The IG Report

So, the much awaited Inspector General from the Department of Justice is out. I haven’t yet read it, and may not bother. I increasingly detest bureaucratese, and since retiring, avoid it whenever possible. But it is important, and I’m interested, but Mollie Hemingway read it so I don’t have to. In my experience, she often comes to very much the conclusion I would, never exactly, but often close. So, what does she say, in one of those annoying Federalist 11 things posts? 🙂

  1. [And this is perhaps the most important takeaway of all. Who the author reports to and supports matters, especially when many things are subject to interpretation.]Learn How To Interpret An IG Report
    The best way to understand an inspector general (IG) report is less as a fiercely independent investigation that seeks justice and more like what you’d expect from a company’s human resources department. Employees frequently think that a company’s human resources department exists to serve employees. There’s some truth in that, but it’s more true that the human resources department exists to serve the corporation.

    At the end of the day, the HR department wants what’s best for the company. The FBI’s IG Michael Horowitz has a good reputation for good reason. But his report is in support of the FBI and its policies and procedures. As such, the findings will be focused on helping the FBI improve its adherence to those policies and procedures. Those who expected demands for justice in the face of widespread evidence of political bias and poor judgment by immature agents and executives were people unfamiliar with the purpose of IG reports.

    The IG is also a government bureaucrat producing government products that are supposed to be calm and boring. In the previous report that led to Andrew McCabe’s firing as deputy director of the FBI and referral for criminal prosecution, his serial lying under oath was dryly phrased as “lack of candor.” In this report detailing widespread problems riddled throughout the Clinton email probe, the language is similarly downplayed. That’s particularly true in the executive summary, which attempts to downplay the actual details that fill the report with evidence of poor decision-making, extreme political bias, and problematic patterns of behavior.

  2. FBI Agent Who Led Both The Clinton and Trump Probes Promised He’d Prevent Trump’s Election
  3. Comey Mishandled The Clinton Probe In Multiple Ways
  4. Comey Is Slippery And Weird
  5. FBI Has A Massive Leak Problem And Is Doing Nothing About It
  6. FBI Almost Got Away With Ignoring Clinton Emails On Weiner Laptop
  7. Breathtaking Bias
  8. Clinton Got Breaks, But Some Backfired
  9. Obama Lied When He Said He Knew Nothing About Hillary’s Secret E-mail Scheme
  10. FBI Agent Joked Clinton Associate Who Lied Would Never Be Charged, Questioned Legitimacy Of Investigation
  11. FBI’s Insulting Response

 

Other than the first, I just gave you Mollie’s bullet points, she documents them well, and you do need to read them, which you can in her article, 11 Quick Things To Know About The Inspector General’s Report.

And that last one is very troubling. The FBI doesn’t think it has a problem. It does, it has gotten to the point that a fair size plurality of the electorate is calling for its abolition, and with cause. It is out of the control of anybody, and its bullying practices are increasingly abhorrent, as it’s seen that it is no longer properly enforcing the law, but persecuting individually selected people.

After reading a fair number of reports in the last couple days, I think this is the fairest one, not glossing over problems, but neither contributing to the witchhunt. On the other hand, more often than not lately, the worst interpretations have been the most correct, but one continues to hope for a bottom to the swamp. But we may not be to it yet.

Advertisements

Police State Britain

Someplace back about two lifetimes ago, I read a book by Len Deighton, well actually more than one. But the one that jolted into my mind yesterday morning was “SS-GB”. It is historical fiction about the German occupation of Great Britain in 1941. It was a pretty dark novel, but a very good one. But it is what we call a counterfactual, something that could have happened, but didn’t.

Or did it?

The other day, Tommy Robinson was arrested for a public order offense, as near as I can tell for filming a bit too near to a courthouse, which was also possibly what an American would call a parole violation. Yes, he has been known to get into a bit of trouble for his views, more on that later. In any case, he was arrested, tried, convicted, and on his way to prison (with a 13-month sentence) within an hour. Not sure I think that’s exactly justice, but it’s damned well speedy.

Information is thin on this because the judge also issued a gag order on British writers, preventing them from writing/talking about the case. Leading to the following Tweets between a couple of quite influential Christian bloggers in Britain.

And that is quite frankly a chickenshit move by the judge, even if countenanced by the law. It’s not uncommon in Britain these days, especially where Muslim/ Islamists are concerned. And this trial was one of the Muslim ‘grooming’ gangs. It has gotten to the point where telling the truth is defined as a hate crime. Freedom of speech is mostly a memory for the cousins.

