Stumbling Loretta

                                     

   By Florida Bill                                    

                                Loretta Lynch is the country's top lawyer, heading up a huge staff of attorneys and directing the activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, yet she dribbles her legal ball from one gaffe and foolish comment to another. Her utter incompetence in the position of Attorney General appears obvious, yet she continues to muddle about her work with the backing of her friend and fellow alumnus from Harvard Law school, President Obama.
                                Fortunately, in a few short days, she will be out of a job as the lame duck administration leaves office.  But not so fast-- she has some explaining to do to the Judicial Watch Organization, which has commenced legal action against her,  and to fellow attorneys who have witnessed her unethical behavior in connection with the Hillary Clinton investigation. She may also have some explaining to do to the Inspector General who of necessity will be involving her in its investigation of the FBI and its director.  
                                She has given speeches before the American Bar Association praising the legal profession for its ethical requirements. Does her unethical conduct as head of the Department of Justice require ABA sanctions?  Also, the American Center for Law, as well as Florida Congressman Dennis Ross, have been calling for Lynch to resign for months, noting that she has "betrayed the trust of Americans" and has violated numerous federal regulations and standards of justice. 
                                  Judicial Watch is an American conservative  non-partisan watchdog group with a mission of exposing misconduct by government officials.  It has zeroed in on Lynch and has filed demands for information from her in accord with the Freedom of Information Act. 
                                 With the new administration of President Trump, the fiery senator from Alabama,  Jeff Sessions, will become Attorney General, and it is anticipated that his office (he has recused himself) will be following through with an investigation of alleged Hillary Clinton misdeeds; and that investigation will call into question the conduct of Lynch and her manipulation of the FBI under her control. 
                                                   Lynch's sneaky tarmac meeting with former President Clinton, at a time when Clinton's wife was under investigation for criminal mishandling of classified information, outraged even the nonlegal community. The meeting was considered an "egregious violation" of legal ethics and conduct as Lynch was in charge of the investigation, supervising the FBI. 
                                  Judicial Watch is seeking to determine the exact substance of the meeting in face of allegations and beliefs that former President Clinton was pushing Lynch, a woman he knew and who he had appointed to a high position while he was president, to exonerate his wife of any criminal wrong doing.  In other words, was the "fix" put in?   
                                   Several days following the private meeting with the former President, Lynch declined to resign but said that she would abide by a recommendation of the FBI as to Clinton's criminal culpability.  Three days later it was announced by FBI Director James Comey that there would be no prosecution of Mrs. Clinton. The question  of a prosecution is never within the discretion of the FBI, belonging solely to the Attorney General as head of the Department of Justice.
                                 Lynch's earlier demonstrations of her ineptitude came in comments she made while reacting to vicious murders carried out by Muslim fanatics in Orlando, Florida, and San Bernardino, California.  Following the deadly gunshot slayings in an Orlando nightclub by a self- described "Soldier of ISIS," Lynch took to the podium and babbled about the need to be kind and never turn a blind eye to the LGBT community.  The most effective response to terror, she asserted with emotion, is "compassion, unity and love."                                 
                                  After the San Bernardino killings in which a radicalized Islamic couple murdered coworkers at a company party, Lynch reacted in disconnected and maudlin fashion.  Referencing that terrorism is an evil,  Lynch declared that her  "greatest fear" was "anti-Muslim rhetoric which edges toward violence."  For that, she said, Justice department lawyers are prepared to take "aggressive action" and to prosecute where ever this caustic and hostile bombast is found. 
                                   Her inane comments in regard to Muslim terrorism (words she cannot seem to pronounce) are not confined to murders.  The attorney general also is threatening to prosecute anyone who interferes with the bathroom rights of a transgendered person as a violation of the the 1964 Civil Rights law. 
                                   While President Obama was no doubt pleased at her concern for Muslims and the transgendered,  it is numbing that the Attorney General was ignoring first amendment rights of free speech guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.  But then, it may just depend on whose ox is being gored.  When Minister Louis Farrakhan, leader of  the Nation of Islam (Black Muslims),  told his followers to "stalk and kill" policemen who are mistreating Blacks, there was never a peep from General Lynch about rhetoric "edging toward violence" against policemen.                      

                                                          Lynch's performance as Attorney General of the United States has to set a record for empty-headed commentary and unethical behavior.   Of course, she will be out as AG soon, but I perceive that Lynch is not yet "out of the woods." Stay tuned. 

                                                   XXX                                               

                               

