
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen joined Cotton and Purdue in stating that she never heard any inappropriate language used by the President.
The question of the President's description of Haiti and other struggling countries is dominating reports concerning a private meeting at the White House called to discuss DACA (Deferred Action for Children Arrivals) or dream children and the building of a border wall. Participating were congressional leaders and immigration officials. The purpose of the meeting was to come up with a solution to protect the nearly 800,000 children brought into this country with their illegal immigrant parents.
But no one seems to be focusing on whether or not anything substantive or new came out of the meeting, because the media could not resist the chance to bash the president for his purported offensive dialogue in a closed door meeting. Some years ago, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham who also attended the meeting, described Haiti, a country which provides no sewage treatment for residents, as a "hellhole," a more refined way of calling Haiti a "shithole;" but he declined to confirm or deny what the President had said behind closed doors.
Democrats all around contended that the bigoted Trump had referred to Haiti with the vulgar word, which was one of seven made famous by the late comedian George Carlin.
The "get Trump" media concentrated almost exclusively upon the presidential language as told to them by Illinois' Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, who fought back tears in describing the President's words as "vile, hateful and racist."
Durbin contradicted the President and his colleagues as well as the homeland security secretary. The president repeatedly referred to poor nations, principally Haiti, as "shitholes," he said. Durbin is the assistant minority leader in the Senate and has been a senator since 1997, but he has a checkered history when it comes to telling the truth.
Trump himself has denied any vulgarity. He said that his language was "tough," but respectful for Haiti, one of the poorest nations on the planet with 60 per cent of its 10.8 million residents earning less than $900 annually, and where residents provide their own toilet facilities.
Durbin established his reputation as a liar a few years ago when he posted a note on Facebook charging that a Republican lawmaker told President Obama during a private session he attended that "I cannot stand to even look at you." The media loved it and exploded with accusations of GOP racism. Unfortunately for them, Obama's press secretary, Jay Carney, subsequently corrected the record, and put down the disingenuous Durbin. "That never happened," Carney told reporters.
In 2005, in a speech on the Senate floor, the duplicitous Durbin attacked President Bush as an endorser of torture in his role as commander-in-chief. Durbin compared American soldiers guarding detainees at Guantanamo prison in Cuba to "Nazis, Soviet gulags and :Cambodia's Poi Pot." He was accused of treason by Bush adviser, Karl Rove. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, whose son was a soldier serving in combat, demanded that the senator apologize to the nation. Eventually, Durbin returned to the Senate floor and said he was sorry for his anti-American comments, and regretted offending anyone. In 2012, President Obama issued an executive order protecting DACA children from deportation, and he said in doing so that it was up to Congress to fashion an appropriate law dealing with these immigrants. Congress ignored the problem and Trump upon taking office a year ago, invalidated the overreaching and illegal Obama order and gave Congress until next March to fix the problem and protect the children, some of whom are serving in America's military.
President Trump has said he favors protecting DACA children brought to America by parents who entered the country illegally, but only if Congress approves construction of a wall along the country's southern border. The wall was a key promise to citizens who supported his candidacy in 2016. He vows repeatedly that he will keep that promise for a wall which would extend for about 800 miles along the most penetrable sections of the border and would cost some $20 billion dollars.
Unless there is border security, he has said, illegal immigration will continue and in 10 years there will be another million DACA children needing protection. Amnesty for DACA will never be considered by this administration, Trump has said.
As to Haiti and and other poor countries, Trump said that he is very much in favor of continued immigration, but that everyone that comes to America must come in legally and merit should be a factor. Currently, there are some 11 million undocumented residents in the United States and that would include some 75,000 to 125,000 Haitians. Census figures show there are about 400,000 Haitians residing legally inside the USA.
xxx
By Florida Bill
The idea of an African American woman running America from the Oval office is producing unrestrained excitement among the Hollywood and social media crowd. Oprah Winfrey lit the flames with her comments at the recent Golden Globe dinner at which she was presented with the prestigious Cecil B. DeMille award for lifetime achievement.
Oprah was dressed in black in solidarity with the MeToo movement, and she touched upon racism and gender inequality with some veiled hints that she might be available for a political promotion to the big stage.
