Day: December 16, 2017

Comey Should Be Indicted


Now we know that not only did Hillary Clinton show intent in her handling of classified materials routed through her private server, but that former FBI Director James Comey and his team showed intent in letting her get away with it, to the detriment of American national security.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, in a Thursday letter to current FBI Director Christopher Wray, reveals how edits to Comey’s exoneration memo went beyond changing “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” but edited out content that shows the FBI knew Hillary was intentionally in violation of the Espionage Act but that, since the decision to exonerate her had already been made, they had to submit to the annals of history a lie they agreed upon:

Newly released documents obtained by Fox News reveal that then-FBI Director James Comey’s draft statement on the Hillary Clinton email probe was edited numerous times before his public announcement, in ways that seemed to water down the bureau’s findings considerably.


Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, sent a letter to the FBI on Thursday that shows the multiple edits to Comey’s highly scrutinized statement.


In an early draft, Comey said it was “reasonably likely” that “hostile actors” gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account. That was changed later to say the scenario was merely “possible.”


Another edit showed language was changed to describe the actions of Clinton and her colleagues as “extremely careless” as opposed to “grossly negligent.” This is a key legal distinction.


Johnson, writing about his concerns in a letter Thursday to FBI Director Christopher Wray, said the original “could be read as a finding of criminality in Secretary Clinton’s handling of classified material.”


“This effort, seen in light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an ‘insurance policy’ against Mr. Trump’s election, raise profound questions about the FBI’s role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation by President Trump,” Johnson said.

Indeed, this does raise profound questions. Coupled with the text messages of lead investigator, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who has become known as the Zelig of the FBI who mysteriously appeared at every controversial moment, expressing clear intent to prevent the election of Donald Trump, we have before us a criminal conspiracy in which the most powerful law enforcement agency on this planet conspired with one political party to defeat the candidate of the other:

The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey’s statement with senior FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, Strzok’s direct supervisor, E.W. “Bill” Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) – in what was a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton’s conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information, and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.

Imagine what was at stake here. If the FBI had just followed the evidence where it led and drew the obvious conclusions, Hillary Clinton would have been indicted, the Democratic Party would have been irreparably shattered, with Donald Trump wining in a popular vote as well as electoral vote landslide. This, in the view of a corrupted and politicized FBI had to be prevented at all costs and the Comey memo had to be sanitized before its release:

In addition to Strzok’s “gross negligence” –> “extremely careless” edit, McCabe’s damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton’s actions to the standard of “gross negligence” — that being the “sheer volume” of classified material on Clinton’s server. In the original draft, the “sheer volume” of material “supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information.” …


Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey’s statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton’s server was hacked by hostile actors, changing their language from “reasonably likely” to “possible” — an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase “Gross negligence.” To put it another way, “reasonably likely” means the probability of a hack due to Clinton’s negligence is above 50 percent, whereas the hack simply being “possible” is any probability above zero.

Strzok provided the motive for these activities to cover up the guilt of Hillary Clinton, activities which constitute obstruction of justice in text messages between him and his mistress and fellow FBI Agent Lisa Page: While everybody was predicting a Hillary victory, Strzok had his doubts and elevated himself to the status of savior of America, requiring that Trump be stopped at all costs, with this end justifying any and all means:

Out of all the damning, politically charged anti-Trump text messages released, one text from Strzok to Page on August 15, 2016, raised the most suspicion. It referred to a conversation and a meeting that had just taken place in “Andy’s” (widely believed to be Deputy FBI Dir. Andrew McCabe’s) office. According to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Strzok had texted this: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office [break]… that there’s no way he gets elected. I want to believe that… But I’m afraid we can’t take that risk… We have to do something about it.”


In another text, Page said: “maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” Strzok replied: “I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps.”


“This goes to intent,” Jordan said. “We can’t take the risk that the people of this great country might elect Donald Trump. We can’t take this risk. This is Peter Strzok, head of counterintelligence at the FBI. This is Peter Strzok, who I think had a hand in that dossier that was all dressed up and taken to the FISA court. He’s saying, ‘we can’t take the risk, we have to do something about it.'”