Hillary, the Most Admired Woman

   By Florida Bill 

                              If you wish to deal in absurdities, Gallup, the polling wizard, has just the thing.  Hillary Clinton is the "most admired" woman in the country.
                              How did it manage to make that incredible determination?  It interviewed 1,028 persons by telephone over a four day period and presto--there is no one in these 50 states that residents hold in greater awe than the former First Lady and Secretary of State.
                               Pretty amazing for the 69-year-old defeated Presidential candidate who, on the campaign trail, was labeled "Crooked Hillary," and whose sneaky mishandling of classified information in violation of federal statutes made her the subject of an FBI criminal investigation which apparently is continuing, post-election.
                               Gallup, whose name is synonymous with surveys determining what people believe and think, has been around a long time.  In this "most admired" poll,  12 per cent of the individuals surveyed made Mrs. Clinton number one.  You guessed it, Michelle Obama was the second "most admired"  woman,  garnering around 8 per cent of the first place votes   
                               In the male "most admired," category,   President Obama came in on top receiving 22 per cent of the first place votes cast.   I have to wonder about the accuracy of that finding also, but it probably has more authenticity than Clinton's new medal.  Second "most admired" man was the new President, Donald Trump.
                               Gallup made a lot of mistakes in the past election in which it reported repeatedly that Clinton was a cinch winner.  Its new survey only seems to enhance its reputation for misfiring.  It raises questions as to how serious anyone should be in accepting the imprimatur of dependable old Gallup.
                               These findings probably make a lot of citizens gleeful, but there are millions who perceive some sort of a "fix." Gallup purports to produce the opinions of a sample of people who are representative of the opinions of the whole group.  That's a tall order considering that the USA is a nation with some 318 million persons residing in more than 30,000 cities town and villages across 3 million square miles of of land and water.
                                  Those who read these polls are never told the questions asked or where the "random" telephone calls go.  If the calls are directed to the residents of inner cities and liberal enclaves in California, there will be ample Obama and Hillary fans which will tilt the survey in the Obama-Clinton direction. If the phones jingling with eager pollsters are located in blue collar neighborhoods where jobs have been lost, and the Obama administration is held in disrepute, then the dial on the admiration scale is likely to tilt in a much different direction.                                                Since Mrs. Clinton's numbers are so low and the field so wide, you wonder why Gallup would give this poll any publicity at all, or even bother to report such results. Maybe it would have been more enlightening if they reported that 88 percent of those surveyed did not admire Hillary Clinton.                                                                Polls and surveys have become an integral part of reporting the news of the day. These seers are making a lucrative career out of asking the opinions of maybe 1,000 people and then firing out the results to members of the Media, pundits and columnists who then disseminate the crystal ball product (accurate to plus or minus 3%) to readers and viewers.  The heartbeat of the nation delivered via a  telephone, notebook and pencil, and of course, a computer. Yeah, sure.                          

                                                XXX

I

.
                                                   

Don't Blame the Russians

   By Florida Bill

                                         Despite all of the noise-making by unhappy, teary- eyed liberals with predictions of an historical turn-around in favor of Hillary Clinton, the electors cast their votes in the electoral college based on the popular votes of the individual states they represented. Like it or not, this is the way the electoral college is supposed to work. President-elect Trump prevailed handily and is now being fitted for his tuxedo, tails and top hat for the swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 20.
                            The final  push by the anti-Trump crowd was doomed to fail, but that did not diminish the resolve. Literally,  millions of emails were sent to electors committed to vote for the President-elect imploring them to do a 180 degree turn-around in favor of Hillary Clinton and even threatening them with harm if they did not. 
                             There are many reasons being offered for the Clinton defeat. Many blame the content of emails lifted from the Democratic National Committee and disseminated by Wikileaks for destroying the popularity of Clinton.  These cyber missives disclosed that Clinton had been fed questions to be asked at debates, and that her followers were characterizing Democratic Candidate Bernie Sanders as a "Doofus."  One referenced Mrs. Clinton by saying, "What planet is she from"? Those revelations added to the nation's dislike of the disingenuous former First Lady and Secretary of State. 
                              But the latest argument is that cyber-interference from Russians tilted the election in the favor of the wild and unfit President-elect.  It was the dirty-handed hacking of private emails, charged John Podesta, Clinton's campaign manager, which diminished her popularity.  Behind it all, he said, was President Vladimir Putin, who masterminded the scheme to close the Oval Office door on Mrs. Clinton. However the precise way in which this supposedly was accomplished has yet to be explained by Podesta or anyone else. In addition, why complain about devious Russian hacking when Clinton won the popular vote?    
                               Alongside Podesta who was sounding the loudest chant about Russian interference, was former President Bill Clinton, who had assured America of a Hillary victory with the folksy jingle that there had been "eight (years) for Bill," and now there would be "eight (years) for Hill."  And along with the alleged Russian involvement, he said,  were "angry white men" who did not like his wife. Also, he pointed out, the towering six-foot, eight inch FBI Director James Comey botched investigations and made public statements which contributed heavily to her loss. 
               For me, I am not particularly surprised that Russian intelligence agencies are hacking into Washinton activities.  Iran and China, I suspect are doing the same.  But you can be sure that Uncle Sam with its 17 intelligence agencies is keeping abreast of  the activities of Russia as well as the Middle East and elsewhere. 
                                And it is no surprise that Putin favored Trump over Clinton who he regards as incompetent and a clone of a weak and ineffective President.  Trump has said that he never met Putin and regards Russian involvement in the election as pure fantasy, or at best, questionable and undetermined.  The explanation has been fabricated by bitter democrats who spent a billion dollars on Clinton, and lost, he added.
                                But with all of the theories in, the hard truth is that Hillary Clinton proved herself to be dishonest, unlikeable and incompetent and has a 40-year history of outright prevarications.   Russia was probably happy that she lost the election, but probably didn't have any say in the matter, despite what Clinton's liberal friends in the media are saying.
                               On Dec. 19, the electors assembled in each of the 50 states and cast their votes. There were no surprises in the outcome to anyone outside Hollywood. In the end Trump, garnered 304, a winning number and Hillary Clinton captured 227.  Trump needed at least 270 of the 538 electors, and everything went according to script.           
                                After all the efforts to lobby Republican electors to desert Trump, only two did — a pair from Texas, one of whom voted for former Texas Rep. Ron  Paul and the other for Ohio Gov. John Kasich. On the Democratic side, four electors refused to cast their vote for Mrs. Clinton.
                                 On January 20, 2017, Trump will be inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. Mrs. Clinton, reportedly, will attend the ceremony alongside here husband, the 42d President. As to Clinton's political future,  I expect that she will resume delivering 20 minute speeches to rich Democrats.  For certain she will be entertaining hope that the new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions,  will be gentle in his legal evaluations of  her apparent criminal indiscretions while handling classified emails and her questionable stewardship of the Clinton Foundation with its billion dollar corpus.  

