North Korean Summit, What You Aren’t Hearing
The View from the Middle
When it comes to the long-term potential of the recent Trump – Kim Summit in North Korea, mark me down as hopeful but cautious. I’m not cautious because of Donald Trump or because the agreement Kim and Trump signed is too vague. I’ve read the actual agreement that they signed and I encourage you to do the same. It’s just over one-page long. Don’t take the pundits’ word for it. Decide for yourself. Personally, I thought the agreement was fairly positive, committing both parties to the expected actions roughly agreed to before the summit began. I think the key sentence appears about half way through the document, and it says, “President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”
I don’t know about you, but that is actually encouraging to me. Kim commits to “complete denuclearization” and Trump promises not to kill him or Nuke his country in return, as long as Kim keeps his commitment. Chuck “head of the resistance” Schumer says that we gave up too much and got nothing. What exactly did we give up? We allowed Kim Jong Un to have his picture taken with President Trump. Actual Cost? Nothing. We allowed the North Korean flag to be positioned next to ours. Cost? Again, nothing. Plus, what would Chuck suggest as a backdrop for this meeting? Did he want or expect pictures of Kim hung in effigy between our flags? That would set a great atmosphere for this first, historic negotiation meeting between our two countries. We also agreed to suspend our joint military exercises with South Korea as long as Kim is behaving himself. Cost? Again, nothing, in fact we will be saving millions.
So why am I cautious? I’m cautious for the same reason many Americans are. I don’t trust the North Koreans. They have hoodwinked every American President since Clinton as we sent them $1.3 billion in currency and aid over those years. That doesn’t sound like much, but to a country whose entire GDP averages just over ten billion dollars a year, that’s a windfall. But there is some reason for optimism with Kim Jong Un.
Kim Jong Un was actually educated in Switzerland and reportedly showed a real appreciation for the Western life style. He supposedly had a particular love for American basketball. This is where Dennis Rodman comes in. Seriously, all things Western, including Rodman is clearly a positive note in this endeavor for Korean/World peace.
But the most encouraging news is the statements which Kim Jong Un made this April that North Korea’s nuclear arms effort had been “successfully concluded” and that there was no need to operate their nuclear test facility because that work “was finished.” He went on to say that he was going to be pursuing a new “strategic line…by concentrating our efforts on socialist economic construction.” This sounds like a man who is trying to move a country in a new direction by convincing friends and foes alike in his country that the benefits of this new direction will be more advantageous to the average North Korean than the costly pursuit of nuclear weapons.
This is something that you haven’t heard from any pundits as they comment on the possibilities of this newest effort to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. To repeat, I’m hopeful, but cautious, with an emphasis on hopeful. And if that isn’t hopeful enough, we can always bring in Dennis Rodman.
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
SCOTUS Cooks Up Justice for Colorado Baker
SCOTUS Cooks Up Justice for Colorado Baker
The View from the Middle
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided yesterday in favor of Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop business in a resounding 7-2 decision with liberal judges Breyer and Kagen voting with conservative judges Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion. Before I get into the facts of the case and the decision, I would like to offer honorary memberships in “The View From the Middle” to all the Justices for coming up with a decision that I believe struck a perfect balance.
In 2012 a gay couple approached Jack Phillips to create a wedding cake for their wedding reception. They were being married in Massachusetts because gay marriage was not legal in Colorado and the time but were planning their reception in Denver. Phillips informed them that he was willing to sell the couple ordinary cakes, cookies or brownies, but he saw his wedding cakes as an expression of his faith and that creating this cake would be seen as an endorsement of same sex marriage.
Jack was a devout Christian and held sincere religious beliefs and convictions. He believed that being forced to produce this cake violated his first amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of his religion. His business was named “Masterpiece Cakeshop” for a reason. Wedding cakes are more than just taste treats to Jack.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission disagreed. They ruled that Jack Phillips’ actions were tantamount to discrimination against the gay couple and a violation of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), amended in 2007 and 2008 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They suggested that Mr. Phillips actions violated the “public accommodation” clause in CADA. This clause says that no one can be denied, “full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodation of a place of public accommodation.”
This is where the basic problem erupted. What do you do when two fundamental rights come into conflict? And this is where the Colorado Civil Rights Commission made two fatal errors, at least according to Justice Kennedy. First, they totally denied Jack Phillips his protected right to free expression of his religious faith. In fact, one commissioner suggested that, “Phillips can believe whatever he wants, but he cannot act on his religious beliefs if he decides to do business in (Colorado)”.
Second, the Commission was openly hostile to Mr. Phillips’ religious convictions. At one of their meetings, one of the commissioners actually compared Mr. Phillips convictions and refusal to bake this particular cake to the institution of slavery and the Nazis execution of the Holocaust. WOW! He went on to say that freedom of religion, “is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others”. Can I say WOW again?
I think Justice Kennedy really nailed it in his opinion. First, he suggested that in one sense, this was a narrow decision. To quote Kennedy, “cases like these…must await further elaboration in the courts.” Not every future case will include the hostility projected by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to Jack Phillips’ sincere religious beliefs. Their disregard for his rights bordered on absurdity, especially when you consider the task, even duty, of that Commission.
But in another sense, this case will have a broad impact. This opinion will be used as a reference and precedent in every future case that involves the free exercise of a person’s religious rights. It will also discourage groups, particularly the LGBT community, from “targeting” bakers, florists, wedding planners and more whom they know have these strongly held religious beliefs. This 7-2 decision will send a message that cases that used to be seen as “slam dunks” may even be viewed as frivolous in the future. In the minority opinion, even Justice Ginsburg hedged her bets. The first line of Ginsberg’s opinion stated, “There is much in the Court’s (majority) opinion with which I agree.”
Finally, I believe Justice Kennedy struck the perfect balance of justice and civil rights in the final paragraph of his opinion. He said, “these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.” Nailed it. A real View From the Middle.
The View from the Middle
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided yesterday in favor of Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop business in a resounding 7-2 decision with liberal judges Breyer and Kagen voting with conservative judges Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion. Before I get into the facts of the case and the decision, I would like to offer honorary memberships in “The View From the Middle” to all the Justices for coming up with a decision that I believe struck a perfect balance.