With her appearance and comments, the pundits opened up with incredible, almost orgasmic, support of an Oprah candidacy in 2020 on the Democratic ticket. Considering her level of political experience, we are guessing that it is the idea of her beating Trump that appeals to the glitterati more than the actual thought of the pudgy billionaire queen of TV talk shows actually presiding over America's domestic and foreign affairs and commanding the U.S military.
That is really something to chew on. Maybe I am old fashioned or something, but the idea of Oprah Winfrey, a billionaire talk show host famous for her battles with losing weight and surprising her audience with free cars and other giveaways, ensconced behind a desk in the oval office of the White House, issuing orders to army and marine generals, strikes me as ridiculous beyond description.
Doesn't experience, qualifications and judgment count for something? Would her confidants and advisers include Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz, and in animal matters, Cesar Milan, the dog whisperer. Would Michelle Obama be in line as her vice president, or could they end up running against each other in a contest that would break Hollywood hearts? Al Sharpton, the racial snake from New York--would he be assigned to keep a close eye on police activity in all matters dealing with race?
You would think the glow of her halo would fade as charges she pushed a fake book and looked the other way as students at her Academy for Girls were molested by the matrons in charge continue to bubble to the surface--except that she seems pretty much invincible in the eyes of her enormous, mostly female, audience.
Generally, Americans want their president to be wise and concerned about destiny and goodness for their country. He or she should be educated from the study of books and in the ways of the world. As Kipling once wrote, "talk with kings, but don't lose the common touch."
Personally, I am concerned that the 63-year-old Oprah harbors ill will for Caucasians believing that these bewhiskered old white guys are responsible for all of the racial dissension and mistreatment of African Americans. Does she want reparation to be paid to Black Americans? Bigotry will never end until older white men die off, she has said.
She has had nothing but praise for former President Obama, yet it was Obama who presided over increased racial tensions in the nation; animosity toward police; an increase of the national debt by $10 trillion dollars and more and more tax dollars for legal and illegal immigrants. In the 2008 presidential election, Oprah endorsed Sen. Obama and it was widely reported and hailed by the liberal media. Oprah declined to introduce Sen. McCain or his running mate, Sara Palin on her popular afternoon talk show so that her viewers might meet the candidates. But Barack Obama, like Winfrey, an African American, was welcomed with wild enthusiasm and open arms on her show. Whatever qualifications a candidate for the highest office in the USA, in fact in the world, ought to have, I don't believe Oprah has them. "Clueless celebrity" would fit. Ronald Reagan was a movie celeb who became president, but then Reagan had also served two terms as governor of California; and had displayed political knowledge and a basic respect for other men and women, without regard to race.
Oprah specialized in finding new drugs and diets. Even pop culture denizens whose so-called area of expertise is controversial in mainstream circles get a platform on her show, like Jenny McCarthy and Suzanne Sommers. Dr. Phil was called out when necessary to assess the psyche, and Dr. Oz, who has had to apologize for certain over-the-top endorsements, dispensed advice when it came to knocking off pounds. Dr. Oz also happens to be a member of the anti-semitic Nation of Islam headed by Louis Farrakhan.
Oprah has said in the past that she would not run for political office, but then who knows. In her speech at the Golden Globes ceremony, she upbraided those who would misbehave when it came to harassing women. This all seemed more than a little phony, considering her past chummy relationship with and praise of Harvey Weinstein, perhaps the most notorious sexual predator spinning about Hollywood. Oprah has made tons of money and is considered a billionaire, but she is "uniquely unqualified" to serve as President. Even the liberal New York Times has discouraged her from doing it. She allies herself with the Hollywood nut jobs and the far left media and would certainly do her thing to open borders even more. But she has never demonstrated any patriotism or respect for the nation's military and her understanding of government is anyone's guess.
Oprah is "uniquely qualified" to resume her talk show and enhance her fortune. That is exactly where she should remain.
xxx
By Florida Bill
Florida Professor James Tracy was satisfied that he could say almost anything, no matter how outrageous and unpatriotic, and that he would sleep well knowing that the privilege of "free speech" was there to protect him.
In the USA, free speech is a right which commands respect and maximum protection. It is owned by everyone--the sensible and the nut jobs. It protects a speaker against reprisals and retaliation by government, and there are no prior restraints on one's dialogue.