What they tried to do about it is called obstructing justice and using the powers of their offices to interfere in a presidential election to materially aid the candidate of their choice. As Rep. Jordan notes, we face the probable reality of a dossier concocted by Russians, paid for by Team Hillary and the DNC, being used to fraudulently trick the FISA court to order surveillance of one campaign to the benefit of the other campaign. The politically motivated unmasking of Michael Flynn dovetails with this criminal conspiracy and explains much about the true purpose of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, which ignores Hillary’s collusion with Russia in Uranium One but indicts a Trump adviser for misremembering a legal phone call.. Can anyone say collusion? Then we face the prospect of a weaponized FBI becoming a campaign arm of the Hillary campaign.

We see now the method in the madness of the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch, why the FBI issued immunity agreements to Clinton cronies such as Cheryl Mills, never empanelled a grand jury, started drafting an exoneration agreement before witnesses were interviewed, and failed to put Hillary under oath in an interview that James Comey did not attend. The fix was in

One can only hope that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is not asleep at the switch but rather just keeping a low profile as he methodically puts together a damning case of criminal conspiracy, obstruction of justice and, yes, gross negligence prior to an avalanche of indictments starting with Hillary Clinton and working its way down the food chain to include James Comey, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and many others.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.  

Now we know that not only did Hillary Clinton show intent in her handling of classified materials routed through her private server, but that former FBI Director James Comey and his team showed intent in letting her get away with it, to the detriment of American national security.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, in a Thursday letter to current FBI Director Christopher Wray, reveals how edits to Comey’s exoneration memo went beyond changing “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” but edited out content that shows the FBI knew Hillary was intentionally in violation of the Espionage Act but that, since the decision to exonerate her had already been made, they had to submit to the annals of history a lie they agreed upon:

Newly released documents obtained by Fox News reveal that then-FBI Director James Comey’s draft statement on the Hillary Clinton email probe was edited numerous times before his public announcement, in ways that seemed to water down the bureau’s findings considerably.


Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, sent a letter to the FBI on Thursday that shows the multiple edits to Comey’s highly scrutinized statement.


In an early draft, Comey said it was “reasonably likely” that “hostile actors” gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account. That was changed later to say the scenario was merely “possible.”


Another edit showed language was changed to describe the actions of Clinton and her colleagues as “extremely careless” as opposed to “grossly negligent.” This is a key legal distinction.


Johnson, writing about his concerns in a letter Thursday to FBI Director Christopher Wray, said the original “could be read as a finding of criminality in Secretary Clinton’s handling of classified material.”


“This effort, seen in light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an ‘insurance policy’ against Mr. Trump’s election, raise profound questions about the FBI’s role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation by President Trump,” Johnson said.

Indeed, this does raise profound questions. Coupled with the text messages of lead investigator, FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who has become known as the Zelig of the FBI who mysteriously appeared at every controversial moment, expressing clear intent to prevent the election of Donald Trump, we have before us a criminal conspiracy in which the most powerful law enforcement agency on this planet conspired with one political party to defeat the candidate of the other:

The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey’s statement with senior FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, Strzok’s direct supervisor, E.W. “Bill” Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) – in what was a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton’s conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information, and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.

Imagine what was at stake here. If the FBI had just followed the evidence where it led and drew the obvious conclusions, Hillary Clinton would have been indicted, the Democratic Party would have been irreparably shattered, with Donald Trump wining in a popular vote as well as electoral vote landslide. This, in the view of a corrupted and politicized FBI had to be prevented at all costs and the Comey memo had to be sanitized before its release:

In addition to Strzok’s “gross negligence” –> “extremely careless” edit, McCabe’s damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton’s actions to the standard of “gross negligence” — that being the “sheer volume” of classified material on Clinton’s server. In the original draft, the “sheer volume” of material “supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information.” …


Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey’s statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton’s server was hacked by hostile actors, changing their language from “reasonably likely” to “possible” — an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase “Gross negligence.” To put it another way, “reasonably likely” means the probability of a hack due to Clinton’s negligence is above 50 percent, whereas the hack simply being “possible” is any probability above zero.

