GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Comey’s dirty track record

by

Former FBI Director James Comey once served the Bush administration and is supposed to be a “registered Republican”. But some gay guys marry women and are supposed to be straight. Sometimes, the declaration doesn’t matter – or is there for cover.

I’ll provide some highlights of Comey’s career, then details. First, the highlights. Or should I say lowlights? As I realized everything that Comey has been into and how political he is, my jaw dropped.

  • Comey helped the Clintons to escape justice over Bill’s pardon of Marc Rich.
  • Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Valerie Plame affair. (A bizarre mess that ended in the prosecution of Scooter Libby, and the political tar-and-feathering of the Bush administration.)
  • Comey prosecuted Martha Stewart. (This may be OK; but I will show that it sets up the irony/hypocrisy of his later saving Hillary from prosecution.)
  • Comey helped the Clintons in the Sandy Berger investigation, by limiting its scope.
  • Comey limited the government’s actions to punish a corrupt auditor, KPMG.
  • Comey obstructed the Bush administration’s post-9/11 efforts to do warrantless surveillance. That could be a great thing; except that
    1. his actions were surrounded by allegations of lying and usurpation of power; and
    2. he went on to happily serve an Obama presidency that did far worse things than Bush, in terms of warrantless surveillance.
  • Comey served as General Counsel of a scandal-ridden defense contractor, then a Director of a scandal-ridden bank. (I don’t have anything strong here; mentioned for completeness.)
  • And then as FBI Director, of course, Comey knew Hillary was guilty but usurped authority and blocked her prosecution, turning the statutes on their head in the process.

If I missed anything, please let us know in the comments. For example, did Comey play any part in Hillary’s Uranium One fiasco? (UPDATE: Yes, indirectly. It involved Clinton Foundation corruption. Charles Ortel points out that Comey has repeatedly been on-point to investigate that corruption and has refused to do so, giving it a pass.)

Some of Comey’s actions might be defensible. But looking at the overall pattern: I personally conclude that Comey is a longtime Democrat operative, as well as a liar-when-it-suits-him.

Now for details. [Read more…]

Let the DOJ appoint another special counsel

by

…to look into the Obama administration’s surveillance of its political opponents.

  • whether it was truly “incidental” to legitimate (other) concerns, and/or done under FISA warrants
  • whether FISA warrants were obtained properly (rather than relying on, say, a “dossier” hacked together by a foreign intelligence agency as a political favor)
  • whether NSA Susan Rice, an Obama White House operative who apparently ordered the “unmasking” of Trump associates’ names in the surveillance data, did so for honest and legal reasons
  • whether the subsequent distribution of the “unmasked” intelligence was necessary, legal and proper
  • and who leaked it (along with Trump campaign information) to the media and/or the Hillary campaign, possibly committing felonies in the process.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. We, the American people, need to know exactly what the Obama administration was up to with its domestic spying on Americans and especially on its political opponents.

And if illegal unmasking, distribution or leaking occurred: let there be indictments.

UPDATE: Tucker Carlson has a point: President Trump could have blocked the DOJ’s special counsel for Russia. And President Hillary would have (for anything connected to her). She would be too afraid of where an independent investigator might go. Trump isn’t.

I notice Trump calling it a witch hunt, but that’s a slag on the Left’s hysteria; not on the DOJ or Director Mueller.

The Swamp Strikes Back

by

Via HotAir: Yet another media football we are supposed to care about.

Former FBI Director Comey, who in 2016 usurped authority most improperly and to the advantage of one political party (their presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, not being indicted), and who was justly fired last week, is dishing dirt on the man who fired him.

First, some key details:

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to [Comey’s account]. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey that Mr. Flynn had done nothing wrong, according to [Comey’s account]. Mr. Comey did not say anything to Mr. Trump about curtailing the investigation, replying only: “I agree he is a good guy.”

In a statement, the White House denied the version of events…

“While the president has repeatedly expressed his view that General Flynn is a decent man who served and protected our country, the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn,” the statement said. “The president has the utmost respect for our law enforcement agencies, and all investigations. This is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between the president and Mr. Comey.”

…The Feb. 14 meeting took place just a day after Mr. Flynn was forced out of his job…

To review:

  • Even Comey agrees that former NSA Flynn is well-meaning and patriotic.
  • All the same, President Trump fired Flynn.
  • After he did that, and according to only one side of the story, Trump then wondered out loud why Flynn would still be a matter for investigation.

But this is what the New York Times put in the lede:

President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into [Flynn]…

That’s taking sides, rather a lot.

I can see why Trump’s opponents think they’re onto something. POTUS should never discuss ongoing investigations with the FBI, lest their be any hint of improper influence. If Comey’s account is true, Trump made a mistake.

But that is no small “if”. Even apart from this incident, Comey has a recent track record of showboating, misunderstanding situations and improper behavior. And he was just fired. Narcissistic, Disgruntled And Disgraced Ex-Employee Dishing Whatever Dirt He Thinks He Has #1,499,503,777. Yawn, yawn, yawn.

The larger picture is this. President Trump wants to Drain The Swamp and Make America Great Again. That’s why half of America elected him. Also, the fact that Trump is an amateur politician, NOT a professional. People thought it would be refreshing.

The Swamp, naturally, doesn’t want to be drained. And it owns the Controlled Media: for example, it owns the New York Times via Carlos Slim, an immigration activist and Trump opponent (and alleged corrupt businessperson and/or drug lord). And so we’re treated to these accounts, which are then picked up by The Swamp’s many representatives in Congress.

There are going to be a lot of these kerfuffles to come. Trump is a sloppy, amateur politician. And The Swamp is determined to derail his reform agenda, by making a mountain of every mistake that they would gladly cover up for one of their own (Obama or Hillary).

In the end, either The Swamp will win, or Trump will. It’s out of my hands.

UPDATE: Mark Steyn (via commenter KCRob):

if this partially read memo is as the Times characterized it (“Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation”), that would be a very serious matter. Comey had several options:

1) He could have reported Trump’s attempted interference to the Department of Justice (as he was obliged to do);

2) He could have disclosed it to the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr;

3) He could have resigned on principle.

Instead, he did nothing…

In other words: More Comey impropriety! Either the man or his story (at least) is belied by the fact that he did nothing at the time, except write a Note to Self.

UPDATE: Rush has a point: Whatever Trump is alleged to have done in the Flynn investigation is far less than what Obama did in the Hillary investigation.

In my view: that wouldn’t make it OK, but double standards aren’t OK either.

UPDATE: Yes, Comey has a track record as a Democrat agent who lies to promote himself and help Clintons escape justice. I wondered. Sigh.

Hollywood Puritans’ Outrage-du-Jour

by

At a dumb celebrity event, a dumb celebrity made a joke about the stunning and brave Caitlyn Jenner.

Now Caitlyn Jenner of course. What a year she’s had! She became a role model for trans people everywhere, showing great bravery in breaking down barriers and destroying stereotypes. She didn’t do a lot for women drivers, but you can’t have everything.”

Cue the sanctimonious social left outrage:

And so on.

[Read more…]

Republican remarks on lack of civility in the workplace; is immediately attacked as fanatical moralist

by

Mike Huckabee said it was “trashy” to throw the f-word around in a professional business environment and the blogosphere, both left and right, has picked this as the “Really Ridiculous Thing to Get Outraged Over” for today.

“In a business meeting … in Iowa, you would not have people who would just throw the f-bomb and use gratuitous profanity in a professional setting,” Huckabee said. “In New York, not only do the men do it, but the women do it!””This is worse than locker-room talk,” Huckabee added. “This would be considered totally inappropriate to say these things in front of a woman and for a woman to say them in a professional setting. … As we would say in the South: ‘That’s just trashy.'”

I don’t care for Mike Huckabee, and I strongly oppose his presidential aspirations. But this seems like a really silly thing to go nanners about. For Set’s sake, he expressed an opinion about vulgarity, he didn’t propose to outlaw speech he found offensive (like a leftist would do).

FWIW I think the world would be a better place without people using the f-word in its various forms as rhetorical punctuation; I agree that such use marks one as trashy, whether man or woman.

As the Bergdahl Narrative Falls Apart, Obama Administration Turns Its Venom on the Troops

by

One might have been tempted to think the Obama Administration had hit rock-bottom when they called Bowe Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers liars and “swift-boaters*” for disputing the Administration’s official line that Bergdahl served with “honor and distinction.” (Maybe with the Taliban.) That seemed to be as low they could go.

Then, somebody went and tossed them a shovel.

An administration spokesman (for the Department of Housing and Urban Development) took to Teh Twitters and called those soldiers (the ones that didn’t desert and collaborate with the Taliban)… “psychopaths.”

Name-calling has been the administration’s modus operandi for dealing with critics since Day 1. Curious as to why the president is keeping his college records secret? You’re a “birther.” Skeptical about the president’s Draconian environmental laws? You’re a “climate change denier.” And the perennial catchall for any critic of the president’s policies… “racist!”

Administration insiders apparently believe that criticism of the Bergdahl Affair has nothing to do with honest disagreement about the wisdom of turning loose five of the Taliban’s top generals for one deserter. They honestly believe it all springs from personal animosity toward the president. “[All criticism in the Bergdahl matter] Obama aides say, is in their minds a proxy for the hatred toward the president.”

How simplistic this all is. There are no genuine arguments, only personal animus. Therefore, there is no need to argue in support of policies; simple name-calling of your opponents is sufficient.

* “Swiftboat” – verb. When knowledgeable people reveal an unpleasant truth about a Democrat that contradicts the official party narrative.

Is it Cynical to Think Obama Isn’t Really Mad About the VA Scandal?

by

Old and Busted: #BringBackOurGirls

New Hotness: #MadAsHell

“Madder than hell” and “nobody is madder than me” are the Obama Regime’s latest attempt to reduce a serious issue to a catchy hashtag; in this case, a sort of verbal hashtag to let everyone know the president is really “engaged” on the scandal at the VA.

To Obama and his handlers, the VA scandal isn’t that veterans died while waiting for treatment and bureaucrats covered it up with phony waiting lists.  The scandal is that someone is making Obama look bad. Fixing the problems at the VA doesn’t matter; the goal is to manage public perception so that the scandal doesn’t harm his presidency.

So, get those low-information voters thinking, “Wow, he must really be mad as hell about this. I’m kind of mad, too. He can relate to people like me. What a swell president.”

Is he really angry? Hard to say. Will he really do anything to fix the actual problem and hold those responsible accountable? If history is any guide, probably not.

Chicago’s murder rate drops – follow-up

by

In an earlier post on Chicago’s declining murder rate, the decline didn’t seem to prove anything about gun control or gun ownership (in any direction) and I asked “So, what happened?”

V the K suggested a different explanation by sending this link, The Truth About Chicago’s Crime Rates. Short answer: Someone has been cooking the books.

On October 28, a pathologist ruled the death of Tiara Groves a homicide…the Chicago Police Department should have counted Groves’s death as a murder. And it did. Until December 18. On that day, the police report indicates, a lieutenant overseeing the Groves case reclassified the homicide investigation as a noncriminal death investigation…

The change stunned officers. Current and former veteran detectives who reviewed the Groves case at Chicago’s request were just as incredulous.

Was it just a coincidence, some wondered, that the reclassification occurred less than two weeks before the end of the year, when the city of Chicago’s final homicide numbers for 2013 would be tallied? …

For the case of Tiara Groves is not an isolated one. Chicago [Magazine, the authors] conducted a 12-month examination of the Chicago Police Department’s crime statistics going back several years…We identified 10 people…whose cases were reclassified…, downgraded to more minor crimes, or even closed as noncriminal incidents—all for illogical or, at best, unclear reasons.

This troubling practice goes far beyond murders…Chicago found dozens of other crimes, including serious felonies such as robberies, burglaries, and assaults, that were misclassified, downgraded to wrist-slap offenses, or made to vanish altogether…

Does the problem start at the top? Evidently:

Many officers of different ranks and from different parts of the city recounted instances…One detective refers to the “magic ink”: the power to make a case disappear. Says another: “The rank and file don’t agree with what’s going on. The powers that be are making the changes.”

…sources describe a practice that has become widespread at the same time that top police brass have become fixated on demonstrating improvement in Chicago’s woeful crime statistics…

…the see-no-evil, hear-no-evil pols on Chicago’s City Council have mostly accepted the police department’s crime numbers at face value. So have most in the media. You can hardly turn on the news without hearing McCarthy or Mayor Rahm Emanuel proclaiming unquestioned: Murders down 18 percent in 2013! Overall crime down 23 percent! Twelve thousand fewer crime victims! “These days, everything is about media and public opinion,” says one longtime officer. “If a number makes people feel safe, then why not give it to them?”

There’s much more, including a Part 2 yet to come.

Sic Transit Gloria

by

How things can change in just 90 days.

90 days ago, the MFM, the Democrats, and the GOP Establishment stood as one in their hatred of the heretic, Senator Ted Cruz, for both standing against Obamacare and exposing his party leadership’s Kabuki Theater “opposition” to it.

90 days ago, Mr. Chris Christie, coming off his re-election victory, was being figuratively lauded with laurel wreaths and rose petals. He was the darling of the GOP Establishment, who all but proclaimed, “You tea baggers — with your crazy ideas about fiscal responsibility and your weird fetish for following the Constitution — may not like him, but you’ll get in line because Christie is popular!”

Now, Senator Ted Cruz looks prescient because Obamacare has proven every bit the disaster he warned about and more; and he looks principled for standing up to the leadership of his own party. Mr. Chris Christie, on the other hand, looks like an arrogant, bullying schmuck. And the GOP Establishment look like fools … well, even greater fools than usual… for rallying around a pro-Amnesty, pro-gun control, Obama-hugging schmuck as the savior of their party.

Hubris. gentlemen, look it up.

[Read more…]

The Obamacare implosion

by

A number of conservative commentators and writers have been speculating for some time how long it will be from the time it is implemented until Obamacare collapses under the weight of its own poorly-conceived structure.  I think few have anticipated the situation we’ve been witnessing in the past two weeks, where first the administration announces that businesses won’t have to comply with the “employer mandate” until January 2015, and more recently, that the administration won’t be investigating eligibility for Obamacare subsidies, thereby opening the door to massive fraud and abuse.

Although the reasons that the Obama administration is making these changes are cynically transparent to anyone who realizes that the Democrats don’t want to lose big in the 2014 election cycle when voters will have a chance to express their displeasure with Obamacare at the ballot box once again, the more interesting question at the moment concerns the meaning and implications of the administration’s latest maneuvers for its ability to enact policies and govern going forward.

I think some people believe the public is paying closer attention to all this than is most likely the case, but that doesn’t mean I’m not enjoying the triumphalism and mockery of the administration’s opponents.  After the last election, it’s refreshing to see the administration increasingly on the defensive over the actions it has taken with regard to its signature piece of legislation.  Even better is getting to watch the likes of Dick Durbin (D-IL) admit that the disastrous bill “needs changes and improvements.”

But beyond getting to see and hear the bill’s defenders feel the heat, it is gratifying to see pieces like this one speculating that the Republicans in Congress may wise up enough about the administration’s actions to finally kill “immigration reform”:

“They have shown no respect for traditional Constitutional separation of powers,” Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., told National Review‘s John Fund about the impact of the Obamacare delays on the immigration debate, “and that makes it difficult to pass laws where the fear is that they will simply ignore the parts they don’t like.”

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, who is on the House Judiciary Committee and had been a member of a bipartisan group working on immigration reform, echoed Roe’s concerns on Meet the Press. “In fact, if you look at this Obamacare debacle that they have right now, this administration is actually deciding when and where to actually enforce the law. And that’s what some of us in the House are concerned about. If you give to this administration the authority to decide when they’re going to enforce the law, how they’re going to enforce the law … what’s going to happen is that we’re going to give legalization to 11 million people and Janet Napolitano is going to come to Congress and tell us that the border is already secure and nothing else needs to happen.”

Even the Wall Street Journal is writing about the administration’s actions in language reminiscent of that we saw with the rise of the Tea Party four years ago:

President Obama’s decision last week to suspend the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act may be welcome relief to businesses affected by this provision, but it raises grave concerns about his understanding of the role of the executive in our system of government

Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.

This matter—the limits of executive power—has deep historical roots. During the period of royal absolutism, English monarchs asserted a right to dispense with parliamentary statutes they disliked. King James II’s use of the prerogative was a key grievance that lead to the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The very first provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689—the most important precursor to the U.S. Constitution—declared that “the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.”

Needless to say we can certainly hope that this lively piece by Tony Katz on Townhall.com is more than just a humorous reflection on the administration’s latest foibles:

For years the Right has said that the Obama Administration was thuggish, was hell bent on revenge, and was vindictive.

The IRS scandal was perhaps the tipping point. At first, The Left tried claimed that not just conservative and tea party groups, but progressives as well had been targeted. But, as the Inspector General’s report showed, that was not the case. Obama’s minions attacked Americans who disagreed with him. The Left knows they voted for hate.

Obama is not the man (messiah) they thought he was. The Left was blinded by his skin color and duped by mainstream media.

But now they know he lies. And now they know he surrounds himself with sycophants, ready and willing to lie for him, in poetry and prose.

Lets not let them ever forget it.