We, of course, revere the words, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That is our First Amendment, and we guard it jealously. We do so so that travesties like this don’t happen here. But that is only in the United States, think about that: ONLY in the United States.

It is this kind of thing we are talking about when we talk about America as the keeper of the flame of liberty, it is the simple truth. Without America, liberty will die, at the hand of the Globalists, the Islamists, or both.

I’m reminded of what the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King said in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may want to ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

It’s also useful to others, while this is primarily an American blog, between 20% and a third of our readers are British (mostly English), and we can fearlessly publish stories like this. We have done it here before, when a Reformed preacher, in Norwich, Norfolk was nearly prosecuted for handing out leaflets at a gay pride event a  few years ago. I won’t say we were instrumental, neither were we the only ones doing so.

Tommy Robinson is not a favorite of mine, probably because my British friends consider him far right. But, I’ve done a bit of a crash course today on him, and I’m not so sure they are right. The best interview I could find was with Dave Rubin, who is himself a liberal. An old style one, that listens and thinks, not the progressive trash yelling all the time we have now. Here is that interview, like most of Dave’s, it is a fairly long interview, but it’s also a complex subject.

See what I mean, he doesn’t sound all that different from most of us. I saw little there that I strongly disagree with, anyway.

Now, about that sentence, it seems pretty long for that offense to me, and if you listened to the interview, you already have some idea of what I’m going to say. There are quite a few people who are claiming it to be a disguised death sentence. I’m far from sure that they are not correct. You probably remember the man who was sentenced to a year for leaving a bacon sandwich at a mosque, he was killed within six months, the inquest was not released for almost two years.

Note that this is a screenshot. Caolan Robertson was forced to delete the Tweet because of the gag order. Stefan Molyneux:

The Nazis called this sort of thing Nacht und Nebel (night and fog), one of the more descriptive terms of art for it is “to disappear a person”. Both Stalin and Mao were also fond of the practice. Britain can’t quite pull that off yet but give them a bit of time and practice, I’m sure they’ll figure it out. It’s nothing less than a method of rewriting history.

But do understand, the right to free speech is inherently the right to offend. That is why in The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it“. (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire’s beliefs.

The only acceptable limitations are words that cause a panic, like shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, although note it is recommended if there is a fire in that theater, and is also fine if the theater is empty, the other one is what we call fighting words, which will almost inevitably lead to a physical fight or violence.

VDH Lays It Out

Sign at a protest outside Trump Tower in New York City, February 8, 2018. (Eduardo Munoz/Reuters)

Victor Davis Hanson in National Review brings the summary of the situation in the US now. It’s not a pleasant picture…

When legal bloodhounds and baying critics fail to take out Trump, what’s next? The Resistance wants Trump’s head — on the chopping block.

On the domestic and foreign fronts, the Trump administration has prompted economic growth and restored U.S. deterrence. Polls show increased consumer confidence, and in some, Trump himself has gained ground. Yet good news is bad news to the Resistance and its strange continued efforts to stop an elected president in a way it failed to do in the 2016 election.

Indeed, the aim of the so-called Resistance to Donald J. Trump is ending Trump’s presidency by any means necessary before the 2020 election. Or, barring that, it seeks to so delegitimize him that he becomes presidentially impotent. It has been only 16 months since Trump took office and, in the spirit of revolutionary fervor, almost everything has been tried to derail him. Now we are entering uncharted territory — at a time when otherwise the country is improving and the legal exposure of Trump’s opponents increases daily.

First came the failed lawsuits after the election alleging voting-machine tampering. Then there was the doomed celebrity effort to convince some state electors not to follow their constitutional duty and to deny Trump the presidency — a gambit that, had it worked, would have wrecked the Constitution. Then came the pathetic congressional boycott of the inauguration and the shrill nationwide protests against the president.

Anti- and Never-Trump op-ed writers have long ago run out of superlatives. Trump is the worst, most, biggest — fill in the blank — in the history of the presidency, in the history of the world, worse even than Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, or Hitler.

Next was the sad effort to introduce articles of impeachment. After that came weird attempts to cite Trump for violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. That puerile con was followed by plans to declare him deranged and mentally unfit so that he could be removed under the 25th Amendment. From time to time, Obama holdovers in the DOJ, National Security Council, and FBI sought to leak information, or they refused to carry out presidential orders.