                                             XXX








                                            

The Jeff Sessions Story

   By Florida Bill  

                                                Get ready for a conservative bulldozer driven by Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions III.  This popular four term U.S. Senator from Alabama and the first senator to endorse the candidacy of Donald Trump, has, after much delay, been sworn in as Attorney General. 
                                                With the beginning of the "Summer of Trump"  last year, Sessions jumped to the center of the action.  He was fiercely on the side of the real estate mogul who had exploded onto the political scene denouncing illegal Mexican aliens, and promising to build a wall on the southern border, and to "Make America Great Again."
                                                 Ten days after his election on November 8,  Trump announced that he would be appointing Sen. Sessions as Attorney General and that Sessions would be directing the activities of the Department of Justice of the United States, with the mission of "draining the swamp." 
                                                 The 69-year-old senator, an able and experienced lawyer, has a full plate of things to do to implement the 'law and order" policies and promises spelled-out by Trump during a hard-fought and successful campaign which extended over some 18 months. 
                                                  Sessions, who turned 70 on Christmas Eve of this election year, will be focusing on drug cartels and illegal aliens with felonies hanging over their heads and the quickest way to deport or prosecute them; and he will be laying the legal ground work for taking on sanctuary cities and shaking them until they accede to federal law.  Urban bosses like the liberal and discordant mayors of San Francisco, New York and Chicago, will now be "financially squeezed like grapefruits" into doing what the new President says is right and required by and in accord with federal statutes, a Trump supporter has said.
                                                   During the campaign, Trump labeled his opponent "Crooked Hillary" and promised her prosecution in a new Trump administration.  However,  he has apparently rolled  back on that issue, explaining that that there are other more important matters needing his attention, and that he has no desire to hurt Mrs. Clinton.   However, it is not the President's determination as to who gets prosecuted and who does not.  That discretion belongs solely to the Attorney General, and consequently, it will be up to Sessions to decide if Mrs. Clinton is to be prosecuted for her mishandling of classified emails, or for her alleged corrupt practices related to the "Clinton Foundation" with its billion dollar corpus.  
                                                 As a key member of the President's cabinet,  Sessions' appointment as Attorney General will require confirmation by the Senate in accord with federal law.   But with Republicans having a majority in that upper chamber of Congress, his approval  to serve is expected, although some Democrats are serving notice that they will oppose approval of their former colleague to the sensitive post of Attorney General.
                                                  Predictably,  liberal Democratic members will draw the racist card and accuse the senator who was born and raised in Selma, of having treated African Americans and other minorities with contempt and disdain while serving as the U.S. Attorney from the southern district of Alabama for 12 years, and for two years as attorney general from that state.  While Sessions maintains that he has always been fair to citizens, he has always opposed amnesty as a path to citizenship for undocumented residents.   His disagreement with open borders and his consistent opposition to the liberal, appeasement policies of President Obama are in sync with that of the President-elect. 
                                                In 1986, Sessions, who was then a U.S. Attorney, was nominated to be a federal judge by President Reagan. During confirmation hearings for that judicial post,  he was accused of being a racist and had opposed and was intolerant of the LGBT community and had once called an African American lawyer "boy."  Sessions said accusations against him were either fabricated or based on comments taken out of context.  Subsequently, his nomination was withdrawn without final vote of the democratic controlled senate. 
                                                  The ink was barely dry on Trump's declaration that he was a candidate for the Republican nomination for President in the late spring of 2015 when Sen Sessions locked hands with "outsider" Trump, and said he was with him for the long run.  An astute lawyer and a patriot of America, Sessions counseled Trump through the primaries and during the hard fought campaign against Clinton who spent about billion dollars to get elected.   Just days following the the election, Trump announced that the tough native of Selma was his pick as attorney general to replace the incompetent and duplicitous Loretta Lynch whose behavior in that office included significant violations of legal ethics and who voiced sympathy and "compassion" for the Islamic mad men whose goal is to turn planet earth into a global caliphate.  America and the world, will be a safer place with Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, Trump has said. 
                                                      As Attorney General, Sessions will be directing and monitoring the FBI which is the investigative arm of the justice department.  FBI Director James Comey, who was appointed to the 10-year post by President Obama in 2013, reportedly is in a state of political limbo. In Trump's judgment, Comey "caved-in" to Democratic pressure in the Clinton email investigation.  For Democrats, they charge that but for his unprofessional behavior,  Clinton would be President. Veteran bureaucrats have opined that the 55-year-old Comey is '"twisting slowly in the wind," and may resign.
                                                      Spirited and eager, Sessions has always been an achiever.  An Eagle Scout and student body president at Huntington college in Montgomery, Sessions later attended the University of Alabama law school,  graduating in 1973.  He was a captain in the army reserves and worked for a time for an Alabama law firm.  In 1981, Pres. Reagan appointed him United States Attorney from the southern district of Alabama and he served in that capacity until 1992 when he was elected attorney general of the state.  In 1994, he was elected a senator from Alabama and he was reelected three more times to that office.  In his last race for that office in 2014, he was reelected without opposition from the Democrats. 
                                                       