Surprisingly, freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by most nations to its citizens. It is even a part of the charter of the United Nations. But America is different from other nations. Here, it is sacred, and without prior restraint. Consequences in America are based on common sense. Like screaming "fire" as a joke in a crowded theater--that can earn the speaker a fine, maybe even incarceration. Words designed to incite violence can also trigger a consequence for the speaker.
In Saudi Arabia and other parts of the Middle East, prior restraint on speech is the law. There, for example, criticism or blasphemy of Islam can bring the death penalty.
Free speech can cause controversy. Burning the American flag is considered free speech, although millions want the conduct punished. Parading in a Jewish neighborhood with Nazi flags also is protected. Mouthing obscenities on the air waves might be penalized, but generally it is given a pass. The late George Carlin was advised to avoid his "seven dirty words," but sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't.
Without concern of citizens who were troubled by conspiracy talk, Professor Tracy expounded on his theory that the Sandy Hook school room massacre of 26 persons was an "elaborate hoax" cooked up by the government. Lots of complaints, but no real worry for Dr. Tracy. After all, he was a tenured faculty member at Florida Atlantic University, an untouchable, you could say. He had a doctorate in history from the respected University of Iowa and he knew his rights as set forth in the Bill of Rights.
His conspiratorial baloney flowed fast and loose from his mouth following the shooting of 20 children and six adults in the Connecticut classroom in December of 2012 by a 20-year-old interloper. Inside the university classrooms where he taught communications, and in his blog, he opined that Sandy Hook never happened and was arranged by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) to promote a push for gun control, which was a priority of the Obama administration.
His conspiratorial theory led to a fiery and offensive disagreement with the father of a 6-year-old pupil killed, and Tracy tormented the father in his blog, observing that parents were making use of the "hoax" to make money.
University officials wanted him out. Americans were peeved and annoyed with his hokum. The school was proscribed from firing him and shutting down his conspiratorial babble because of his right of "free speech"--but was there another way around that barn?
They took Al Capone down for tax evasion, not murder, and OJ was sent away for a "robbery." Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who said that 9-11 was the work of "Little Eichmanns" in the USA, he was kicked off the faculty for "repeated intentional scholarly misconduct." It took eight years to flush out Churchill, and five to remove Dr. Tracy.
In January of 2016, the University regents gave Tracy his pink slip on grounds that he had neglected to fill in annual faculty forms seeking information on his outside employment and professional activities. Ridiculous, said Tracy, and he sued for violation of his civil right to speak freely without fear of censorship or reprisal.
He contended that the stated grounds of failing to complete routine faculty forms after repeated requests was a ruse and a smoke screen. The real reason, he argued, was the content of his blog and his public statements concerning Sandy Hook, and that stepped upon his constitutional rights.
In December of 2017, a jury heard the evidence and upheld the action of the university. His conspiratorial writings were not a factor. Simply put, he was terminated for thumbing his nose at university regulations applicable to all faculty members. "He just didn't follow the rules," said one official of the University. Tracy says that he will appeal to a higher court.
Tracy, 52, a resident of Boca Raton, Florida, and a father of three, had been a faculty member at FAU since 2002, and was granted tenure in 2008. Yes, free speech is an inviolable right found in the first amendment of the Constitution. In America, it is absolutely sacred--- but there is always a second way to skin a rat.
xxx
l,
By Florida Bill
On December 7, Minnesota's Al Franken announced that he would be resigning from the U.S. Senate. Currently, he has reset the date of his exit to January 2 at which time he can commence collecting his annual benefits of $122,000 and perks.
Meanwhile, colleagues that had pushed him to hand in his resignation are now asking him to reconsider and allow allegations against him that he is a harasser of women to be investigated by the Ethics committee. If he decides on that course, he will remain a Democrat member of that august body, as the last time that the Ethics committee expelled anyone was in 1861.
Who would be surprised if Franken, elected in 2008, opted to remain as a senator? He is really an empty suit who votes the party line and endorses a left-wing, anti-Trump philosophy. His replacement will be a carbon copy. Franken's troubles began when seven or eight women claimed that he hit on them in a sexual way--kissing them and pushing his tongue into their mouths. One woman said that he pawed her as she took a nap, and then he was so amused with his tom foolery that he had a photo made of his smiling face with his cupped hands on the woman's breasts so as to memorialize the moment.
