By Florida Bill
Let's be honest; there is something about dogs which is very special, and that awesome quality strikes a chord deep within certain humans, who become known as "dog people." This is pretty much a lifelong affliction for those who succumb to it.
And inside this phenomenal canine kingdom is the incredible Cairn terrier, the little guy with the huge personality whose ancestors hailed from the Isle of Skye in Scotland. Characteristics that apply to the average canine seem to apply to the Cairn terrier tenfold.
He is a hunter extraordinaire; a "ratter" with a nose ten thousand times more sensitive than his human friends and mentors. He is very smart yet at times he "comes" at his own pace depending on what's in it for him.
Some say the Cairn, while affectionate, marches to the beat of his own drum, although a treat will usually raise the volume. As they always say at Westminster, the big dog show: "It's a terriers' world, they just let us live in it." This is especially true of our cairn friends.
Some dog owners think, "If only dogs could talk." Well, they do. Think of that loquacious relative who downs a few too many sherries at Thanksgiving and chews your ear off between courses: now look at your cairn standing by the window barking at falling leaves. Some similarities, you think?
Yet we probably don't even realize the extent of the average dog's vocabulary. (Cairns in particular are considered very "vocal.") There is no doubt that certain words, like walk, treat and suppertime, are in their dictionary. The word "no" is perhaps more debatable.
Delivering their message is accomplished through their ears, tail and body language. Yet the "bark"-- now there is communication worthy of a good translator. Noisy--yes, at times it can make you think about the dreaded shake can or squirt gun as a remedy.
Canine psychologists have studied "dog talk" for a good while and have determined that they communicate about three main topics: emotional states, social relations and the expression of wants and desires. Barking is in different pitches and tones, so listen carefully, quips Dr. Stanley Coren, a professor of psychology---a man who knows "dog talk."
The professor, who is the author of the book, "The Intelligence of Dogs," has done a good deal of research in carving out the interpretations of man's best friends. For example, the continuous rapid barking at mid range pitch translates into specific canine rhetoric: "Call the pack. There is a potential problem. Someone is coming into our territory." Our cairns, in particular, are especially good at alerting us to the arrival of the pool service...the handyman, the dry cleaner, the lawn guy.
But then, one or two sharp, short barks, at mid range pitch, is more welcoming, the doggie version of "Hello there." But change the pitch slightly upward, says Dr. Coren, and you have. "What's this?" In other words, "Is there a slight movement at the back of the yard?"
There are all sorts of growls. Some graduate into a bark, and some say, "Beware--back off." With a lower pitch, the growl/bark sends the warning, "I'm upset and ready to fight." Dr. Coren also identifies the "undulating growl with high pitch, as "if you come at me, I may fight or I may run." This latter translation probably does not apply to the average terrier, which has no idea how small it is and rarely backs down.
Understanding the language of your dog, and getting your dog to understand you, is a big part of canine ownership.
Of course there is unspoken communication too. There's that look of pure contentment as your cairn cuddles next to you on the couch at night, sprawled out like a contortionist sometimes, which says "I am at peace, all is well."
Many dog owners become especially loyal to a particular breed. This is usually most common with dogs with a lot of moxie, or, let's admit it, "attitude," like our beloved Cairns.
Perhaps that is part of the magic of the Cairn, be it he or she, black, brindle or wheaten. Ah, just to see him zipping about in his back yard or on the beach; or looking over the trees and bushes, or sniffing (or digging energetically) at the ground. Is there a busier breed? How about that moment when your Cairn attacks his squeak toy, resolved to rid that beast of all noise-making ability. Yes, that is a Cairn being a Cairn.
Do you ever wonder about the memory of a dog? Does he store something in that busy head and then recall it in subsequent days. Absolutely, observes Dr. Coren. And he has some first hand experience from his days with his Cairn, Feldspar, whom he praises for his vocabulary and ability to recall. Feldspar would always cower and hide upon hearing the word "Bath. " Conversely, said Coren, another of his dogs actually raced to the shower room upon hearing that word. Can your Cairn count? Try putting three dog cookies in your pocket and then give him only two.
At our Florida home, our Cairns, Sammi Smith, 9, named after a favorite country western singer, and Wendy, 7, have decided that they want nothing to do with our swimming pool. And when we are in and splashing around, those little heads are watching from a safe vantage point; ignoring any whistle or call lest they get dunked. I know that some Cairns like to swim and plunge when the sun and mood moves them, but each to their own.
In Florida, the grass and bushes are the home for those little lizards we call gekkos. There are trillions of them. The search for them is never ending for our Cairns. They will sniff and hunt relentlessly or until something else become more important, like maybe suppertime or a little ball chasing.
Put it all together and remember how he joins you when you are taking a nap, or accompanies you on that walk. He is, one writer has said, "the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself." A dog doesn't love us just because we do something for him like feed him food and water; let him sleep with us in bed; comb his fur and take him for a car ride. He just loves us anyway, and that's called "unconditional love."
XXX
By Florida Bill
What a turn around!!! After months of investigation and non-stop talk about "collusion" by the Trump campaign with Russians, results are coming in.
The only "collusion" involves the Hillary Clinton campaign, its chairman, John Podesta and the Democratic Nationbal Committee and its former chairman, Debbi Wasserman Schultz.
That drum beat about "collusion" with the Russians was promoted by a left-wing media tethered to the hip of the Democratic party. The consequence was appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to find answers and prosecute miscreants in the field, with Republicans targeted.
Some eighteen months of investigation have passed, first by the FBI and now under the supervision of Mueller, and the result is a goose egg of evidence against the Trump campaign. As one political reporter has noted, the allegation of Trump collusion is a "krock, a fraud, a politically induced hallucination and totally nuts."
Cascading out for Mueller to examine is evidence that the only political connection with Russians involves Hillary Clinton, her campaign manager John Podesta, and the Democratic National Committee. It is actually more than just "collusion." Democrats committed acts involving the spending of millions of dollars to destroy then candidate Trump, and that suggests criminal conduct, which is prosecutable.
Special Counsel Mueller has plenty of the big elephant to investigate and he can't slip away from it. And when you add the former FBI chief Comey, and his boss Attorney General Lynch to the hodgepodge, and the entire activity hints at the involvement of the Obama White House---well, Mueller has work to do, although some government watchdogs like the Wall Street Journal and Judicial Watch believe that Mueller has lost all credibility and should resign. Some critics want President Trump to fire him for.
Is "collusion" in itself a crime? Respected Georgetown University Law Professor Jonathan Turley has said that colluding violates no statute or election law or anything else. Greg Jarrett, an anchor for Fox News and a former criminal defense attorney agrees and points out that the enabling "special prosecutor" law provides for appointment of special counsel to investigate crimes....and only crimes, and nothing else. Anthony Napolitano, a former New Jersey state judge and now a TV analyst, has observed on several occasions that "collusion" talk is a democratic fantasy.
Robert Mueller, appointed last May, is a former Director of the FBI under Presidents Bush (the younger) and Obama. According to the charge given to Mueller, he is to investigate "any links and/or coordination between Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Trump....and any other matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." The "any other matter" really commands Mueller to examine the conduct or misconduct of Mrs. Clinton, her campaign manager and Podesta and Podesta brother who reportedly had a hand into Russians work for money to damage the moral reputation of then candidate Trump.
Professor Turley has said that "maybe there was collusion...the question is, what's the crime? ...we haven't had any allegations of money being exchanged--until now and the finger points at Mrs. Clinton.
"Other matters" for Mueller and his 17 handsomely compensated attorneys to investigate is the role Mrs. Clinton played in the transferring of 20 per cent of USA uranium reserves to Russian investors controlled by the Kremlin. The quid pro quo of that action by the then secretary of state was a Russian donation of more than $100 million to the Clinton Foundation. These same Russian investors sweetened the deal by dishing out $500,000 as an honorarium to Clinton's husband, the former President, for an after dinner speech in Moscow.
Reportedly, Mueller is investigating President Trump's discharge of James Comey on May 8, as "obstruction of justice." President Trump had a constitutional right to discharge Comey for a good reason, or for no reason, or for any reason. Trump said he did so because Comey was not doing a good job, and in fact had conducted a sham investigation of "Crooked Hillary" providing her with a "get out of jail free card," after noting in a news conference that she had violated the law in her handling of classified emails.
Comey also is under investigation by Michael Horowitz, Inspector General of the Department of Justice. Horowitz announced last Jan. 12 that he would review Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation for possible "misconduct," and would issue a report on his findings.Some lawyers are predicting that Horowitz's findings will be explosive, and will identify Comey committing wrongdoing in his investigation.
xxx
By Florida Bill
The anti-Trump brigades, lead by Obama loyalists and Democrats embittered over the election of a Republican president, cannot stop throwing out balloons about Russian involvement in American activities and the recent election.
With that constant drumbeat concerning a Trump-Russian fairy tale, the Justice department has now turned those allegations over to a Special Prosecutor, Robert Mueller, for investigation and resolution.
So who does the legwork for this new detective? The answer: Mueller hires a staff of attorneys reporting to him along with agents of the FBI. Factually, it is the same FBI that has been investigating the allegation of collusion for the better part of a year and which has come up empty handed.
Evidence of Trump wrong doing? None has been found by the FBI. The chairmen of the various congressional intelligence committees have said the same. Gen. James Clapper, former National Director of Intelligence, has stated this on a number of occasions. The 76-year-old Clapper is sort of the big dog when it comes to intelligence matters. But, is anyone listening?
Democrats and the far left media, which are tethered at the hip, believe that they have one-upped President Trump with the special attorney, but I think that it really redounds to the actual benefit of President Trump and millions of supporters who recognize the outrageous bias of left wing Democrats, with their all-out assist from the press.
The naming of a Special Prosecutor was made by Ron Rosenstein, acting Attorney General for Jeff Sessions,who has recused himself from matters pertaining to Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election. Rosenstein is a well respected career prosecutor who urged President Trump to dump Comey for his incompetent handling of the Clinton email investigation. Rosenstein knows Mueller, having worked for many years with him and under him when Mueller was FBI director during the administrations of Presidents Bush and Obama. Mueller, 72, enjoys broad respect from both Republicans and Democrats for his honesty and bipartisanship. Mueller's integrity is the primary reason that I believe that his investigation will confirm that the Russian collusion attack is simply a lot of hot air.
It has been established with relative certainty that the Russians hacked into emails flying about the offices of the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 campaign. They revealed much of what everyone suspected--that Mrs. Clinton was an unlikeable lady; petty, disingenuous and untrustworthy. They even referred to Clinton's opponent Bernie Sanders as a "doofus." All of that was uncovered by FBI agents, but information about any alleged "collusion" with Trump was never found during nearly a year of the gumshoe techniques of the former Director James Comey.
Trump believes that Comey is dishonest and
and that he tossed the case against Hillary Clinton, and is a "showboat" and a "grand stander," and a bit of a "nut job." I don't think that Rosenstein disagrees with that assessment. Trump fired Comey on May 8, and has called the "collusion" investigation the "single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history."
Another question arises following the appointment of the special investigator. Will Mueller be examining the behavior of Mrs. Clinton as part of the entire probe? There is plenty in that corner to keep him busy. It appears quite clear that Mrs. Clinton engaged in criminal mishandling of emails, and corrupted the operations of the billion-dollar "Clinton Foundation," but received a pass from prosecution from James Comey, who was joined in his deception by his superior, Attorney Gen. Loretta Lynch. Currently, Mrs. Clinton and Lynch remain the target of misconduct in pending court cases filed by Judicial Watch, a government nonpartisan watchdog organization. In addition, Comey's apparent misconduct is under investigation by Inspector General Michael Horowitz of the Department of Justice.
The fact is that Mrs. Clinton broke the law and skated. Others have violated similar laws--like Gen. David Petraeus who shared classified documents with a woman friend, and was prosecuted. Of course, a few years ago, Comey came down hard on Martha Stewart and sent her to jail for supposedly lying to the FBI, but then he declined to prosecute Sandy Berger, a friend of both the President and Mrs. Clinton, after he pirated secret documents from a federal facility.
If Mueller is free to examine all related matters, he can be expected to find out who among the Obama loyalists was "unmasking" private conversations of the Trump team in what has been called "incidental surveillance." We know that the former FBI chief ignored that spying. Maybe Susan Rice, the former National Security adviser to Obama, was responsible. Currently, she is refusing to appear before a senate intelligence committee and explain the "unmasking" surveillance.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump labeled Mrs. Clinton as "Crooked Hillary'' and said repeatedly that she should be in jail. In one of the final debates, Trump pointed a finger at Clinton and promised the millions of viewers that if he was elected (which he was) he would direct his Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her handling of classified documents, and do the job which Comey refused to do.
I do not think that it is over yet. Trump followers are calling upon the President to keep that promise.
xxx
.
By Florida Bill
James Comey is out as FBI director and President Trump discharged him. The President acted within his constitutional authority and was guided by the advice and recommendations from the Attorney General and his deputy and many others. "He didn't do a good job," and that's it, said President Trump.
Comey responded professionally to news of his termination, and in a note to coworkers said that the President acted within his authority to fire an FBI director for any reason or for no reason. "I'll be fine," he wrote.
The indisputable facts are that the towering six-foot, eight inch, neatly-attired Comey did a lousy job and is one of the few figures in Washington to raise the ire of both Democrats and Republicans during his reign. His miscues stretched way back to the unprofessional and questionable way in which he investigated the alleged criminal behavior of Mrs. Clinton in her handling of classified documents while she was Secretary of State.
In that "probe," he gave her a pass from prosecution and oiled the way for her candidacy. He gave her the get-out-of-jail-free card even though he articulated her actions in such a way as to indicate they clearly were criminal and supported prosecution. Along with his misstating the law and recommending against prosecution, it was not a decision which Comey was authorized under the law to make. Prosecutorial decisions belong solely to the Attorney General as head of the United States Department of Justice, and that AG was the incompetent, partisan Loretta Lynch.
After cries from both parties of incompetence during the campaign, Comey has now taken on the role of martyr. Trump's cashiering of the 56-year-old FBI director is supposedly an attempt to quash the so-called investigation into possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, according to Democrats' latest playbook. The claim of collusion has already been denied frequently by foremost government intelligence officials, including James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence. It is simply empty rhetoric from unhappy Democrats, lead by "Crying" Chuck Schumer, minority leader in the Senate.
If there is any collusion going on, it will be found in Comey's relationship and dealings with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who was the head of the department of Justice and Comey's superior. Key evidence of this unwholesome relationship has recently been revealed by the New York Times newspaper and by U.S. Senator Charles Grassley with the existence of written documents, possibily emails, that stated that Lynch was providing "political cover" for Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign.
There are many factors which point to a whole bag of partisan misdeeds by AG Lynch, an appointee in 2013 of President Obama. As head of the Department of Justice, she was calling the shots and in the fall of 2015, when allegations of Mrs. Clinton mishandling of classified emails and her pay-for-play leadership of the billion dollar Clinton Foundation became public, Lynch knew what she had to do. To keep Democratic leaders, including her boss, President Obama, happy, she had to assure that Mrs. Clinton would become the nation's 45th president. And she did it, but Clinton got beat anyway.
Lynch is a career prosecutor whose only job has been on public payrolls. Together with Obama, and her predecessor Eric Holder, they were tethered together as alums of Harvard law school. They are tight as peas in a pod, and the idea of Clinton not winning the presidency was anathema to them.
With the intense public clamor about Clinton and her email mishandling and her other faux pas', and Clinton's high profile, Attorney General Lynch should have authorized a grand jury investigation, but she declined to do so. Without one, the FBI was limited in its ability to compel testimony from witnesses and to subpoena documents. Despite all of the noise, the investigation simply had no real legs. Compounding the mish mash, Comey, with Lynch's blessings, handed out grants of immunity like sugar candy to potential witnesses in exchange for testimony; and then these witnesses reportedly declined interviews.
Mrs. Clinton was never interviewed by the FBI under oath and it is believed by many lawyers that Clinton herself was given immunity from prosecution by Comey with the blessings of Lynch--and probably Obama--who had publicly endorsed Clinton as his successor.
A few days prior to Comey's announcement on July 5 of last year that Mrs. Clinton would not be prosecuted, Lynch met privately with Mrs. Clinton's husband, the former President, on an airplane in Phoenix. The substance of the conversation is not known, but the meeting constituted an egregious and improper violation of legal ethics and honesty, and observers have strong reasons to believe that the Clinton "fix" had been put in. In past years, President Clinton had appointed Lynch to high jobs and higher pay inside the Justice Department, where she had been one of his fans. In the give and take of government, there are always "paybacks," and "thank yous."
In announcing at a news conference that Mrs. Clinton would not be prosecuted, Comey assumed the role of Attorney General in absolving Clinton of any and all wrongdoing. He ignored completely the allegations of corruption levied against her concerning the Clinton Foundation with its huge payroll for friends and Clinton loyalists. His usurping of authority, apparently with Lynch's approval, smacks of impropriety and may even be a violation of law.
Following the election of President Trump, Democrats were beside themselves with bitterness. They piled the the blame on Comey himself for the defeat. Harrry Reid, former majority leader of the Senate, and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York, blamed Comey and demanded his termination. The Democratic senator from Minnesota called for a Congressional investigation of the FBI director. Clinton, herself, recently took to television and said she would be President, but for James Comey, and insiders have added that she would have fired him on her first day as President.
Later, when it was determined that the Russians had actually hacked into Democratic committee emails and made them public,which cast an embarrassing light upon candidate Clinton as a disingenuous and unlikable person, Democrats had a new rallying cry. They quickly began pushing the scenario that Trump loyalists colluded with deputies to President Putin in an effort to bring her down. After Trump fired Comey, Democrats did a 180-degree turn around and said that Trump acted to stamp out the so-called "Russian" investigation. because he had been working hand in hand with the Kremlin to defeat Hillary. It is all political nonsense, but that is their claim, even though intelligence experts say there is no evidence of it. Still out there is the pending investigation into possible misconduct by James Comey which was undertaken last January by Michael Horowitz, Inspector General of the Department of Justice. That should be interesting and if Horowitz is on the up and up, we will hear plenty about the "cover up and protection" policies which Loretta Lynch provided for Hillary Clinton.
Also, both Clinton and Loretta Lynch are being investigated by Judicial Watch, a bipartisan government watchdog organization which has named Clinton as a defendant in more than 20 lawsuits now pending. A good number have been initiated with demands for information under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Also, still on the table, is Trump's promise-- which he made on television during the final debate with Clinton-- that after his election he would direct his Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the conduct and behavior of "Crooked Hillary"relative to her handling of classified emails. Trump said many times that Clinton broke the law and should never have never been permitted to run for the high office of president, and should be in jail. .
It seemed at the time he may have dropped his pledge to put Hillary in jail in the magnanimousness of victory, but in today's acerbic political world, with its ever growing tangle of investigations, he may revisit the idea.
xxx
By Florida Bill
In recent weeks and months, we have come to know Ms. Susan Rice, National Security Adviser to President Obama, but not necessarily to love her. There are indications that she has had her fingers into the sneaky surveillance of members of the new President's team, and her testimony is being sought by the Senate's Intelligence Committee.
Senators want Ms. Rice to explain the country's ability to tap into the telephone conversations of various members of Donald Trump's inner circle, possibly even those involving the President himself.
When that eavesdropping occurs, it is known as "incidental" surveillance. When identities are revealed, that constitutes "unmasking." When the "unmasking" and the contents of a conversation are memorialized and leaked to the media, that is a felony and the "leaker," if caught, can be sent to prison.
In the case of General Flynn, who was fired by President Trump after serving for a few weeks as his National Security Adviser, that is what happened to him and it appears that Susan Rice has the answers as to who, when and how that "unmasking" took place and the senate's Intelligence committee has requested her testimony under oath. She is declining to appear, but it is expected that she will be compelled to testify pursuant to an enforceable subpoena.
During an interview with media reporters, Rice said that she "had no knowledge" about the Flynn "incidental" surveillance and the leak to the Washington Times newspaper. Later, however, Rice confirmed that she was familiar with telephone surveillance and "unmasking" of incidentals and when it occurs, she has said, it is always done in the name of national security.
Rice, 52, is on the road to acquiring a reputation as a liar and manipulator of the truth. She is like a protégé of Hillary Clinton who has a well-established record of dishonesty during her more than 40 years in the public eye. The late New York Times columnist, William Saffire, once described Clinton as a "congenital liar."
Rice, though a good deal younger, is following in Clinton's footsteps. We now have two ladies from the Obama administration who have distinguished themselves by their deceptive behavior. Former Secretary of State Clinton, who ran unsuccessfully for President twice, has picked up the nickname of "Crooked Hillary." Now, we have Ms. Rice, whom critics and observers of political machinations are referring to as "Sneaky Susan."
Rice is the recipient of a Bachelor's degree from Stanford University in 1986 and a Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford in 1990. No doubt that she has brain power, but she fumbles big time when it comes to telling the truth.
As a young woman, Rice got going in political circles in the 1990s doing work for the Clintons, and she served as the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during President Clinton's second term. She hung around doing assorted political chores for Democrats and in 2008 with the recommendation of Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, was named the nation's 27th Ambassador to the United Nations, and it was in that arena where her disingenuous behavior spiraled upward.
Following the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2011, in which four Americans including an ambassador were slaughtered, Rice made the round of TV stations explaining that the attack was a spontaneous eruption by Muslims angered because of an Internet video which demeaned Islam and the Prophet Mohammad. The story was rubbish with an admission of the true cause--terrorism--coming some days later. Rice offered the lie in support for Obama's fiction that his administration was winning in the battle against Al Qaida, and that terrorists were on the run.
In 2013, Obama made the pliable Rice his National Security chief and she did his bidding in 2014 by informing the nation that army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had served his country in Afghanistan with "honor and distinction." It was a bold distortion, endorsed by Obama, who welcomed the soldier home in a Rose Garden ceremony at which Bergdahl's father praised the "merciful Allah," for bringing his son home.
The story which Rice was hiding was that Bergdahl had deserted his unit in the mountains of Afghanistan, and surrendered to, or was captured by, the Taliban, where he was held for five years. Obama ordered the release of five terrorists from Guantanamo prison in exchange for Bergdahl. The president authorized the exchange deal in contravention of a law which had obligated him to notify the Congress of such an exchange at least 30 days prior to its execution. Currently, Bergdahl is in a military prison awaiting court marshal on charges of desertion and of aiding the enemy. He faces a sentence of life in prison.
And Susan Rice, where is she these days? She's just hanging with Democratic friends, hoping to duck all questions about her behavior and double talk as President Obama's key security adviser. But as they say, she can run, but she can't hide. Eventually, we'll learn the depth of her deception.
xxx
By Florida Bill
What ever became of the "investigation" into the gumshoe techniques used by FBI Director James Comey in his examination of Hillary Clinton and her handling of classified emails? She was reckless and sloppy, but committed no crime, reported Comey in a highly publicized news conference last July.
Because of accusations that he had caved in to pressures and had given Mrs. Clinton a get-out-of-jail-free card, Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced last Jan.12 that he would review the matter from start to finish and determine if there was misconduct on the part of Comey.
Nearly four months have now passed and nothing from the IG. The office of the Inspector General exists to provide oversight and monitoring of the Department of Justice with the FBI and its fleet of well paid attorneys. Is this one of those "investigations" which is announced with great fanfare, but then just disappears like mist on a foggy day?
FBI Director Comey, an appointee of President Obama, began an investigation in the Fall of 2015 into Hillary Clinton's alleged mishandling of classified emails and documents when she was Secretary of State. Coupled with the allegations that she was fast and loose with sensitive emails were reports of her corrupt practices in administering the billion dollar "Clinton Foundation," and her granting of governmental favors to big money donors, including those from other countries.
During his probe, Comey passed out grants of immunity like pieces of chocolate to witnesses who then reportedly declined to be interviewed. There was no grand jury and computers were withheld from FBI scrutiny. Then Comey's boss,
Atty Gen. Lynch, held a sneak and improper meeting with Clinton's husband, the former President, raising allegations that a "fix" had been put in.
On July 5, 2016, as the presidential campaign was on fire, the 56-year-old Comey held a news conference to announce that the FBI could not recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton. He dodged any mention of the "Clinton Foundation" and Democrats celebrated her exoneration.
The smoke and stench from the FBI determination did not go away and 11 days before the November 8 election, Comey said that he was reopening the email investigation because of the discovery of 650,000 emails connecting Mrs. Clinton in some way to the disgraced ex-congressman Anthony Weiner who was the estranged husband of her closest aide, Huma Mahmood Abedin. But then a few days later and three days before the election, he said that the new emails had been reviewed and that Clinton was in the clear of any wrong doing. At that point, President Trump noted that reviewing 650,000 emails in a few days was virtually impossible. Following the election and the unanticipated victory of Donald Trump, IG Horowitz got into the controversy with his news conference announcing the investigation of the FBI director. Because of Comey's peculiar detective methods, Horowitz said that he will explore "allegations that Justice department or FBI policies or procedures were not followed." ... and that when finished he will issue a report detailing what has been found. He explained further that he would review Comey's behavior, and that the investigation would be broad, and thorough and that he could recommend criminal charges for anyone found to have violated a law. An investigation of the successor to J. Edgar Hoover is a pretty unusual occurrence, and it seems strange that it has apparently lost traction--and media attention--so quickly.
Both Republicans and Democrats have called for Comey to resign. One Democratic senator proposed that a congressional committee investigate Comey, claiming that his blunders and misconduct caused Mrs. Clinton to lose the election.
After the dust of the election had lifted and Trump was inaugurated, it was anticipated that the new President would tell Comey to resign, but reports circulated that the new President met with Comey and decided to retain him in the job. Some Trump supporters have continued to urge him to discharge Comey and to appoint South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, an aggressive attorney and a former state prosecutor, to replace him. At this point, it appears that Director Comey is just "twisting in the wind."
During a recent hearing by the senate's judiciary committee, Comey testified that he has been interviewed relevant to the IG examination of his behavior and that, surprisingly, he thought that the review of his leadership in the email investigation was a good idea. "I felt that I did everything right, but if I did something wrong, I want to know about it," he said.
I haven't seen any report from Horowitz on the findings or status of his investigation. However, he promised to deliver a report at the conclusion of the review, and he should be held to his word. In Washington, too many promises of one thing or another, seem to magically disappear. So we'll see. xxx