                                                               XXX


                                       

Speak English, Please

   By Florida Bill  

                                             The United States is truly an exceptional nation.  But in its 200 plus years of existence--and I would bet that a lot of people do not know this--no one ever succeeded in making "English" the official language of the country.
                                              Routinely, proposals for "Official English" are introduced in Congress.  There is often a good deal of talk and predictions that it will become law, but ultimately the bill dies until its resurrection in a future session.  It seems like it ought to be a slam-dunk, but it isn't.  
                                              Iowa Representative Steve King has a bill pending in Congress seeking to have English declared as the nation's official language.  His confidence in its passage has increased with the election of President Trump whose has made "America First" a priority with his administration.  
                                              Europe, it might be noted, has some 50 nations and each has its own official language, and I suspect that residents have pride in their homeland, as America does.  Many Europeans actually speak more than one language which often includes English, but in their home territory there is an official tongue.  In Spain it is Spanish;  in France it is French; in Germany, it is German,  and in Italy, it is Italian.  The United Kingdom has declared English as its official language as have some surprising spots like Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.  Official English in many, many places---but not in the United States.  
                                              There are roughly 6,500 spoken languages in the world today.  The most popular tongue is Mandarin Chinese with 1.2 billion persons speaking that language.  If you go to China and insist on speaking a language other than Chinese, and then try to demand government services in your foreign tongue, you won't get too far.  What you will get is the China boot.                         
                                              America is the world's most generous and exceptional nation, where everything is laid out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights--but no language is official.  Thirty-two of the 50 sovereign states have enacted a law declaring English as its official and primary language inside its state lines, and five states currently have legislation pending toward that end.  So why isn't English the official language of the USA, asks King, Congress' most aggressive proponent of English as the nation's official language. 
                                            English is the language used for legislation, regulations, executive orders, treaties, federal court rulings, and all other official pronouncements so why not clear the table and have "English" receive its rightful and legitimate blessing, said King. Then there would be something to back us up when we say to our  legal (and illegal) visitors, "Learn English!" 
                                            Researchers tell us that around 90 per cent of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, favor the declaration, yet the years pass and legislation is considered, but nothing ever happens.  Somehow, with "political correctness" going full tilt, the idea of requiring immigrants to learn English is seen in liberal corners as a "tool of oppression," bordering on racism.  
                                           Former President Obama believed that immigrants ought to learn English, but he saw a declaration by the nation that English is its official language as sort of unsportsman-like to immigrants. "Nonsense" said King.  English is the dominant language in the USA, and Spanish is second, although depending on where you live, it may seem that order is reversed.   
                                           As a senator from Illinois, Obama voted four times against bills calling for English as the national language.  But he was not alone.  Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden opposed it also, as did more than 30 other senators, mostly liberal Democrats.    It's unfair to immigrants to face this language burden, argues Obama, who has suggested that instead, Americans just learn to speak Spanish and then everyone would be bilingual. 
                                          President Obama stood in real contrast to other presidents, including Pres. Clinton, who favored English as the language of America.  One, in particular, Theodore Roosevelt, had plenty to say on the subject, as he extended a warm and friendly hand to immigrants, but there were caveats. 
                                          "In the first place," he said, "we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith and becomes an American and assimilates himself to us--  he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else... There can be no divided allegiance here.  Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, is not an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."   
                                           In recent months, we have heard  President Trump point to the importance of speaking English.          "We will stop apologizing for America, and we will start celebrating America," Trump has asserted. "We will be united by our common culture, values and principles, becoming one American nation, and one country, under one constitution,  saluting one American flag," 
                                           Congressman King, has been a fierce proponent of official "English" in America and particularly when applied to immigrants.  King has argued that establishing an official language like other countries would bring consistency and unity. With the new President, whose patriotism and love of country is worn on his sleeve, and who has said that under his administration, "America will come first,"  there is increased optimism that "English" will at long last become the official language of the United States.  Correspondingly, immigrants would be obligated to speak English if they are to assimilate into the American way of life. 
                                                xxx

                                     



                                   
        
             
                                                   
                                               

                                             
            

We're Leaving this Country.