It is certainly not the worst story of sexual harassment and it really does not make the 67-year-old Franken into a monster predator. A useless senator--yes. A predator--no. It doesn't rise to the level of the charge of rape made against Bill Clinton or his infamous blue-dress moment; nor the abuses endured by the comely staffers of U.S. Reps Conyers and Hastings and other congressmen.
Thirty-six other Democratic senators initially called for Franken to resign, and he acquiesced with an announcement that he would leave in the coming weeks. It was a "painful " matter to watch, said Sen. Dick Durbin, assistant minority leader in the senate. He was "my friend," he added.
In announcing his intention to resign in the coming weeks, Franken never acknowledged any improper behavior toward his lady friends, and he never apologized. He was leaving, he said, but will remain "an activist" in promoting a left-wing agenda for the nation.
Personally, I look upon Franken as a dim bulb and one of the most inept and unlikeable senators in Washington, but it makes no real difference if he quits or stays. If he stays in the senate and allows the Ethics committee to review the matter, he might be censured or reprimanded, but expelled--never. The last senator to be expelled from the senate was during the Civil War.
Gov. Mark Dayton has announced that he will appoint the female Lieutenant Governor, Tina Smith, to take Franken's place until a special election can be held. Smith, like the grinning Franken, is a Democrat who shares the anti-Trump agenda on all matters, and the fact that she is a woman suggests Democrats' endorsement of the "MeToo" fad.
Franken has a background as a "funny man" on TVs "Saturday Night Live." Also, he has appeared in some movies, including "Trading Places" in which he played a simple-minded baggage handler on a train who tended to an ape being transported. He was elected eight years ago to the Senate by a margin of 312 votes over the Republican incumbent, and was reelected two years ago.
Franken's alleged misbehavior with women was boorish, but Franken saw himself as a comedian and figured that that is the way he should act. No doubt, he figured that he was increasing his popularity by patting women on theirs butts and delivering an unwelcome kiss, but he did not walk about in his shorts as did another congressman who reportedly had women brought to his office to provide him the sexual relief he needed. He never dropped his drawers to display his package as some celebs and newsmen have done.
At one point, Franken has said that he would allow the Ethics committee to investigate the charges made against him and that he will cooperate fully. In past years, congressional ethics committees in both the House and the Senate have been kind and forgiving of members who came under fire. Ted Kennedy, for example, was the "Lion of the Senate" despite his felonious conduct in the death of a young woman he was driving home in Chappaquiddick some years ago. Robert Byrd, a KKK leader who wrote prolifically of his dislike for Blacks, was welcomed into the Senate from West Virginia and hailed for his greatness.
In the House, the former Massachusetts Representative, Barney Frank, was reprimanded by the Ethics committee for fixing 33 traffic tickets for his homosexual lover with whom he lived, but was given a pass for the operation of a gay brothel being operated out of the basement of his residence. He retired with a package of more than $100,000 per year, and perks.
Yes, Franken is a fool who should never have been elected to the Senate because he had nothing to contribute, and has contributed nothing. It appears that not a single piece of legislation with any guts or any amendment to important legislation carries his name. He is simply an obsequious know-nothing who votes as he is told, whether good or bad for citizens.
Will Franken seek forgiveness and get teary-eyed as he announces that he will remain a senator? We'll have to see.
xxx
By Florida Bill
Inspector General Michael Horowitz...Come out from behind that rock and tell Americans the results of your investigation into the conduct of James Comey as you promised you would do.
Is the former FBI director a "fix" artist and a leaker of privileged documents who supervised a "sham" investigation into the alleged misdeeds of Hillary Clinton?
What is already pretty clear is that Comey lied in public statements after being sworn to tell the truth; that he forwarded privileged documents to the Washington Post newspaper, and that he sought to protect Hillary Clinton from negative attacks. Is the time coming where citizens will hear the truth, unfiltered by a biased media hellbent on destroying President Trump?
FBI Director Christopher Wray, appointed by President Trump in June and confirmed by the Senate in September, testified recently before the House Judiciary Committee, and assured everyone that Horowitz is assessing the conduct of the former FBI chief in his investigation of Hillary Clinton and her mishandling of classified emails. Wray also indicated that he, along with everybody else, would like to see some movement on the part of the IG.