In 2012 a gay couple approached Jack Phillips to create a wedding cake for their wedding reception. They were being married in Massachusetts because gay marriage was not legal in Colorado and the time but were planning their reception in Denver. Phillips informed them that he was willing to sell the couple ordinary cakes, cookies or brownies, but he saw his wedding cakes as an expression of his faith and that creating this cake would be seen as an endorsement of same sex marriage.
Jack was a devout Christian and held sincere religious beliefs and convictions. He believed that being forced to produce this cake violated his first amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of his religion. His business was named “Masterpiece Cakeshop” for a reason. Wedding cakes are more than just taste treats to Jack.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission disagreed. They ruled that Jack Phillips’ actions were tantamount to discrimination against the gay couple and a violation of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), amended in 2007 and 2008 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They suggested that Mr. Phillips actions violated the “public accommodation” clause in CADA. This clause says that no one can be denied, “full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodation of a place of public accommodation.”
This is where the basic problem erupted. What do you do when two fundamental rights come into conflict? And this is where the Colorado Civil Rights Commission made two fatal errors, at least according to Justice Kennedy. First, they totally denied Jack Phillips his protected right to free expression of his religious faith. In fact, one commissioner suggested that, “Phillips can believe whatever he wants, but he cannot act on his religious beliefs if he decides to do business in (Colorado)”.
Second, the Commission was openly hostile to Mr. Phillips’ religious convictions. At one of their meetings, one of the commissioners actually compared Mr. Phillips convictions and refusal to bake this particular cake to the institution of slavery and the Nazis execution of the Holocaust. WOW! He went on to say that freedom of religion, “is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others”. Can I say WOW again?
I think Justice Kennedy really nailed it in his opinion. First, he suggested that in one sense, this was a narrow decision. To quote Kennedy, “cases like these…must await further elaboration in the courts.” Not every future case will include the hostility projected by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to Jack Phillips’ sincere religious beliefs. Their disregard for his rights bordered on absurdity, especially when you consider the task, even duty, of that Commission.
But in another sense, this case will have a broad impact. This opinion will be used as a reference and precedent in every future case that involves the free exercise of a person’s religious rights. It will also discourage groups, particularly the LGBT community, from “targeting” bakers, florists, wedding planners and more whom they know have these strongly held religious beliefs. This 7-2 decision will send a message that cases that used to be seen as “slam dunks” may even be viewed as frivolous in the future. In the minority opinion, even Justice Ginsburg hedged her bets. The first line of Ginsberg’s opinion stated, “There is much in the Court’s (majority) opinion with which I agree.”
Finally, I believe Justice Kennedy struck the perfect balance of justice and civil rights in the final paragraph of his opinion. He said, “these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.” Nailed it. A real View From the Middle.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
The Coming Mushroom Cloud Over Washington
The View from the Middle
Many of you may soon be asking, “Who is Michael Horowitz, and what has he been doing for the last year?” Well, Michael Horowitz is the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, who has been investigating the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe for the last year or so. He was the guy who discovered the mile long texting trail of FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that exposed their anti-Trump bias and plans to prevent him from becoming President or destroying his Presidency if he won. As a result of his revelation, Peter Strzok was removed from the Mueller Special Counsel team and Lisa Page has recently resigned from the FBI. And Michael Horowitz hasn’t even delivered his long-anticipated report.
Horowitz also revealed that Andrew McCabe, Jim Comey’s #2 at the FBI, committed perjury by lying to the FBI at least four times resulting in his removal from his office. Yet all of this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg of questionable behavior committed by FBI leadership in their investigation into the Hillary Clinton email “matter”. And the revelations should go to the very top of the Dept. of Justice.
The Inspector General’s report will have to make a judgement of at least two controversial actions taken by then Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Why did she, for example, insist that James Comey, then FBI Director, call the Hillary Clinton email investigation “a matter”. It was, in fact, an investigation, but “a matter” sounds much less ominous. Then, Ms. Lynch met with Bill Clinton just days before his wife was to be interrogated by the FBI. What was she thinking? I can tell you what most Americans were thinking! This meeting was at best ill-advised and at worst illegal, depending on what was discussed, and the real problem is…we’ll never know.
Another bombshell Horowitz will have to defuse is Hillary’s destruction through a program called “bleach bit” of over 30,000 emails THAT WERE UNDER SUBPEONA. Let me be perfectly clear. If you or I had destroyed even one email under subpoena, we would be going to jail.
Also, after testifying that she didn’t send any confidential information over her private server, it was discovered that Hillary sent dozens of messages that were not only confidential, but in some cases, actually top secret. Is Michael Horowitz expected to believe that Hillary Clinton, who positioned herself as the most qualified candidate ever to run for President, didn’t understand that the “C” inserted into the emails she received stood for “Classified”? Is he to believe her story that she thought this was an alphabetical order notation? If that was so, didn’t she at least wonder where “A” and “B” were?
Finally, Mr. Horowitz will have to decide if the handling of Hillary’s case and in particular her final interview was legitimate. Was it reasonable, for example, to give immunity deals to six members of Hillary’s support staff. Here’s a list of the people who received immunity: Huma Abedin (Hillary’s wing woman), Cheryl Mills (Hillary’s chief of staff and attorney), Heather Samuelson (Clinton aid and lawyer), John Bentel (Info. Manager), Paul Combetta (actually deleted the emails) and Bryan Pagliano (built and installed Clinton home server). Why? Was the same practice used in the investigation of the Trump campaign? I can’t remember ANY immunity deals for Trump associates.
Also, what was up with Hillary’s final interview with the FBI? The FBI did not put Hillary under oath and didn’t record her interview. Really? Cheryl Mills, an FBI witness in this investigation if not a “subject” of the investigation, was allowed to be with Hillary throughout the interview, which is unusual if not improper. In addition, Hillary was allowed to say “I don’t remember” or “I don’t recall” 39 times during this interview claiming some sort of memory loss as a result of a head injury. I don’t remember this memory issue being a subject of any news reports despite the fact that she was running for President of The United States. Shouldn’t the public know about something like this?