As the Resistance goes from one ploy to the next, it ignores its string of failed prior efforts, forgetting everything and learning nothing. State nullification is no longer neo-Confederate but an any-means-necessary progressive tool. Suing the government weekly is proof of revolutionary fides, not a waste of California’s taxpayer dollars.

And more. Keep reading: Revolution and Worse to Come.

Mind, there’s not a word he writes that I disagree with, except that he might be overly optimistic.

 […]The Resistance and rabid anti-Trumpers have lost confidence in the constitutional framework of elections, and they’ve flouted the tradition by which the opposition allows the in-power party to present its case to the court of public opinion.

Instead, like the French revolutionaries’ Committee on Public Safety, the unhinged anti-Trumpists assume that they have lost public opinion, given their venom and crudity, and are growing desperate as every legal and paralegal means of removing Trump is nearing exhaustion. Robert Mueller is the last chance, a sort of Watergate or Abu Ghraib that could gin up enough furor to drive down Trump’s poll favorability to the twenties and thereby reduce his person to a demonic force deserving of whatever it gets.

That’s an acute observation, what we are seeing is the last act of the revolution, the lack of which differentiates the American Revolution from all others – the descent into tyranny. It was the original French revolution that first talked about equality of outcomes, while the British quiet revolution and American Revolution stressed equality under the law. It’s a huge difference, one between freedom and slavery.

VDH ends with this:

The danger to the country this time around is that the Left has so destroyed the old protocols of the opposition party that it will be hard to resurrect them when progressives return to power.

We are entering revolutionary times. The law is no longer equally applied. The media are the ministry of truth. The Democratic party is a revolutionary force. And it is all getting scary.

He may well be right. But in a way that begs the question. Is it proper for America to tolerate this fifth column in our midst? They have proved themselves at most disloyal to the ethos of the American Revolution and our founding documents.

The Week in Pictures

And that is the name of that tune!

And heeere’s Brenna!

And some friends! Call it a bonus!

From Bookworm, PowerLine and Twitchy, have a good day!

Jack and the California Beanstalk

Last month I referred to an article that Kurt Schlichter wrote in Townhall. As usual, when you’re over the target, the Colonel has been taking some flack. He clarified a few things a few days ago, especially in relation to the preposterous article that Jack Dorsey, one of the founders of Twitter endorsed. His new Townhall article is here.

Tech titan Jack Dorsey of San Francisco-based social media platform Twitter applauded an article in something called Medium in which some other hipster CEO described how liberals intend to crush Normal Americans into serfdom in a bloodless “civil war.”

Here it is.

Ready?

It will just sort of happen. Why? Because. Americans will simply decide to be like California because of reasons and phew, no more troublesome conservatives and Gaia is saved!

So basically, wishing.

Well, that’s a kind of war plan. Perhaps by unleashing the power of hoping so they can utterly subjugate the half of America that voted against Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit and drive the people who actually operate and defend this country into silent obedience.

Or not.

Now, I know what you’re saying. You’re saying, “Why do a bunch of San Francisco dorks think that 150 million Americans with 300 million guns are just going to give up their rights and their say in their own governance and submit to the commands of people who eat kale by choice?” That’s a fair question, and they have an answer.

Because you just are.

I didn’t say it was a good answer.

Recently I wrote a long column here describing the ugly realities of an actual Second Civil War – realities that are much uglier for the anti-freedom liberal side in terms of terrain, combat power, and morale. […]

That’s the article I referred, of course. And yes, I have read the article in Medium as well. It’s the most fantastical bit of wishful thinking I ever read. If that’s the level of this guy’s thinking he couldn’t properly manage a broom, And Jack is no better.

They want to silence you too, and every other patriot. But that’s a short-sighted tactic because people who are silenced, particularly uppity Americans who take their natural rights seriously, won’t just shrug and give up. They will stew and fume at the injustice of their oppression and then they will radicalize and then, because they have been wrongfully denied access to the means of participation in the governance of their own society, they will inevitably exercise their power in the only way left to them. They will rebel. They have before. Sometimes it’s peaceful – like by electing Donald Trump. But if peaceful doesn’t work, they are going to give not being peaceful a try. That’s just human nature.

This is where the liars pounce again with their fussy fauxtrage – leftists love violence directed at Normal Americans – but facts are facts. If the liberal plan to drive non-liberal Americans from the public square – the NRA, Laura Ingraham, and even Kevin Williamson silencing campaigns are just some recent examples – succeeds, it will only succeed for a little while. The fact is that if Normal people are barred from “legitimate” participation, they will participate “illegitimately.” Just ask the redcoats how taxation without representation worked out.