We will await his findings and then take the appropriate and necessary action if warranted, Wray told Congressmen on the committee.
Wray is the FBI chief who replaced Comey who was fired by President Trump on May 9. Wray was grilled for several hours by U.S. Representatives who demanded to know the fate of Comey. There are many who believe Comey "tanked" his investigation of Hillary Clinton, ignored her criminal misdeeds, and then conspired with Democrats and biased FBI agents to promote her candidacy for president.
On Jan. 12, eight days before President Trump was sworn into office, Horowitz announced at a news conference that he would examine the behavior of Comey for possible misconduct in his investigation of Mrs. Clinton and use of her private email server in her basement while she was Secretary of State in the Obama administration. If misconduct is found, Horowitz said he would not hesitate to recommend prosecution. He promised a written report at the conclusion of his work.
IG Horowitz was appointed in 2012 with confirmation by the Senate to provide oversight of the sprawling Department of Justice, which includes the FBI as its key component. The IG supervises a nationwide work force of more than 450 special agents, auditors, inspectors and attorneys with a mission of detecting fraud and mismanagement. The announcement by the IG of his investigation of Comey's probe of Mrs. Clinton, came in the midst of a firestorm of complaints about Comey, and of the "get out of jail free" card which he gave to Mrs. Clinton despite evidence indicating her criminal behavior in the handling of classified emails; and her corrupt supervision of the billion dollar Clinton Foundation.
Following President Trump's victory, Democrats came out swinging. They demanded Comey's resignation, blaming him for Hillary Clinton's failed candidacy because of his bizarre and questionable investigative techniques. Republicans, on the other hand, saw Comey as a manipulator who conducted a "sham" investigation of Clinton, sans a grand jury, predetermined that Clinton would be adjudged innocent of any misdeeds and would ultimately be elected President.
Soon after Trump discharged Comey using his constitutional authority, embittered Democrats sought to turn the tables on President Trump and shift attention away from Comey and his questionable exoneration of Mrs. Clinton.
To accomplish that, and with the assistance of the "fake news" media, Trump was accused of "collusion" with the Russians. Subsequently, a Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, a personal friend of the embattled Comey, was appointed to that post. Currently, Mueller's investigation is spinning its wheels, but has not produced an iota of evidence of "collusion," and Mueller, himself, has failed to live up to his reputation as a professional who will be fair and unbiased. Because of apparent conflicts, and a troubling close friendship with Comey, the respected Wall Street Journal newspaper, and Judicial Watch, a bipartisan government watchdog organization, along with several congressmen, have called upon Mueller to resign as special counsel. At the same time, there have been calls for President Trump to fire him.
The case against Comey is strong, and it would be virtually impossible to envision a path taken by Horowitz that does not identify missteps and misconduct by the former FBI chief as he ran interference for Mrs. Clinton. Comey has even acknowledged in public statements that he downplayed the seriousness of her criminal investigation saying he did so at the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Was the investigation of Mrs. Clinton a "sham"? Horowitz has that question in front of him. Among the facts for him to consider are that Comey never empanelled a grand jury and never questioned Mrs. Clinton under oath and had prepared a statement exonerating her of any misdeeds months before the investigation came to an end.
Director Comey looked the other way as Mrs. Clinton ignored subpoenas for documents and emails, including 33,000 which were scrubbed permanently from her computer. Grants of immunity were provided by Comey to her closest aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills for unknown reasons. Thousands of Clinton emails were later discovered on the computer of Abedin's estranged husband, Anthony Weiner, an ex New York congressman now serving a prison sentence as a sex offender.
Comey has also been said to have ignored allegations of Mrs. Clinton's allegedly corrupt practices in directing the operations of the billion dollar Clinton Foundation which was receiving donations from foreign officials while she was Secretary of State. In one case, the foundation received $145 million dollars from Russians who had gained access to 20 per cent of America's uranium reserves after Mrs. Clinton approved the transfer.
Horowitz has been silent concerning his investigation. In November, he was ordered to appear before a congressional committee, where he reported that his investigative team had interviewed many witnesses and would complete its work by March or April of next year, and written conclusions will be provided at that time.
xxx