Strzok provided the motive for these activities to cover up the guilt of Hillary Clinton, activities which constitute obstruction of justice in text messages between him and his mistress and fellow FBI Agent Lisa Page: While everybody was predicting a Hillary victory, Strzok had his doubts and elevated himself to the status of savior of America, requiring that Trump be stopped at all costs, with this end justifying any and all means:

Out of all the damning, politically charged anti-Trump text messages released, one text from Strzok to Page on August 15, 2016, raised the most suspicion. It referred to a conversation and a meeting that had just taken place in “Andy’s” (widely believed to be Deputy FBI Dir. Andrew McCabe’s) office. According to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Strzok had texted this: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office [break]… that there’s no way he gets elected. I want to believe that… But I’m afraid we can’t take that risk… We have to do something about it.”


In another text, Page said: “maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” Strzok replied: “I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps.”


“This goes to intent,” Jordan said. “We can’t take the risk that the people of this great country might elect Donald Trump. We can’t take this risk. This is Peter Strzok, head of counterintelligence at the FBI. This is Peter Strzok, who I think had a hand in that dossier that was all dressed up and taken to the FISA court. He’s saying, ‘we can’t take the risk, we have to do something about it.'”

What they tried to do about it is called obstructing justice and using the powers of their offices to interfere in a presidential election to materially aid the candidate of their choice. As Rep. Jordan notes, we face the probable reality of a dossier concocted by Russians, paid for by Team Hillary and the DNC, being used to fraudulently trick the FISA court to order surveillance of one campaign to the benefit of the other campaign. The politically motivated unmasking of Michael Flynn dovetails with this criminal conspiracy and explains much about the true purpose of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe, which ignores Hillary’s collusion with Russia in Uranium One but indicts a Trump adviser for misremembering a legal phone call.. Can anyone say collusion? Then we face the prospect of a weaponized FBI becoming a campaign arm of the Hillary campaign.

We see now the method in the madness of the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch, why the FBI issued immunity agreements to Clinton cronies such as Cheryl Mills, never empanelled a grand jury, started drafting an exoneration agreement before witnesses were interviewed, and failed to put Hillary under oath in an interview that James Comey did not attend. The fix was in

One can only hope that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is not asleep at the switch but rather just keeping a low profile as he methodically puts together a damning case of criminal conspiracy, obstruction of justice and, yes, gross negligence prior to an avalanche of indictments starting with Hillary Clinton and working its way down the food chain to include James Comey, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and many others.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.  



Source link

It's not a federal crime. It's just 'intrigue.'


On November 3, 2017, a man entered the private property of a sitting U.S. senator uninvited.  He snuck up behind and assaulted the senator with such violence that he broke six ribs and damaged the senator’s lungs, leading to pneumonia and severe pain.  These injuries prevented the senator from returning to Congress for a crucial debate in which he played a leadership role.

If a right-wing assailant had broken the bones of Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Shumer, sending either of them to a pain-filled hospital bed, the outcry from both sides of Congress would have been ear-shattering.  The left-wing media would have blared about the hateful, violent right wing.  Felony charges appropriate to an indubitable federal crime would have been filed immediately.  But in this case, the attacker, Dr. Rene Boucher, is an outspoken Democrat, and his victim, Senator Rand Paul, is a prominent Republican.

The Republican congressional leadership have shown little interest in the case, and Democrats have had nothing to say.  Within hours of the injurious attack, the fake news magisteria cooked up a bogus narrative about an ongoing dispute between the two men regarding landscaping.  The media concocted the “lawn care dossier” to trivialize the crime.  The lawn care dossier serves the larger purpose that the assault be prosecuted as a misdemeanor in state law rather than a federal offense, which it is.  This shift in narrative parallels changing “gross negligence” to “extreme carelessness” on behalf of Hillary Clinton.  On December 6, 2017, the Washington Post polished up and pushed the lawn care dossier in an article, “Intrigue grows over what sparked the attack on Rand Paul.”  The narrative of intrigue between Drs. Boucher and Paul is 100% fake and 1,000% irrelevant.

Following the assassination of President Kennedy, Congress passed 18 U.S. Code 1751 in 1965, making it a federal crime to kill, kidnap, or assault the president or vice president of the United States.  Due to an extraordinary tragedy of American history, Congress expanded those protections to congressmen following the 1968 assassination of President Kennedy’s brother, Senator Robert Kennedy.  Congress passed 18 U.S. Code 351 in 1971 establishing the precedence of federal law above state law in cases of serious crimes committed against congressmen and other high-ranking federal officials.