With all of this questionable, improper and probably illegal activity going on during Hillary’s email investigation (or was it a matter?) I expect Michael Horowitz’s report to be a real bombshell. I predict that the big losers will be James Comey, Peter Strzok and Robert Mueller (some of his key witnesses may be in jail). Big winners will be Donald Trump and the American people. Any time we can expose hypocrisy and falsehood, the American people win.
The View from the Middle
Many of you may soon be asking, “Who is Michael Horowitz, and what has he been doing for the last year?” Well, Michael Horowitz is the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, who has been investigating the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe for the last year or so. He was the guy who discovered the mile long texting trail of FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that exposed their anti-Trump bias and plans to prevent him from becoming President or destroying his Presidency if he won. As a result of his revelation, Peter Strzok was removed from the Mueller Special Counsel team and Lisa Page has recently resigned from the FBI. And Michael Horowitz hasn’t even delivered his long-anticipated report.
Horowitz also revealed that Andrew McCabe, Jim Comey’s #2 at the FBI, committed perjury by lying to the FBI at least four times resulting in his removal from his office. Yet all of this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg of questionable behavior committed by FBI leadership in their investigation into the Hillary Clinton email “matter”. And the revelations should go to the very top of the Dept. of Justice.
The Inspector General’s report will have to make a judgement of at least two controversial actions taken by then Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Why did she, for example, insist that James Comey, then FBI Director, call the Hillary Clinton email investigation “a matter”. It was, in fact, an investigation, but “a matter” sounds much less ominous. Then, Ms. Lynch met with Bill Clinton just days before his wife was to be interrogated by the FBI. What was she thinking? I can tell you what most Americans were thinking! This meeting was at best ill-advised and at worst illegal, depending on what was discussed, and the real problem is…we’ll never know.
Another bombshell Horowitz will have to defuse is Hillary’s destruction through a program called “bleach bit” of over 30,000 emails THAT WERE UNDER SUBPEONA. Let me be perfectly clear. If you or I had destroyed even one email under subpoena, we would be going to jail.
Also, after testifying that she didn’t send any confidential information over her private server, it was discovered that Hillary sent dozens of messages that were not only confidential, but in some cases, actually top secret. Is Michael Horowitz expected to believe that Hillary Clinton, who positioned herself as the most qualified candidate ever to run for President, didn’t understand that the “C” inserted into the emails she received stood for “Classified”? Is he to believe her story that she thought this was an alphabetical order notation? If that was so, didn’t she at least wonder where “A” and “B” were?
Finally, Mr. Horowitz will have to decide if the handling of Hillary’s case and in particular her final interview was legitimate. Was it reasonable, for example, to give immunity deals to six members of Hillary’s support staff. Here’s a list of the people who received immunity: Huma Abedin (Hillary’s wing woman), Cheryl Mills (Hillary’s chief of staff and attorney), Heather Samuelson (Clinton aid and lawyer), John Bentel (Info. Manager), Paul Combetta (actually deleted the emails) and Bryan Pagliano (built and installed Clinton home server). Why? Was the same practice used in the investigation of the Trump campaign? I can’t remember ANY immunity deals for Trump associates.
Also, what was up with Hillary’s final interview with the FBI? The FBI did not put Hillary under oath and didn’t record her interview. Really? Cheryl Mills, an FBI witness in this investigation if not a “subject” of the investigation, was allowed to be with Hillary throughout the interview, which is unusual if not improper. In addition, Hillary was allowed to say “I don’t remember” or “I don’t recall” 39 times during this interview claiming some sort of memory loss as a result of a head injury. I don’t remember this memory issue being a subject of any news reports despite the fact that she was running for President of The United States. Shouldn’t the public know about something like this?
With all of this questionable, improper and probably illegal activity going on during Hillary’s email investigation (or was it a matter?) I expect Michael Horowitz’s report to be a real bombshell. I predict that the big losers will be James Comey, Peter Strzok and Robert Mueller (some of his key witnesses may be in jail). Big winners will be Donald Trump and the American people. Any time we can expose hypocrisy and falsehood, the American people win.
Thursday, May 24, 2018
Obama TV
Obama TV
The View from the Middle
Hallelujah!! Praise the Lord!! Our Republic is saved. Barack Obama and Michelle have signed a multi-year contract with Netflix to create some cringe watchable programming to drive wedges between Americans instead of building bridges of compromise to unite them. I am, however, giving you all a “spoiler alert”. The View From the Middle has received the scoop of a lifetime. I have uncovered the plans for the first four episodes of “Obama TV” or whatever they end up calling this series. If you don’t want to know what’s coming, stop reading right now. If you are curious at all, read on!!
The first episode will be called “How to Weaponize the Federal Government” and will be starring the likes of Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey with a special guest star appearance by Loretta Lynch. Lois Lerner will reveal how she frustrated Obama’s political opponents through her operation “death by a thousand paper cuts” which prevented conservative voices from speaking indefinitely. Jolly good fun!
Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who lead the leaking “dream team”, will talk about the effectiveness of selective leaking especially when truth doesn’t even have to be a consideration. While their storylines would have to appear in the fiction section on Amazon, they didn’t feel compelled to let the consumers of their fairy tales know that. Holder and Lynch will finally reveal how President Obama gave them their marching orders without the inconvenience of traceable formal communications. We’ll learn that cocktail party conversations, long walks on the beach and in the rose garden and side by side stalls in the men’s restroom were particularly productive. Lynch will finish with a skit suggesting that she and Bill Clinton actually talked about their grandchildren on the tarmac in Phoenix.
The second episode will be entitled “Demean, Dehumanize and Demonize Fellow Americans Who Disagree With You”. This episode will serve a double purpose. First, it will explain how a strategy like this is effective at gaining power while dividing the country into combatant camps based on race, economics and even sexual orientation (divide and conquer). Sure, this is terrible for the country and will encourage Americans to hate each other, but as long as they win the election, what the heck!
This episode will double as a tribute to Obama’s hero, Saul Alinsky. Remember Saul? He’s the author of “Rules for Radicals”, which he dedicated to Satan (yep, that’s right the devil, Lucifer). His favorite tactic is ridicule, a real divisive technique for sure, but as long as it recognizes his “ends” then it’s a prudent “means”. What a guy!!
The third episode is planned to be “The Low Road is Easier, It’s Downhill”. Hillary Clinton will be the star, of course, for her “basket of deplorables” comment at her LGBT fundraiser in New York. In one crisp, vicious sentence she demeaned and demonized tens of millions of American citizens. They are currently arguing if this statement should also appear in episode two.
The entire Congressional Black Caucus will have a cameo appearance for their refusal to stand for Trump’s “lowest black unemployment in history” statement in his first state of the union. I mean, that is low, right? Nancy Pelosi will have to play a major role at this juncture just for her sheer number of fatalistic gaffes. We’ll all be reminded of how she called Trump’s tax bill “Armageddon” and likened the middle-class bonuses and tax cuts to “crumbs”. Her latest comment that Kim Jung Un must be having a “giggle fit” at the cancelation of the North Korean summit will have to get a mention just for its poor taste. She is the gift that just keeps on giving. She may appear in a later segment called “Age is Just a Number…of How Many Years You’ve Been Alive”. Is she a hundred yet?
One of the first five episodes will have to be “Damn That Hillary Clinton”. This is, however, so obvious they are considering giving this title to the entire series. The point being that if Hillary had just won, like she was supposed to, we wouldn’t be finding out about all the corruption in the FBI, CIA, DOJ or the NIA. She’s taking a lot of flak for the mismanagement of her campaign, but in real life, America owes much to Hillary. If she had won, all the depravity that is being exposed every day now would have been swept under the gigantic federal government rug. Hillary, you go girl!!!
The View from the Middle
Hallelujah!! Praise the Lord!! Our Republic is saved. Barack Obama and Michelle have signed a multi-year contract with Netflix to create some cringe watchable programming to drive wedges between Americans instead of building bridges of compromise to unite them. I am, however, giving you all a “spoiler alert”. The View From the Middle has received the scoop of a lifetime. I have uncovered the plans for the first four episodes of “Obama TV” or whatever they end up calling this series. If you don’t want to know what’s coming, stop reading right now. If you are curious at all, read on!!
The first episode will be called “How to Weaponize the Federal Government” and will be starring the likes of Lois Lerner, Eric Holder, John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey with a special guest star appearance by Loretta Lynch. Lois Lerner will reveal how she frustrated Obama’s political opponents through her operation “death by a thousand paper cuts” which prevented conservative voices from speaking indefinitely. Jolly good fun!
Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who lead the leaking “dream team”, will talk about the effectiveness of selective leaking especially when truth doesn’t even have to be a consideration. While their storylines would have to appear in the fiction section on Amazon, they didn’t feel compelled to let the consumers of their fairy tales know that. Holder and Lynch will finally reveal how President Obama gave them their marching orders without the inconvenience of traceable formal communications. We’ll learn that cocktail party conversations, long walks on the beach and in the rose garden and side by side stalls in the men’s restroom were particularly productive. Lynch will finish with a skit suggesting that she and Bill Clinton actually talked about their grandchildren on the tarmac in Phoenix.
The second episode will be entitled “Demean, Dehumanize and Demonize Fellow Americans Who Disagree With You”. This episode will serve a double purpose. First, it will explain how a strategy like this is effective at gaining power while dividing the country into combatant camps based on race, economics and even sexual orientation (divide and conquer). Sure, this is terrible for the country and will encourage Americans to hate each other, but as long as they win the election, what the heck!
This episode will double as a tribute to Obama’s hero, Saul Alinsky. Remember Saul? He’s the author of “Rules for Radicals”, which he dedicated to Satan (yep, that’s right the devil, Lucifer). His favorite tactic is ridicule, a real divisive technique for sure, but as long as it recognizes his “ends” then it’s a prudent “means”. What a guy!!
The third episode is planned to be “The Low Road is Easier, It’s Downhill”. Hillary Clinton will be the star, of course, for her “basket of deplorables” comment at her LGBT fundraiser in New York. In one crisp, vicious sentence she demeaned and demonized tens of millions of American citizens. They are currently arguing if this statement should also appear in episode two.
The entire Congressional Black Caucus will have a cameo appearance for their refusal to stand for Trump’s “lowest black unemployment in history” statement in his first state of the union. I mean, that is low, right? Nancy Pelosi will have to play a major role at this juncture just for her sheer number of fatalistic gaffes. We’ll all be reminded of how she called Trump’s tax bill “Armageddon” and likened the middle-class bonuses and tax cuts to “crumbs”. Her latest comment that Kim Jung Un must be having a “giggle fit” at the cancelation of the North Korean summit will have to get a mention just for its poor taste. She is the gift that just keeps on giving. She may appear in a later segment called “Age is Just a Number…of How Many Years You’ve Been Alive”. Is she a hundred yet?
One of the first five episodes will have to be “Damn That Hillary Clinton”. This is, however, so obvious they are considering giving this title to the entire series. The point being that if Hillary had just won, like she was supposed to, we wouldn’t be finding out about all the corruption in the FBI, CIA, DOJ or the NIA. She’s taking a lot of flak for the mismanagement of her campaign, but in real life, America owes much to Hillary. If she had won, all the depravity that is being exposed every day now would have been swept under the gigantic federal government rug. Hillary, you go girl!!!
Thursday, May 10, 2018
The Saga of Gina Haspel vs Kamala Harris
Is Waterboarding Immoral?
The View from the Middle
The View from the Middle
Since the Senate confirmation hearings for Gina Haspel started about mid-morning yesterday and the public portion ended about noon, most Americans were unable to watch Gina Haspel “school” our pompous, pathetic and pitiful senators. And I use the word “school” intentionally. She clearly was the teacher in the room and the senators were the unruly students being put in their place. She was cool, calm and knowledgeable. Her 33 years of experience at every level of the CIA allowed her to answer any realistic question asked by the senators and even politely correct those who didn’t even come with their homework assignments done.
At one point, 84-year-old Diane Feinstein (what is the mandatory retirement age in the Senate?) asked about the tapes of interrogations that were erased. Diane was outraged that tapes of 92 people being questioned had been destroyed, until Ms. Haspel calmly informed her that it was 92 tapes of one person. This is something that Ms. Feinstein should have known as her stumbling, bumbling response quickly indicated. Yet Gina Haspel was composed and even kind in her handling of this obvious gaffe.
And then, of course, the Senators (at least the Democrat Senators) ran out of legitimate questions so they had to resort to hypothetical and even trick questions. One Senator asked her what she would do if Donald Trump asked her to waterboard some detainees tomorrow? Now, he already knew the answer to the question. She, in fact, had already said that she would not use that technique anymore, but she wouldn’t even put the CIA back into the interrogation business again. But this Senator just wanted to thump Trump, and she handled it perfectly. She suggested that she had met with President Trump several times and she was extremely confident that he would never ask her to do that, but she restated her plan to never use that technique again.
Finally, Kamala Harris, Senator from California, asked Ms. Hasper if she believed that waterboarding was “immoral”. The easy answer is “yes”, but then later on Ms. Harris would accuse Ms. Hasper of knowing committing an immoral act. But Gina Hasper didn’t fall for this cheap shot and simply stated that she supports America’s higher standard in the area of interrogation. This, of course exasperated Kamala who will now claim that Hasper would not admit that waterboarding is immoral. For Kamala, this was a win-win question since she planned to criticize Gina Hasper no matter what her answer was.
But here is the flaw in Kamala Harris’ line of questioning. First of all, Gina Hasper didn’t suggest the use of waterboarding or approve of its use. At the time she was put in charge of the interrogation station in Thailand, she was a low-level manager in the CIA, just following legal orders. If anyone should be asked that question it would be Nancy Pelosi or Jay Rockefeller, Democrat Senators who were briefed about all of the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT’s) back in 2002.
If anyone should have taken the heat for the use of these EIT’s, it should have been John Brennan, who was the #4 guy at the CIA when they were approved and implemented in 2002. But instead, 49 out of 53 Democrat Senators voted to confirm John Brennan for the very job they are trying to deny to Gina Hasper. Total Hypocrisy!
Someone also needs to remind Kamala Harris that the likes of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had just plowed three airplanes into the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC, killing over 3,000 Americans. Also, KSM had videotaped his beheading of Daniel Pearl for all the world to witness. I certainly would define those things as immoral. Kamala, here’s a history lesson for you. Terrible things happen during war. Men, women and children get killed. Is that immoral? Would it have been immoral for our military or CIA to not use these EIT’s and thus allow thousands more of Americans to be murdered in follow-up attacks after 9/11. When the enemy is beheading our people, drowning them in cages and setting them on fire, I’m not sure if I would qualify splashing some water in KSM’s face as immoral.
Get off your high horse, Kamala, and get down in the trenches with Gina Haspel who just wanted to protect Americans from further violence. And tell your other Democrat Senators to get off their “resist, insist, persist and throw hissy fits” train long enough to confirm this very capable and qualified person to be our next Director of the CIA.
A final note that everyone should know. Hundreds of men in our military have been waterboarded as part of their training, and only three terrorists have experienced the same treatment. Kamala, get some perspective before you attack good people like Gina Haspel.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Michelle Wolf at The White House Correspondents' Dinner
Michelle Wolf’s Sad Commentary on America
The View from the Middle
In case you missed it, Michelle Wolf was the “comedian” (and I use that term loosely) who performed at this year’s White House Correspondents’ dinner this last Saturday night. In my opinion, the only thing funny in her routine was her voice, which even she made fun of, so I’ll give her credit for that one funny joke. The rest of her performance was vile, disgusting, slanted and decidedly unfunny!
And it was not just the political right who was offended, but this time even the left leaning media called it “mean”, “bullying” and just plain not funny. The list of liberal media heavyweights who condemned Wolf’s act is long and distinguished and includes the likes of Andrea Mitchell from NBC News, Peter Baker of the NY Times and Pulitzer Prize winner Judy Miller, also from The Times. How clear does it have to be before the left admits that they went too far? This total arrogance and misunderstanding of average Americans is what is going to bring down the Democrat Party and continue to erode lame stream media ratings, unless they wake up.
But there are a few of the self-appointed elites who have confused wealth with wisdom and fame for judgement who are actually defending Wolf’s bit on Saturday night. Seth Meyers actually defended Michelle Wolf by calling her “filthy” and “mean”, just the kind of qualities you need when you are trying to bring people together as Margaret Talev (President of the event) said she was trying to do. Stephen Colbert said, “grow a pair” as if he has a pair and Trevor Noah said…well who cares what he said since no one watches him. The combined viewership of these “giants” is about five million per week which, for perspective, compares unfavorably to Rush Limbaugh’s 14 million listeners each week. Maybe it is Stephen, Seth and Trevor who need to rethink their definition of “funny”.
Some of her supporters actually tried to suggest that she was “balanced” in her critical humor. Well, let me pour a cold dose of reality on those claims. Once you subtract the four jokes she told of herself (she should have done more of that) Wolf made 67 jokes at other people’s expense and of abortion (yah, abortion is such a funny subject). A full two thirds (66%) of those jokes were about Republicans and a total of four jokes or 6% of the total were about Democrats. That’s more than ten times the focus on Republicans vs Democrats. Only the lame stream media could define that as balanced. And even one of those Democratic jokes actually took a swipe at Republicans. She quipped that Democrats could even lose to “Jeff Pedophile Nazi Doctor” who I’m assuming is the Republican candidate. I’ll call that a draw if not even more offensive to Republicans. Considering that the Democrats are the party of Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken and John Conyers, I would tread carefully on the sexual abuse jokes if I were Ms. Wolf.
I’m hoping that the broad-based outrage for Michele Wolf’s performance at the WHCD is a sign that Americans are getting tired of the divisive, demeaning and dehumanizing rhetoric that the pompous, arrogant elite in this country accept for humor. If you want to see how it is really done, watch the Don Rickles roast of Ronald Reagan during his second inaugural in 1985. I’ve supplied a link below that you can click on or copy into your browser. I’ll give the progressive media a hint on finding a good person to roast anyone. First, find a person who likes, or even loves, the target of the roast. That’s how you “singe, but don’t burn”, and end with a classy close as Don Rickles did just 33 years ago.
The only hope we can draw from the response to Michelle Wolf’s disappointing performance Saturday night is that America is bouncing off the bottom of the civility barrel and it’s time to lift our rhetoric and behavior up. If we do, America will be a better place for it. Maybe we could all acquire the class of Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who took the abuse with a quiet dignity and even suggested that she would pray for Michelle Wolf. So Michelle, you got that going for you, which is nice.
Link to Rickles Roast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3kJ7VPJnmI
The View from the Middle
In case you missed it, Michelle Wolf was the “comedian” (and I use that term loosely) who performed at this year’s White House Correspondents’ dinner this last Saturday night. In my opinion, the only thing funny in her routine was her voice, which even she made fun of, so I’ll give her credit for that one funny joke. The rest of her performance was vile, disgusting, slanted and decidedly unfunny!
And it was not just the political right who was offended, but this time even the left leaning media called it “mean”, “bullying” and just plain not funny. The list of liberal media heavyweights who condemned Wolf’s act is long and distinguished and includes the likes of Andrea Mitchell from NBC News, Peter Baker of the NY Times and Pulitzer Prize winner Judy Miller, also from The Times. How clear does it have to be before the left admits that they went too far? This total arrogance and misunderstanding of average Americans is what is going to bring down the Democrat Party and continue to erode lame stream media ratings, unless they wake up.
But there are a few of the self-appointed elites who have confused wealth with wisdom and fame for judgement who are actually defending Wolf’s bit on Saturday night. Seth Meyers actually defended Michelle Wolf by calling her “filthy” and “mean”, just the kind of qualities you need when you are trying to bring people together as Margaret Talev (President of the event) said she was trying to do. Stephen Colbert said, “grow a pair” as if he has a pair and Trevor Noah said…well who cares what he said since no one watches him. The combined viewership of these “giants” is about five million per week which, for perspective, compares unfavorably to Rush Limbaugh’s 14 million listeners each week. Maybe it is Stephen, Seth and Trevor who need to rethink their definition of “funny”.
Some of her supporters actually tried to suggest that she was “balanced” in her critical humor. Well, let me pour a cold dose of reality on those claims. Once you subtract the four jokes she told of herself (she should have done more of that) Wolf made 67 jokes at other people’s expense and of abortion (yah, abortion is such a funny subject). A full two thirds (66%) of those jokes were about Republicans and a total of four jokes or 6% of the total were about Democrats. That’s more than ten times the focus on Republicans vs Democrats. Only the lame stream media could define that as balanced. And even one of those Democratic jokes actually took a swipe at Republicans. She quipped that Democrats could even lose to “Jeff Pedophile Nazi Doctor” who I’m assuming is the Republican candidate. I’ll call that a draw if not even more offensive to Republicans. Considering that the Democrats are the party of Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken and John Conyers, I would tread carefully on the sexual abuse jokes if I were Ms. Wolf.
I’m hoping that the broad-based outrage for Michele Wolf’s performance at the WHCD is a sign that Americans are getting tired of the divisive, demeaning and dehumanizing rhetoric that the pompous, arrogant elite in this country accept for humor. If you want to see how it is really done, watch the Don Rickles roast of Ronald Reagan during his second inaugural in 1985. I’ve supplied a link below that you can click on or copy into your browser. I’ll give the progressive media a hint on finding a good person to roast anyone. First, find a person who likes, or even loves, the target of the roast. That’s how you “singe, but don’t burn”, and end with a classy close as Don Rickles did just 33 years ago.
The only hope we can draw from the response to Michelle Wolf’s disappointing performance Saturday night is that America is bouncing off the bottom of the civility barrel and it’s time to lift our rhetoric and behavior up. If we do, America will be a better place for it. Maybe we could all acquire the class of Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who took the abuse with a quiet dignity and even suggested that she would pray for Michelle Wolf. So Michelle, you got that going for you, which is nice.
Link to Rickles Roast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3kJ7VPJnmI
Saturday, April 21, 2018
Is James Comey a Slime Ball
Don’t call James Comey a Slime Ball
The View from the Middle
Many people believe that the President shouldn’t have called James Comey a “Slime Ball”, and I agree with them, but probably for different reasons. First, I do think that kind of rhetoric is below the office of the President. Trump should have allowed his surrogate attack dogs do it for him as all other Presidents have done in the past. Bill Clinton did it famously with James Carville. But this President has decided long ago to do his own dirty work which will get him praise from some and condemnation from others. The easy route would be to delegate the insults, but he has chosen the more difficult yet more transparent method of attacking his opponents himself. I would rather he delegate. My wife doesn’t agree with me.
The second reason I disagree with the “Slime Ball” label that Trump placed on Comey is because it doesn’t go far enough. James Comey is actually a narcissistic, manipulative, unethical coward and hypocrite. And I don’t come to that conclusion lightly. I have followed James Comey since his blunder in July of 2016 when he threw Hillary Clinton under the “too incompetent to manage her own email” bus, and then refused to indict her. I’ve studied his background and have read all 140+ pages of his full five-hour interview with George Stephanopoulos. Let me share with you what I have found about James Comey as result of this extensive research.
First and foremost, Jim Comey is a first-class hypocrite. It amazed me to see how he could talk out of both sides of his mouth within seconds in his interview with Stephanopoulos. Early in the interview, Comey paints himself as a courageous, “by the book” individual, challenging Vice President Cheney over a surveillance program Cheney wanted to invoke. He says the room was “thick with tension” and he feared he would be “crushed like a grape”, but he stood his ground. What a guy! Then, within minutes, he’s the Director of the FBI who folds like a cheap tent for Loretta Lynch. She asks him to call the Hillary Clinton investigation “a matter”, and he agrees even though he knows it’s improper. He tries to minimize his duplicity by saying that everyone still called it an investigation. That, however, doesn’t change his complicity in an effort that he knew to be inappropriate by FBI guidelines. Where was the tough guy who challenged Cheney? I don’t think he exists. The real James Comey is the “go along to get along” snake that capitulated to Loretta Lynch.