  By Florida Bill          

                           Over the many months of the brutal, hard-fought political battle between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, there have been announcements and promises by a number of so-called celebrities that they would be leaving America if "The Donald" were elected president. 
                           The possibility of their departure was indifference or really good news, and their promises actually became an unanticipated incentive to support now President-Elect Trump.   The bad news is that they were all hollow pledges and unfortunately it appears they all will be staying in this land that has made them millionaires many times over.    
                           I think that it is Samuel L. Jackson, the bespectacled actor who does an awful lot of commercials and is worth about $160 million,  who has best articulated the disappointment in a Trump victory.   “If that motherf---er becomes president, I’m moving my black ass to South Africa," thundered Jackson in a Jimmy Kimmel interview.  But after the Trump victory, Jackson was not packing his bags and he pooh poohed his avowal as a kind of "skit talk" typical of big stars like him.  "When you learn the difference between my actual opinion and a 'skit,' maybe we can talk, and till then, I'm barbed wire up your asses."  
                          I get the message--Jackson is not leaving, and that is disappointing. His point of being barbed wire stuck in your colon is his way of making a political point, I guess; but what is it?
                          But Jackson was only one of a couple of dozen men and women in the public eye who said they would be up and away if Trump were to become President. Some famous singers like Madonna, Cher,  Streisand and little Miley Cyrus got in their licks on Trump and were out front with their promises.  
                          I think that the aging Madonna (now 58)   got things going when she promised sexual favors to persons who could prove that they had voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton, presuming of course that Hillary was the winner.   Thereafter, the cast of characters began appearing on talk shows, in videos and in interviews vowing to punish the USA by blowing town in the untoward event of a Trump win.
                         Cher and Barbra Streisand were hard-line, yet subdued with their disapprobation of Trump.  "If elected, I'm moving to Jupiter," asserted Cher, 70.  Streisand, 74, who twitches with hate at the very mention of a Republican, explained to Australian journalist Michael Usher her annoyance with the biased, bigoted, hateful Trump. "I'm either coming to your country (Australia)  if you'll let me in, or I'll go to Canada."     
                          Miley Cyrus, the 23-year-old pop star with the foot-long tongue and the dirty mouth, had been incensed that Trump was a candidate for President.  He is a "f...ing nightmare," she said, promising to "move outta da country” if he won the presidency; "and I don't say things I don't mean"! But with votes counted, Miley doesn't really mean it, disappointing millions with her double cross.  Asked when she would be leaving this country where she has accumulated a net worth of $200 million, she said that it "hurts to say, but I accept you (Trump) as President of the United States, and that’s fine, because, now, I want to be a hopeful hippie.  Please treat people with love, treat people with compassion, and I will do the same for you."  Well, Mr. President, you now have Miley on your team. No doubt, that must improve your day.
                            But there is no overlooking the sentiments of Al Sharpton, the New York-based, hissing,  race-baiting friend of President Obama; and the vulgar, unlikeable woman who identifies so closely with him --Whoopi Goldberg.  "I'm reserving my ticket to get outta here if he wins, only because he'd probably have me deported anyway," said Sharpton.  But, Rev. Al, the election is history and you're still here. "Just a joke," said the race hustler who has to be nervous about the Trump-appointed Attorney General, who may well put his cross hairs on Sharpton.  Among Trump fans, Sharpton is known as a charlatan who owes plenty in unpaid income taxes. Had not Sharpton been a close pal of President Obama's, he might be behind bars for tax evasion.  So Al, it might be smart if you do reconsider, and leave.      

.                       Whoopie lets go with a vulgar spiel whenever she gets the urge.  As to Trump, she said on the View, "maybe its time for me to move, you know.  I can afford to go...Trump is not the president I want and with him around, it just sort of pisses me off." She has such intelligence and finesse in her pronouncements.                                         There is a young comedienne named Amy Schumer, a cousin of "Cry'in Chuck Schumer," Democrat senator from New York.  She gave notice that her destination was Spain if Trump became president. The 36-year-old Amy became famous with her book, The Girl with the Lower Back Tattoo, which told of her sexual activities, and it gained quite a readership. Trump's election would be "beyond my comprehension; just too crazy," she had opined.  Learning of the sad news of his election, Amy said her comments were  "in jest" and her amended plan is to "stay and fight---today we grieve and tomorrow we begin again." So Amy is staying, fairly well-fixed, and steering clear of any grand larceny charges such as she faced some years ago. Is anyone "crying" about Amy? 
                        Two actors of some note generated attention with their denouncements of Candidate Trump.  If he is in, I am out of here said Bryan Cranston, who gained fame in the TV series "Breaking Bad"  and also as Dr. Wattley, the dentist, in episodes of the Jerry Seinfeld show.
                        "Absolutely--going for sure," said Cranston with Canada as the destination. No worry now, Bryan has changed his mind. He explained he will remain in America, in the camera's eye. His film brother in the movie-making business is tough Robert De Niro, who said  that  because of Trump, he is "very depressed."   "He's a punk. He's a dog. He's a pig. He's a con, a bull s--- artist," said  DeNiro, a man of great emotions.            
                               In a monologue posted on line, DeNiro called Trump an "embarrassment" and said he would like to "punch him in the face."  But the tough Italian has got movies to make and he is staying in America.  But President Trump, please be on guard.   

                             There has been a lot of talk about the U.S. Supreme court and Trump's ability to make appointments.   But one sitting justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, has castigated Trump as a "faker" and has said that his presence on the political scene brought to mind the sentiments of her late husband, who once opined that "perhaps now is the time for us to move to New Zealand."  But Justice Ginsberg, 83, apparently had decided that she is just too old to travel, so she apparently will be staying in her black robes fighting against social injustices.  Also, she has said she  "regrets" her comments.  
                                   There is one promisor, Comedian George Lopez, who has not yet double crossed America.  He says that he will be returning to the land of his fathers, Mexico.  But I say, don't count on it.  George, with his net worth of 35 million dollars, has found a permanent home here--remember, George is a comedian.    
                                         Yes, there are a good many unhappy celebs and those wishing to be treated as celebrities who have promised to disappear from the rolling hills of the USA.   Here is a list of those betraying their promises (and the hopes of millions), and the places they are (not) going to: Rosie O'Donnell (Canada); Eddie Griffin, (Africa); Omari Hardwick, (Italy); Natasha Lyonne, (a Mental Hospital); Kathryn Hahn, (Iceland); Zosia Mamet, (Siberia); Neve Campbell, (Canada); Keegan Michael Key, (Canada); and Armie Hammer, (the Caribbean).    
                                            So its all over and everyone has decided to stay in this land of milk and honey with Donald Trump in the White House. So thanks for that. Even the famous author Steven King, who had vowed to go to Canada because of fear of the Trump presidency and the evil it can bring about, has changed his mind and, by the way, I hear that his next scary novel will be out soon.  

          

                                                                  XXX


.









              




              

Comey, Twisting in the Wind

   By Florida Bill  

                                                      The election is over and Donald Trump was the first to reach 270 electoral votes, and thus is the President-elect, no matter how many popular votes Hillary Clinton received or how many of her followers take to the streets in protest. In the midst of this most unusual presidential campaign and election, with his fingers stuck deep in the political fray, is FBI Director James Comey and just maybe he has some explaining to do.                                                            It is difficult at this point to determine where Comey stands now that Trump is in charge and Mrs. Clinton is licking her wounds, feeling hurt by the behavior of the director who was appointed to the post in 2013 by Clinton's boss and supporter, President Obama.  Comey's term is for 10 years, but there are big questions as to his future.  Resignation, I detect, is a real possibility with Trump as the new President, and I sense that he is a man who likes to even scores.  

                                      Mrs. Clinton blames Comey for her loss with his on-again, off-again investigations of her alleged mishandling of classified emails. She has said that his conduct in reopening the investigation 11 days before the election, with early voting in full swing, and then calling it off again three days before the November 8 voting,  had a deleterious effect on her supporters and reversed her "momentum."  It energized Trump supporters, she added in a recent interview.  Not surprisingly, former Atty. Gen. Eric Holder agreed that Comey's behavior "impacted" the results. 
                                     And now Comey is getting upbraided by  Senate minority leader, Harry Reid and other unhappy Democrats, and they want Comey investigated by everyone and anyone who does investigations, convinced that a double-dealing Comey caused Clinton to lose the election.  Reid has charged that Comey knew of Russia sneakily hacking Clinton emails which made her look dishonest and passed them on to Wikileaks which them published them.  Trump was the benefactor, and Comey is a cuplable party and ought to resign, Reid charges.                                              
                                    In July, after 15 months of investigation into her email use, Director Comey cleared Clinton of any criminal wrong doing.  Trump promptly and angrily accused Comey of caving into Democratic pressure.  Comey's announcement appeared to put the email question to rest, and Reid commended him for his good work.  But then came a whopping surprise.  On October 28th, 11 days before the election, Director Comey alerted Congressional leaders in a letter that he was reopening the bureau's inquiry into Clinton's possible criminal conduct, and Trump commended Comey for finally doing the right thing. 
                                       But then, three days before the election, in an unbelievable turn around, Comey said that the investigation was concluded and potential new evidence proved meaningless to any Clinton culpability. The evidence to which he referred involved some 650,000 new emails which had been linked to Mrs.Clinton through a connection with the sexually troubled former Congressman Anthony Wiener, the estranged husband of Mrs. Clinton's close aide and friend, Huma Abedin.   At that point, Trump retracted his praise of Comey whom he believed had again caved into political pressure from Democrats. At at that turn, both Democrats and Republicans were angry and critical of the FBI Director's handling of these matters.  
                                        Considering all of the peculiar about-faces by the head of the world's most trusted investigative agency, I believe that the 55-year-old Comey is now in a sort of limbo, wondering which powerful politician he has ticked off more, and what's ahead for him. Back in the Watergate days of the early 1970s, the Nixon team made interim FBI Director L. Patrick Gray a fall guy and said he should be left "to twist slowly, slowly in the wind." Nixon was unsuccessful in that regard, but now with Trump at the wheel, Comey has to be feeling the breeze. 
                                         Comey's background is that of a man who has climbed straight up.  He assumed the office of director with fanfare and approbation as a man of integrity who could be trusted to do his job without preordained prejudices.  His reputation was "impeccable,"  As an attorney, and a 1985 graduate of the far left University of Chicago law school, he enjoyed the friendship of President Obama who had been a lecturer at the law school.  Striding through Washington's halls of power at a towering 6 feet, 8 inches tall, he carried himself with dignity and the aplomb of an untouchable. 
                                          Comey has worked for government for a good piece of his adult life, although he was employed for periods as an associate in a law firm and has held positions as general counsel for a number of large companies and organizations. For a period he served as the United States Attorney from the southern district of New York and from 2003 to 2005 as deputy attorney general, second in power only to the cabinet level Attorney General in the department of Justice.
                                           In February, 2003, Comey led the successful prosecution of Martha Stewart on charges of securities fraud, obstruction of Justice and lying to an FBI agent.  "This criminal case is about lying--lying to he FBI, lying to the SEC and lying to investors. Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not for who she is, but because of what she did." Comey explained at a press conference.  
                                           Comey critics are hinting that the director possesses a hidden undefined allegiance to Mrs. Clinton and her husband, the former President. That speculation comes from the belief that Comey gave Mrs. Clinton a pass from criminal prosecution despite clear evidence of wrong doing. The use of velvet gloves with the Democratic nominee for president was in sharp contrast to the hammer he brought down on Martha Stewart whose misdeeds appeared less serious from those of Mrs. Clinton's. 
                                            Comey also was said to have been overly kind to President Clinton's friend, Sandy Berger, who in 2004, was caught pirating documents from the National Archives by stuffing them into his coat.  Some of the purloined documents taken by Berger, who had served as President Clinton's National Security advisor, were destroyed by him fueling speculation that the papers contained information negative to the president's handling of defense matters.    "No one will ever know what the destroyed documents contained, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they weren’t Bill Clinton’s secret recipes for chicken a la king," observed Pat Buchanan, a prominent Republican commentator and former Presidential candidate. 
                                             During the rather bloody campaign, Trump characterized Mrs. Clinton as "Crooked Hillary" and promised during a debate that if he became President he would pursue prosecution of her for her crimes which the FBI had ignored. Asked about this during a recent interview on 60 Minutes, the President-elect said that he would "think about that."
                                              There also is belief by insiders that the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation, established by Hillary and Bill Clinton, concerning allegations made by Trump and others that Mrs. Clinton, while serving as Secretary of State,   employed "pay to play" rules as a way of her granting favors to individuals donating to the foundation. 
                                               FBI Director Comey's role in the investigations is sensitive after all that has gone on.  Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has come down hard on Comey saying that he believes that the FBI chief took a dive on behalf of Mrs. Clinton.  "What other explanation is there for these crazy events linked to the campaign." Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and a strong supporter of the president-elect,  has tweeted that Comey must be under "enormous pressure" to cave the way he has....  "His destruction by political pressure is painful to watch."  He has been "twisted into an indefensible pretzel of contradictions."                                              .                                              If Comey's actions contributed to Mrs. Clinton's loss, many conservatives will applaud him.  But I feel that his conduct as FBI director was so unusual , confusing and possibly improper that he must explain his behavior. 