“Congressional, Cabinet and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping and assault penalities,” 18 U.S. Code Section 35, states: “Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a) of this section [a Member of Congress or a Member-of-Congress-elect] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year or both; and if the assault involved the use of a dangerous weapon, or personal injury results, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Neither USC 1751 nor 351 refers to or gives importance to the grievances assailants may hold against the official they attack.  The statutes do not separate personal from political hatred held by the perpetrators.  This is wise, because hate cannot be cut up like fudge, and such boundaries in mental states of hatred do not exist.  It may not be coincidental that congressmen are mentioned first in the expanded list of protectees.  Congressmen are especially vulnerable.  They maintain homes in their districts and must stay in touch with their constituents.  Furthermore, it would be costly to assign full, permanent secret service detail to 535 congressmen across the nation.

The American people are watching the Mueller investigation into Trump-Russia collusion decompose like a corpse.  The worst fumes wafting from the special counsel’s workplaces are the high stink of extreme pro-Democrat, anti-Republican bias, which is also present in the media’s portrayal of the crime against Senator Paul.  Immediately after the assault, Dr. Boucher’s lawyer provided a psychoanalysis of motivation and declared that the attack “[h]ad nothing to do with politics.”  Left-wing news media jumped on that irrelevancy and started asking, If the assault was not about politics, what was it about?

As with James Comey’s decriminalizing Hillary’s e-mail malfeasance by psychoanalyzing her absence of intent, the fake news has been pushing unknowable and legally immaterial theories about Dr. Boucher’s motivation.  And as with the collusion-delusion, their flim-flammery involves intoning that “there’s a lot of smoke here.”  The left-wing media bring in their own smoke machines, and when they’ve created enough smoke, they conclude there must have been something going on between the neighbors to explain the assault because there’s so much smoke.

After the assault, the senator’s wife, Dr. Kelley Paul, spoke poignantly about her husband’s severe pain and about the left-wing media’s victim-blaming in the case: “It is incredibly hurtful that some news outlets have victimized Rand a second time as he struggles to recover, delighting in hateful headlines like ‘Not A Perfect Neighbor,’ and concocting theories about an ‘ongoing dispute,’ based on nothing more than speculation from an attention-seeking person with no knowledge of anything to do with us.”  She added that her husband had not spoken to that neighbor in a decade and did not provoke any kind of violent behavior.

Nevertheless, the Washington Post recently declared, “Intrigue has deepened in the weeks since the Nov. 3 assault as Paul and Boucher have remained largely quiet about what prompted it.”  Intrigue is deepening just as it did when Hillary ponied up for the pee-pee dossier against Trump, while her friends at the Justice Department shook off any remaining bodily fluid and carried it over to the FISA court for her.  The lawn care dossier includes suppositions about lawn-mowing, composting, errant pine needles, and a Jackie Gleason impersonation uttered ten years ago – “One of these days, pow – right in the kisser.” – conveniently remembered a decade later by a nosy neighbor.  The Post seems to blame the alleged perpetrator and his victim for this deepening “intrigue” because their silence has created “a vacuum.”  Rand Paul has already stated, “If someone mugs you, is it really justified for any reason?,” and Boucher has to keep his mouth shut because he’s been charged with a misdemeanor and is under investigation for the federal crime he certainly committed.

The Post blows smoke thusly: “Into the vacuum, competing theories for the assault have been floated, like so many Washington trial balloons. They range from the mundane, such as bad blood over spoiled views of a lake, to the outlandish – an Antifa plot.”  The Post doesn’t source these the theories.  They can’t because there was no spoiled view of a lake, no Antifa plot, just left-wing irrelevant fakery.

It may seem disproportionate to compare the machinations of media like the Washington Post regarding a de facto coup against the president to the assault on a sitting senator.  But it is not.  The shooting of Representative Steve Scalise by a left-winger, like the assault on Senator Paul, constitutes a grave attack on this Republic and on the freedoms of the American way of life.  It is vital to our nation that Dr. Boucher be convicted of the federal crime he committed and serve federal time.

Here’s a psychological theory, tragic if true.  Perhaps the left-wing press doesn’t care, or is emotionally gratified when a leading Republican is injured and disabled.  Perhaps that is why these reporters manufacture irrelevant “intrigue” to minimize the crime.

On November 3, 2017, a man entered the private property of a sitting U.S. senator uninvited.  He snuck up behind and assaulted the senator with such violence that he broke six ribs and damaged the senator’s lungs, leading to pneumonia and severe pain.  These injuries prevented the senator from returning to Congress for a crucial debate in which he played a leadership role.

If a right-wing assailant had broken the bones of Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Shumer, sending either of them to a pain-filled hospital bed, the outcry from both sides of Congress would have been ear-shattering.  The left-wing media would have blared about the hateful, violent right wing.  Felony charges appropriate to an indubitable federal crime would have been filed immediately.  But in this case, the attacker, Dr. Rene Boucher, is an outspoken Democrat, and his victim, Senator Rand Paul, is a prominent Republican.

The Republican congressional leadership have shown little interest in the case, and Democrats have had nothing to say.  Within hours of the injurious attack, the fake news magisteria cooked up a bogus narrative about an ongoing dispute between the two men regarding landscaping.  The media concocted the “lawn care dossier” to trivialize the crime.  The lawn care dossier serves the larger purpose that the assault be prosecuted as a misdemeanor in state law rather than a federal offense, which it is.  This shift in narrative parallels changing “gross negligence” to “extreme carelessness” on behalf of Hillary Clinton.  On December 6, 2017, the Washington Post polished up and pushed the lawn care dossier in an article, “Intrigue grows over what sparked the attack on Rand Paul.”  The narrative of intrigue between Drs. Boucher and Paul is 100% fake and 1,000% irrelevant.

Following the assassination of President Kennedy, Congress passed 18 U.S. Code 1751 in 1965, making it a federal crime to kill, kidnap, or assault the president or vice president of the United States.  Due to an extraordinary tragedy of American history, Congress expanded those protections to congressmen following the 1968 assassination of President Kennedy’s brother, Senator Robert Kennedy.  Congress passed 18 U.S. Code 351 in 1971 establishing the precedence of federal law above state law in cases of serious crimes committed against congressmen and other high-ranking federal officials.

“Congressional, Cabinet and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping and assault penalities,” 18 U.S. Code Section 35, states: “Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a) of this section [a Member of Congress or a Member-of-Congress-elect] shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year or both; and if the assault involved the use of a dangerous weapon, or personal injury results, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Neither USC 1751 nor 351 refers to or gives importance to the grievances assailants may hold against the official they attack.  The statutes do not separate personal from political hatred held by the perpetrators.  This is wise, because hate cannot be cut up like fudge, and such boundaries in mental states of hatred do not exist.  It may not be coincidental that congressmen are mentioned first in the expanded list of protectees.  Congressmen are especially vulnerable.  They maintain homes in their districts and must stay in touch with their constituents.  Furthermore, it would be costly to assign full, permanent secret service detail to 535 congressmen across the nation.

The American people are watching the Mueller investigation into Trump-Russia collusion decompose like a corpse.  The worst fumes wafting from the special counsel’s workplaces are the high stink of extreme pro-Democrat, anti-Republican bias, which is also present in the media’s portrayal of the crime against Senator Paul.  Immediately after the assault, Dr. Boucher’s lawyer provided a psychoanalysis of motivation and declared that the attack “[h]ad nothing to do with politics.”  Left-wing news media jumped on that irrelevancy and started asking, If the assault was not about politics, what was it about?

As with James Comey’s decriminalizing Hillary’s e-mail malfeasance by psychoanalyzing her absence of intent, the fake news has been pushing unknowable and legally immaterial theories about Dr. Boucher’s motivation.  And as with the collusion-delusion, their flim-flammery involves intoning that “there’s a lot of smoke here.”  The left-wing media bring in their own smoke machines, and when they’ve created enough smoke, they conclude there must have been something going on between the neighbors to explain the assault because there’s so much smoke.