Here’s a hint: We Americans have good teeth and don’t eat spotted dick.

Bolt down that pressure cooker lid and turn up the fire, well ever see a steam explosion? This will be worse.

[…] But there are problems with using California as a role model, starting with the fact that California sucks.

Oh, it doesn’t suck for rich guys living by the beach like Jack and his hipster buddies. California is pretty great for bros like him. But the guys who cut his lawn and wash his Tesla and feed his pet pandas, well, not so much. The article claims, “California Democrats actually cared about average citizens.” Yeah, uh huh. Drive 10 miles inland from the beach and California dreamin’ becomes California nightmarin’.

California is a bankrupt failed state that is essentially Illinois with palm trees and better weather. Outside the coastal urban enclaves where Jack and his pals mingle, drinking kombucha and apologizing for their white privilege to their baffled servants, it’s a crowded, decaying disaster. Bums wander the streets, littering the sidewalks with human waste. Crime is rising. Illegal aliens abound, more welcome in the Golden State than actual Americans. California is an example all right, but a cautionary one.

In fact, the middle class in California is escaping just as fast as they can. It won’t be long until it’s Jack and his buddies, and illegal aliens, with damned few in the middle. The key point for the rest of us is to make sure they know why California went so bad, and don’t vote for it where they wash up. It’s already a problem in Montana, Colorado, and Texas. Texas seems to have a fair handle on it, the others not so much.

They are correct when they say “[i]n this current period of American politics, at this juncture in our history, there’s no way that a bipartisan path provides the way forward.” Yep, true. They are also correct when they observe that, “America today does exhibit some of the core elements that move a society from what normally is the process of working out political differences toward the slippery slope of civil war.” Yep, also true, and it ought to scare the hell out of them.

If the liberals ever get their wish for a new civil war, my money is on the side with all the guns.

Yep, and that will be the end of the story, or maybe more likely, a new beginning.

California begins Disintegrating

The Orange County, California Board of Supervisors voted unanimously the other day to join the federal government in its suit against California requiring it to not cooperate with Federal law enforcement, in regard to illegal immigrants released from custody, and in other ways. Amongst other things this law prevents local law enforcement from notifying federal authorities when they are releasing people wanted by ICE under a deportation order.

Along with the above, the Sheriff of Orange County announced that since she is prohibited by state law from notifying federal authorities of release times and dates, she will post all release information on her website. To be honest, I sympathize with California law enforcement. Unless it’s different there, they are sworn to support and defend the United States Constitution as well as enforce California law. What do you do when they directly contradict each other, by design? Of course, so is the Attorney General, although it doesn’t seem to bother him, even slightly.

As of Monday, March 26, an existing “Who’s in Jail” online database includes the date and time of inmates’ release, a move agency officials say will enhance communication with its law enforcement partners.

The release date information applies to all inmates, not just those who are suspected of being in the country illegally. But the goal is to assist agents with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

“This is in response to SB-54 limiting our ability to communicate with federal authorities and our concern that criminals are being released to the street when there’s another avenue to safeguard the community by handing them over (to ICE for potential deportation),” Orange County Undersheriff Don Barnes said.

California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra had a suitably obtuse comment on this.

Meanwhile, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra would not rule out taking action of his own against officials who fight the laws, including the sheriff.

“State law is state law. It’s my job to enforce state law and I will do so. We want to make sure that every jurisdiction, including Orange County, understands what state law requires of the people and the subdivisions of the state of California,” Becerra said at a news conference. When asked if that meant an arrest or lawsuit against the sheriff, Becerra responded, “I think I just answered that.”

I fail to see what is to stop federal authorities from arresting Becerra for obstruction of federal officers and/ or obstruction of justice if he interferes with their taking custody of a wanted person. I also suspect that the deputies would not take very kindly to the sheriff’s arrest.

It’s also interesting that there appears to be a fair amount of doubt whether Becerra himself is a legal resident of the United States. Many of his family, he has admitted, are not.

The Democrats, especially in California, appear to think it is 1860 again, at least that is the playbook they are using. They apparently don’t remember how badly that ended for them.

Best to buy popcorn futures, this could get very interesting, quite quickly.

And a programming note: It is Maunday Thursday as we all know. I was going to write about it, but instead around noon DST, will bring you a repeat of one Jessica wrote a few years ago. I couldn’t then and can’t now write anything even close to as good. Watch for it.

%d bloggers like this: