Tarnished reputations of the FBI and Justice Department, countenanced by the media

Roger L. Simon writes,

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, the election of Hillary Clinton will be a moral and legal catastrophe unprecedented in the history of our country from which it may never recover. Sound excessive? Think what you wish, but the fact of the matter is the USA will have an unindicted criminal as president and no one knows what the consequences will be.

With each passing day it becomes clearer the investigation of the Hillary Clinton email scandal was such a sham that it did far more than merely tarnish the reputations of the FBI and the Department of Justice. It distorted our legal system beyond recognition.

The FBI and Justice Department have apparently been used by one political party to keep the other out of power by covert manipulation of our system. That means these institutions have been turned on their heads into instruments of state oppression extraordinarily close to those used by totalitarian regimes.

...With tens of thousands of emails deliberately "bleached," many concerning the national security of our country, this outrage (scandal is far too weak a word) makes Watergate and its 14-minute tape erasure seem like a minor kerfuffle. And yet most of the media—notably and ironically the Washington Post, which made its reputation exposing Nixon—barely lift an investigative finger. If they were serious about the role of the Fourth Estate, EmailGate would be the biggest story they ever covered. It would be all hands on deck.

But of course it isn't, because, like the FBI and the DOJ, most of the supposed wise men and women of our media have decreed that it not be. They believe that continued Democratic Party rule under Hillary Clinton is for the "better good" and therefore even the outright sabotage of our legal system can be countenanced, even surreptitiously applauded, if necessary for the cause.

Read more here.

Dubious agreements

Andrew McCarthy continues to be astonished at the actions of the FBI and Justice Department in the Hillary email scandal.

If Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were bent on destroying potential evidence, that is a highly disturbing risk they should have been made to run on their own. No good could come from the FBI’s participating in the destruction. We are not talking here about illegal narcotics or explosives — items that could be dangerous to the public if needlessly preserved after their investigative relevance has been exhausted. We’re talking about laptop computers. Even if the FBI and Justice Department truly were convinced (against what appears to be the weight of the evidence) that there is no prosecutable case against anyone in the Clinton e-mail scandal, it is always possible that new information could emerge that would revive the case. Under such circumstances, the computers could have had renewed relevance and their destruction would have been highly problematic. How would it help the FBI to have had a hand in that?

Moreover, as the FBI and the Justice Department well knew, Clinton’s private e-mails are the subject of congressional oversight inquiries and Freedom of Information Act claims against the government that are being litigated in federal court. Again, why under those circumstances would the Justice Department and FBI agree not only that the evidence should be destroyed but, reportedly, that the FBI itself would do the destroying? We are repeatedly told that Mrs. Clinton and her underlings were not given special treatment, that this investigation was handled like any other. Are there other cases in which the Justice Department and FBI make such agreements?

Read more here.

Deception

Will the FBI refer Hillary Clinton to the Justice Department for prosecution? It is looking more and more likely. The FBI Director must decide if a crime happened. He has a history of integrity. It will be up to the president to decide how much leniency to give her. Obama is pretending to warmly support her, but is he readying us for a Pontius Pilate hand-washing?

Do you feel safe?

Do you feel safe from ISIS? That is one of the questions Ben Shapiro asks at Breitbart.

Obama Said You Were Safe From ISIS. On the day before ISIS terrorists attacked Paris, Obama said, “We have contained them.” On the day of the San Bernardino ISIS-inspired terrorist attack, Obama assured Americans that they were safe from ISIS. He told CBS, “ISIL will not pose an existential threat to us…The American people should feel confident that, you know, we are going to be able to defend ourselves and make sure that, you know, we have a good holiday and go about our lives.” He said that at the same time that one of the San Bernardino terrorists, Tashfeen Malik, pledged her allegiance to ISIS on Facebook. At the same exact time.

Obama Said You Could Trust The Government To Screen Immigrants. President Obama has derisively mocked Republicans for wariness over the government’s ability to screen Syrian Muslim refugees. Obama says that we have a thorough screening process for Syrian Muslim refugees; he scoffed at GOP critics: “Apparently, they’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion.”

One of the San Bernardino terrorists, Malik, was in the country on a K-1 visa. That visa allows holders to come to the United States to get married, and as Breitbart reported, the State Department says that the K-1 visa does require that the fiancée “must meet some of the requirements of an immigrant visa.”

Oopsies.

Obama Thinks The Government Is Great At Tracking Down Terror Leads. President Obama repeatedly assures us that the government is doing amazing work in tracking down anti-terror leads. Surely that’s true. That doesn’t mean you’re safe. The FBI didn’t have Syed Farook on a watch list or a no-fly list, even though according to CNN, he was “in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.” The suspects were watching ISIS propaganda online.

Because the Obama administration doesn’t take Islamic terrorism seriously – climate change is far more important – they have a long history of ignoring terror information. As Joel Pollak points out, the Obama administration still has not exploited the intelligence value of information obtained during the bin Laden raid, and they left the Benghazi consulate completely open after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2012, risking intelligence assets in the process.

Obama Thinks Taking Your Guns Will Stop Terrorists. Josh Earnest said yesterday that gun control was the best way to stop terrorists. Fox News’ Peter Doocy asked if Obama thought gun control could deter terrorism; Earnest explained, “Yes. The president believes that passing common sense gun laws that makes it harder for people with bad intentions to get guns, makes the country safer.” But we know that the San Bernardino terrorists bought their guns legally, then modified them in illegal fashion. They also had IEDs. California has some of the strictest gun control in the nation. That fact led Senator Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) (D-CA) to declare, idiotically, that “Sensible gun laws work. We’ve proven it in California and we are not going to give up.” She said this the day after the shooting in San Bernardino that prompted the conversation in the first place – the day after a bunch of unarmed people were shot while waiting four minutes for the cops to arrive.

Democrats Think They Can Disarm You Without Due Process. Well, over the past two days, Democrats have made it their chief talking point to blast Republicans for their failure to support removing guns from those on the terror watch list and no-fly list without due process of law.

...Neither Malik nor Farook were on the no-fly list or the terror watch list. There are, however, some 750,000 Americans on those lists. It requires no show of evidence to put someone on the list. But according to the left, mere presence on the list means we can remove guns from you in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Department of Justice Thinks Its Top Priority Is Prosecution of “Anti-Muslim” Speech.

The Media Don’t Care About Your Safety. The media keep parroting the administration’s lies about keeping Americans safe, but they couldn’t care less about that. Today, they demonstrated their willingness to enter the apartment of terrorists, without official permission, destroying evidence in their wake. As CNN ‘s law enforcement analyst said while watching all of this happen:

I don’t see any fingerprint dust on the walls where they went in there and checked for fingerprints for other people that might have been connected with these two. You’ve got documents laying all over the place; you’ve got shredded documents…You have passports, you’ve got drivers’ licenses — now you have thousands of fingerprints all over inside this crime scene…I am so shocked, I cannot believe it.

Read more here.

Giving cover to criminal behavior in American elections.

J. Christian Adams is the man to read to find the truth about the policies and actions of the US Justice Department and its Attorney General, Eric Holder. Adams writes,

A tragic phenomenon has affected President Obama since he became President. The more radical his audience, the more outrageous his lies.

At his appearance before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network, Obama called voter fraud claims “bogus” and said his Justice Department has “taken on more than 100 voting rights cases since 2009. ”

This is a bald faced lie. One need merely click this link at the Justice Department’s own website to see it is a lie. The truth is that 39 cases have been brought, not 100, and only 13 relate to protecting minority voting rights – usually foreign language ballot issues. The rest of the cases involve states sending out military ballots (an effort only begun after blistering coverage at PJ Media and elsewhere in 2010).

The audience Obama spoke to was already primed to believe outlandish fantasy and racially soaked paranoia. That the President of the United States set foot in the room tells you everything you need to know about the man.

Read more here.