During this interview, Comey constantly lectured the audience about the importance of “integrity” in our government. After I stopped laughing, I looked seriously to see if I could find any level of integrity in Mr. Comey himself. What I found was just the opposite. First, he has thrown virtually everyone he has worked for or with under the bus at his convenience. We know how he needlessly trashed Hillary Clinton, and throughout the interview he managed to demean and or ridicule President Obama, Attorneys General Loretta Lynch and Jeff Sessions and of course President Trump. He seems to have a high regard only for himself, which allows him to be the sole arbiter of honor and righteousness. What a joke. A man with no character at all judging the integrity of others.
When Stephanopoulos asked, “Did Trump deserve to know that Hillary Clinton and the DNC financed the Steele Dossier”, Comey demonstrates his contempt for the audience when he said, “I don’t know the answer to that. It wasn’t necessarily my goal.” Are you kidding me, James? You are briefing the President of The United States on an unverified, sleazy dossier that was paid for by his political opponent, and you didn’t think that was relevant information to share? This proves him to be either stupid or unscrupulous, and I don’t think he’s stupid.
He also throws out unverified, disgusting accusations and covers his butt by adding, “It’s possible, I just don’t know.” He said that about the accusation in the dossier that Trump had prostitutes pee on themselves and the bed that the Obamas slept in while they were in Moscow. That reminds me of the old political saying which goes, “If you don’t have any real evidence of misconduct on your opponents, give them something to deny.” This is as sleazy as it gets. In fact, you could say that about anyone and about anything. What if Comey had said that it was “possible” that President Obama had a mountain of child pornography on his personal computer, based on some opposition research done by Trump? And then let's say that story was reported on every news network, creating a vision you just can’t “unsee”. Most of you, and particularly the Obama fans out there, would say, “That’s disgusting”. And I would agree with you. Spreading unverified tales about anyone is completely unethical and certainly NOT a sign of integrity. Yet, Comey regularly trades in that practice.
Throughout the interview, Comey harps on the importance of honesty and truth in politics, and I’m assuming life in general. I do agree with him on that. He, however, has given himself a pass on the whole “truth” thing. He has lied to Congress and the American people, and I think his lying is pathological. He also brags that his wife and children supported Hillary Clinton for President in 2016. I guess they gave her the same waver from the truth as Jim gives to himself. They must have ignored the fact that, according to ABC News, the three most commonly used words to describe Hillary Clinton in 2016 were “dishonest”, “liar”, and “untrustworthy”. If honesty was so important, they could not possibly support her. Jim’s wife did admit that she just wanted a woman to be President. I guess she could turn a blind eye to Hillary’s faults as long as her gender was right!
Two last, quick shots before I close. First, in the interview, Comey assures President Trump that the FBI is not politicized. Really? I guess James doesn’t get a newspaper or have a computer or just doesn’t hang around the water cooler at work. The list of politically biased people at the top of the FBI who have either been fired or demoted for their partisan behavior is impressive. That list includes; Andrew McCabe (Comey’s #2 guy at the FBI), Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr (don’t forget his wife Nellie who worked for Fusion GPS), James Baker (FBI General Counsel), James Rybicki (Comey’s Chief of Staff) and of course James Comey himself. Mr. Comey has to be the most unaware Director of the FBI – Ever!! Or a liar.
Second, Comey constantly paints himself as the “by the book” guy who follows procedures even when things get tough. Yet, in July of 2016, he broke from established practice by going on TV and roasting Hillary Clinton. Virtually every analyst with any experience in Justice Department practices suggested that James Comey should have done the investigation of Mrs. Clinton and then turned over his findings to the Justice Department for a decision on how to proceed. If Loretta Lynch chose not to make that call because of her foolish meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix, the task would have fallen to her #2, Sally Yates. Even I knew that was what James Comey should have done, but somehow the guardian of proper procedure, James Comey, ignored protocol.
Finally, I believe that James Comey has reverse engineered his motives in all of these lies and blunders to try to save himself. He creates a storyline that positions him as the victim of unscrupulous and less talented people, which includes Trump, Obama, Clinton, Lynch, Sessions and others. It was Obama, Lynch and Bill Clinton, for example, who forced his hand in July of 2016. Comey had to step in to save the FBI and the Republic as we know it. Gag me! It was Hillary, who he knew was going to win the election, who forced his hand in October. By the way, what should Hillary’s inevitable victory have to do with this decision? (He’s apolitical, remember) Thank God for the noble and brave Jim Comey for doing the right thing despite the attacks he would take personally. That’s a fantasy, a self-delusion if you will, that he would like us all to buy.
I believe that James Comey was and is a very political animal, despite of all of his claims to the contrary. I believe that he had very high (maybe even the highest) political ambitions, and his last year as Director of the FBI was designed to build his name recognition and create a noble (gag me again) reputation for him. If he could trash any possible political opponents along the way, all the better. This is consistent with his narcissistic, manipulative, unethical and cowardly nature. We can only hope that the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, sinks his dream forever so that this true hypocrite never gets a chance to do any more harm to this country.
The View from the Middle
Many people believe that the President shouldn’t have called James Comey a “Slime Ball”, and I agree with them, but probably for different reasons. First, I do think that kind of rhetoric is below the office of the President. Trump should have allowed his surrogate attack dogs do it for him as all other Presidents have done in the past. Bill Clinton did it famously with James Carville. But this President has decided long ago to do his own dirty work which will get him praise from some and condemnation from others. The easy route would be to delegate the insults, but he has chosen the more difficult yet more transparent method of attacking his opponents himself. I would rather he delegate. My wife doesn’t agree with me.
The second reason I disagree with the “Slime Ball” label that Trump placed on Comey is because it doesn’t go far enough. James Comey is actually a narcissistic, manipulative, unethical coward and hypocrite. And I don’t come to that conclusion lightly. I have followed James Comey since his blunder in July of 2016 when he threw Hillary Clinton under the “too incompetent to manage her own email” bus, and then refused to indict her. I’ve studied his background and have read all 140+ pages of his full five-hour interview with George Stephanopoulos. Let me share with you what I have found about James Comey as result of this extensive research.
First and foremost, Jim Comey is a first-class hypocrite. It amazed me to see how he could talk out of both sides of his mouth within seconds in his interview with Stephanopoulos. Early in the interview, Comey paints himself as a courageous, “by the book” individual, challenging Vice President Cheney over a surveillance program Cheney wanted to invoke. He says the room was “thick with tension” and he feared he would be “crushed like a grape”, but he stood his ground. What a guy! Then, within minutes, he’s the Director of the FBI who folds like a cheap tent for Loretta Lynch. She asks him to call the Hillary Clinton investigation “a matter”, and he agrees even though he knows it’s improper. He tries to minimize his duplicity by saying that everyone still called it an investigation. That, however, doesn’t change his complicity in an effort that he knew to be inappropriate by FBI guidelines. Where was the tough guy who challenged Cheney? I don’t think he exists. The real James Comey is the “go along to get along” snake that capitulated to Loretta Lynch.
During this interview, Comey constantly lectured the audience about the importance of “integrity” in our government. After I stopped laughing, I looked seriously to see if I could find any level of integrity in Mr. Comey himself. What I found was just the opposite. First, he has thrown virtually everyone he has worked for or with under the bus at his convenience. We know how he needlessly trashed Hillary Clinton, and throughout the interview he managed to demean and or ridicule President Obama, Attorneys General Loretta Lynch and Jeff Sessions and of course President Trump. He seems to have a high regard only for himself, which allows him to be the sole arbiter of honor and righteousness. What a joke. A man with no character at all judging the integrity of others.
When Stephanopoulos asked, “Did Trump deserve to know that Hillary Clinton and the DNC financed the Steele Dossier”, Comey demonstrates his contempt for the audience when he said, “I don’t know the answer to that. It wasn’t necessarily my goal.” Are you kidding me, James? You are briefing the President of The United States on an unverified, sleazy dossier that was paid for by his political opponent, and you didn’t think that was relevant information to share? This proves him to be either stupid or unscrupulous, and I don’t think he’s stupid.
He also throws out unverified, disgusting accusations and covers his butt by adding, “It’s possible, I just don’t know.” He said that about the accusation in the dossier that Trump had prostitutes pee on themselves and the bed that the Obamas slept in while they were in Moscow. That reminds me of the old political saying which goes, “If you don’t have any real evidence of misconduct on your opponents, give them something to deny.” This is as sleazy as it gets. In fact, you could say that about anyone and about anything. What if Comey had said that it was “possible” that President Obama had a mountain of child pornography on his personal computer, based on some opposition research done by Trump? And then let's say that story was reported on every news network, creating a vision you just can’t “unsee”. Most of you, and particularly the Obama fans out there, would say, “That’s disgusting”. And I would agree with you. Spreading unverified tales about anyone is completely unethical and certainly NOT a sign of integrity. Yet, Comey regularly trades in that practice.
Throughout the interview, Comey harps on the importance of honesty and truth in politics, and I’m assuming life in general. I do agree with him on that. He, however, has given himself a pass on the whole “truth” thing. He has lied to Congress and the American people, and I think his lying is pathological. He also brags that his wife and children supported Hillary Clinton for President in 2016. I guess they gave her the same waver from the truth as Jim gives to himself. They must have ignored the fact that, according to ABC News, the three most commonly used words to describe Hillary Clinton in 2016 were “dishonest”, “liar”, and “untrustworthy”. If honesty was so important, they could not possibly support her. Jim’s wife did admit that she just wanted a woman to be President. I guess she could turn a blind eye to Hillary’s faults as long as her gender was right!
Two last, quick shots before I close. First, in the interview, Comey assures President Trump that the FBI is not politicized. Really? I guess James doesn’t get a newspaper or have a computer or just doesn’t hang around the water cooler at work. The list of politically biased people at the top of the FBI who have either been fired or demoted for their partisan behavior is impressive. That list includes; Andrew McCabe (Comey’s #2 guy at the FBI), Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr (don’t forget his wife Nellie who worked for Fusion GPS), James Baker (FBI General Counsel), James Rybicki (Comey’s Chief of Staff) and of course James Comey himself. Mr. Comey has to be the most unaware Director of the FBI – Ever!! Or a liar.
Second, Comey constantly paints himself as the “by the book” guy who follows procedures even when things get tough. Yet, in July of 2016, he broke from established practice by going on TV and roasting Hillary Clinton. Virtually every analyst with any experience in Justice Department practices suggested that James Comey should have done the investigation of Mrs. Clinton and then turned over his findings to the Justice Department for a decision on how to proceed. If Loretta Lynch chose not to make that call because of her foolish meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix, the task would have fallen to her #2, Sally Yates. Even I knew that was what James Comey should have done, but somehow the guardian of proper procedure, James Comey, ignored protocol.
Finally, I believe that James Comey has reverse engineered his motives in all of these lies and blunders to try to save himself. He creates a storyline that positions him as the victim of unscrupulous and less talented people, which includes Trump, Obama, Clinton, Lynch, Sessions and others. It was Obama, Lynch and Bill Clinton, for example, who forced his hand in July of 2016. Comey had to step in to save the FBI and the Republic as we know it. Gag me! It was Hillary, who he knew was going to win the election, who forced his hand in October. By the way, what should Hillary’s inevitable victory have to do with this decision? (He’s apolitical, remember) Thank God for the noble and brave Jim Comey for doing the right thing despite the attacks he would take personally. That’s a fantasy, a self-delusion if you will, that he would like us all to buy.
I believe that James Comey was and is a very political animal, despite of all of his claims to the contrary. I believe that he had very high (maybe even the highest) political ambitions, and his last year as Director of the FBI was designed to build his name recognition and create a noble (gag me again) reputation for him. If he could trash any possible political opponents along the way, all the better. This is consistent with his narcissistic, manipulative, unethical and cowardly nature. We can only hope that the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, sinks his dream forever so that this true hypocrite never gets a chance to do any more harm to this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)