                                                 xxx

What Went Wrong With the Polling?

   By Florida Bill  

                                 After the unanticipated election of Donald Trump, contradicting 99 per cent of the polls, the pundits exhibited amazement.   "Just what went wrong and how did it happen" asked super-liberal Anderson Cooper from his loft at the CNN station.
                                  It was  going to be the greatest blowout drubbing of a Republican since the defeat handed Barry Goldwater in 1964 by President Johnson.  Make book on that, the analysts advised.
                                Actually Cooper and his wise German-born sage and colleague, Wolf Blitzer, were simply drowning their sorrows that Trump, whom they disdained, had handily defeated their heroine, Democrat Hillary Clinton, and the polls which they commissioned, along with others, were way, way off. 
                                  The long and short of it is that the polls ran wild and were not a bell ringer of the preferences of a nation, but rather served only as the source of inane and endless chit chat by the talking electronic heads.  Polls and surveys make news in the political season and the pundits rely upon them for endless babble.  Some shotgun polls come out so fast that you have  to wonder if there ever was a poll which involved the telephoning of 500 persons.  Did someone simply find a way to write that there was a poll, deliver a press release to the TV stations and submit a bill for work done?  
                                   In any case, if all of the polls and surveys which supposedly had been taken really were legitimate, then 99 per cent of them got it wrong. It is likely that pollsters like to produce the results which would most please the companies and organizations which commission them to take the survey.  Presto, if you want to make Clinton the preferred candidate, just ask the residents of Washington D.C. or the African Americans in Harlem.  It all depends upon whom you ask and how and where you ask it, sometimes even when. 
                               For me, and for others, including the intuitive former Chicago Tribune Labor editor Jim Strong, we see the polls as just so much horse feathers. Everyone is eating up those polls, and the pundits have plenty to talk about.  This is what the political season is all about, it seems: extrapolating the intentions of the nation, based on a handful of supposedly representative telephone and exit surveys.  "Rubbish," quipped Strong.  
                                  I have for quite a spell been skeptical of the polls and the so-called error factor of three per cent. This three per cent nonsense is just so much invented scientific rhetoric so as to add legitimacy to the "art" of surveying and polls based upon telephone inquiries to some 500 to 1,000 persons.  Does anyone really buy the theory that asking a few hundred persons on the telephone of their preferences will reveal the inner heartbeat of a nation of 310 million Americans, residing in 19,000 cities, towns and villages,  spread over 50 states and extending over 3 million square miles of land and water?  If they do, I have a bridge for the highest bidder. 
                                   There may be some real legitimacy in surveys designed to tell us the desires of a particular area with 10,000 persons based upon telephoning 500 persons.  But saying that a review of answers from that number of persons will expose the true desires of the USA is beyond reality. 
                                     In one polling book I found in the library, the aim for pollsters is to get answers by interviewing a selected sample of Americans.  These targets must look and act like the larger population they come from in every important way.  The sample must have almost exactly the same proportions of men and women, blacks, whites and Hispanics; Democrats and Republicans and old and young people as in the entire population. This small sampling is supposedly accurate to within plus or minus three percentage points.  I wonder how often pollsters adhered to those guidelines. And even if they slavishly stuck to their "snapshot," what if large numbers of one representative group or another simply read their caller IDs and decided not to answer the phone? Wouldn't that throw everything off?
                                    In this political season which got moving back in the early months of 2015, there have been polls and surveys in the thousands and thousands. They are commissioned by everyone and anyone.  Prominent pollsters firing out results almost daily are NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and FOX  from the TV tube; and singular or combo polls results from the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and from a host of smaller papers and organizations.  And then there are the trusted polling granddads like Gallup, Rasmussen, Bloomberg, Emerson, Landmark, Reuters, and Quinnipiac. 
                                     Now, in this race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the big shots of polling like the New York Times were reporting that Clinton was an 85 per cent certainty to "trounce Trump."  Other pollsters simply took their lead from the  polling guns and followed up on their findings based on who knows what.  And always we heard about the 3 per cent margin of error, all of that playing to the scholars to get them to believe in the science of the inquiries. 
                                      I have an idea that the pollsters have discovered a way of making a whole lot of money by doing not much at all.  Consider rounding up a some ten telephone talkers and signing them on for minimum wage.  Find a big table and rig it with telephones and a script with questions and let them fill in the responses.  Give these telemarketers or what ever they are called numbers to call and pick the areas.  If you want some big Clinton Democratic numbers call Chicago which hasn't heard the word "Republican" since the 1930s.  Its Clinton cruising to victory.
                                          The pollsters then assemble the data and fashion it into a press release for distribution to the television talking news heads and the reporters on a news paper.  Presto, you have a poll and when you put it all together with the so called plus and minus 3 percentage points nonsense, the prediction is out there.  Clinton is way ahead.  But be mindful of the old admonition,  "garbage in--garbage out." 
                                           It seems that the election of 2016 may be the final proof that polling is neither an art nor a science.
                                            
                                                  XXX







                                

Moderators' Scorecards

    By Florida Bill 

                                       The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) set up the debates, picked the moderators and then looked the other way as four of the five hand-picked assassins tore into Republican Donald Trump and allowed their favorite Democrat Hillary Clinton to click her heels.
                                        It would be hard for any viewer to deny that these supposedly neutral moderators had not ganged up on Trump.  Nevertheless, he still managed to fight his way through the painful process and, in the opinion of many, actually won two of the four debates.  In Trump's estimation, the debates were a part of the "rigged" apparatus against him, all masterminded by the dollar-driven Clinton, her boot-licking campaign chiefs and the "dishonest and corrupt" media.
                                          For the debates which were held between Sep. 3 and Oct. 19, the CPD named as moderators Matt Lauer and Lester Holt of NBC; Anderson Cooper of CNN; Martha Raddatz of ABC and Chris Wallace of Fox News.                                                                        The CPD holds itself out as an independent organization without affiliation with any political party and without preference for either candidate.  That would seem to be a reasonable assumption, except for the behavior of  four of the five moderators they selected, who behaved on the debate stage as though they were committed fans of Mrs. Clinton.
                                         The co-chairmen of the CPD are former GOP national committee chairman Frank J. Farenkopf and the Press secretary to President Clinton, Michael D. McCurry. Another 14 members comprise the commission.
                                          In reviewing the CPD roster, one key member that stands out is  Howard G. Buffett, son of Warren Buffett who has the distinction of being the third wealthiest person in the world.   Howard is a southern Illinois farmer and philanthropist, with a net worth of  $200 million, who spends his time doing good deeds throughout the world.  You can bet that Buffett follows the same drumbeat as his dad and with the Buffett name in play, his presence on the commission is powerful.  There is an old adage which states that the "apple never falls far from the tree." 
                                           Howard Buffett's father, Warren, a life- long Democrat, is a close friend and confidant of President Obama. In August, he announced that he was endorsing Hillary Clinton as his candidate to succeed Obama.  He has been a contributor of hers, overlooking her disingenuous nature and clear mishandling of classified emails, and has campaigned for her.  Buffett has also aided Clinton’s campaign by holding fundraising events for the Democratic nominee, and Politico reported in January that Buffett held a fundraiser for Clinton that charged $33,400 per person.
                                             With all of his money, the 86-year-old Buffett is powerful, beyond description.   In speeches he has castigated the Republican Trump as a businessman who has misled people about his business acumen and that he "has something to hide."  
                                            Also on the commission is former GOP Sen. John Danforth, a former Missouri senator who is an ordained Episcopalian priest. He served in the senate from 1976 to 1995, and his criticism of Trump is surprising.  Although he has not endorsed Mrs. Clinton, he has excoriated Trump in his latest book, "Reverence of Religion" for his wrongful appeal to some citizens. 
                                         "There's an audience for this self-proclaimed great man, and for the anger and hatefulness that he expresses," Danforth wrote of Trump.  
                                             The idea that the CPD is bipartisan and down the middle does not fly with me.  Just connect the dots, as some say.  Viewers of the debates, with the lone exception of the final one moderated by Chris Wallace, were led by solid backers of Mrs. Clinton.  Lauer, Cooper, Raddatz and Holt attempted to steam roll Trump with accusatory questions, interrupting him continually as he offered answers and explanations.  Sensitive areas dealing with the disingenuous nature  of Mrs. Clinton  and her mishandling of classified emails were pretty much glossed over.  Chris Wallace treated both candidates fairly in the final debate, asking each of them difficult and important questions. 
                                              NBC, CNN and ABC tend to be far to the left, and their stations' disdain for conservative and middle of the road views is often evident.  They are pulling hard for Hillary, pretty much ignoring her lifetime of telling lies, and her questionable competence as a United States senator and Secretary of State under President Obama. The pundits there and with other television networks ignore her attack upon the women who had been victimized and sexually assaulted by her husband.  Scores of books have been written about the Clintons and in a recent one by a former secret service agent who guarded the Clintons, Mrs. Clinton is depicted as a foul mouthed "dangerous woman" with an explosive temper who should never be the nation's President.  Legitimate questions about the "pay to play" rules of the Clinton Foundation continue to be ignored by the media gasbags in their role as moderators and on the tube.                     
                                              How can this commission be labeled "non partisan"?  It picked from the "pundit media bag"  people from three major news networks that are solidly in the liberal Clinton camp.  Their agenda was to come down hard on Trump, and the moderators followed the script. The idea that these hand picked "referees" could be fair was an impossible stretch.  
                                              
                                              
                                                XXX