After the assault, the senator’s wife, Dr. Kelley Paul, spoke poignantly about her husband’s severe pain and about the left-wing media’s victim-blaming in the case: “It is incredibly hurtful that some news outlets have victimized Rand a second time as he struggles to recover, delighting in hateful headlines like ‘Not A Perfect Neighbor,’ and concocting theories about an ‘ongoing dispute,’ based on nothing more than speculation from an attention-seeking person with no knowledge of anything to do with us.”  She added that her husband had not spoken to that neighbor in a decade and did not provoke any kind of violent behavior.

Nevertheless, the Washington Post recently declared, “Intrigue has deepened in the weeks since the Nov. 3 assault as Paul and Boucher have remained largely quiet about what prompted it.”  Intrigue is deepening just as it did when Hillary ponied up for the pee-pee dossier against Trump, while her friends at the Justice Department shook off any remaining bodily fluid and carried it over to the FISA court for her.  The lawn care dossier includes suppositions about lawn-mowing, composting, errant pine needles, and a Jackie Gleason impersonation uttered ten years ago – “One of these days, pow – right in the kisser.” – conveniently remembered a decade later by a nosy neighbor.  The Post seems to blame the alleged perpetrator and his victim for this deepening “intrigue” because their silence has created “a vacuum.”  Rand Paul has already stated, “If someone mugs you, is it really justified for any reason?,” and Boucher has to keep his mouth shut because he’s been charged with a misdemeanor and is under investigation for the federal crime he certainly committed.

The Post blows smoke thusly: “Into the vacuum, competing theories for the assault have been floated, like so many Washington trial balloons. They range from the mundane, such as bad blood over spoiled views of a lake, to the outlandish – an Antifa plot.”  The Post doesn’t source these the theories.  They can’t because there was no spoiled view of a lake, no Antifa plot, just left-wing irrelevant fakery.

It may seem disproportionate to compare the machinations of media like the Washington Post regarding a de facto coup against the president to the assault on a sitting senator.  But it is not.  The shooting of Representative Steve Scalise by a left-winger, like the assault on Senator Paul, constitutes a grave attack on this Republic and on the freedoms of the American way of life.  It is vital to our nation that Dr. Boucher be convicted of the federal crime he committed and serve federal time.

Here’s a psychological theory, tragic if true.  Perhaps the left-wing press doesn’t care, or is emotionally gratified when a leading Republican is injured and disabled.  Perhaps that is why these reporters manufacture irrelevant “intrigue” to minimize the crime.



Source link

The Morality Sweepstakes



I have a theory.  It is not that the scales have fallen from our eyes about sexual harassment.  It’s that the cultural left has run out of game. 



Source link

The Temptation of Terror


“All eyes are on Robespierre’s Tumbril, where he, his jaw bound in dirty linen, with his half-dead Brother, and half-dead Henriot, lie shattered; their ‘seventeen hours’ of agony about to end. The Gendarmes point their swords at him, to shew the people which is he. A woman springs on the Tumbril; clutching the side of it with one hand; waving the other Sibyl-like; and exclaims: ‘The death of thee gladdens my very heart, m’enivre de joie;’ Robespierre opened his eyes; ‘Scelerat, go down to Hell, with the curses of all wives and mothers!’ — At the foot of the scaffold, they stretched him on the ground till his turn came. Lifted aloft, his eyes again opened; caught the bloody axe. Samson wrenched the coat off him; wrenched the dirty linen from his jaw: the jaw fell powerless, there burst from him a cry; — hideous to hear and see.” The truth is that the architect of the Terror perished deluded, still thinking of himself as incorruptible — perfect in vision and actions. A reconstructed death mask shows him as he was in real life, pockmarked and malevolent; not at all the handsome, blemish-free young man portrayed done by propagandists of the time.

Sic semper tyrannis, be it Robespierre still shouting curses at the “corruptibles” he wished to exterminate or his ideological heir Stalin, who, while dying of a stroke and lying in his own urine, still was convinced he was invincibly incorruptible. Both believed themselves justified in exterminating enemies in order the perfect revolution be achieved. Theirs was a righteous persecution for a righteous cause. As Robespierre stated, “Terror is nothing more than justice, prompt, secure, and inflexible. It is therefore an emanation of virtue.”

The demand for complete purity actualized by terror always turns lethal.

No one can ever live up to the ideals required of the incorruptible citizen or the perfect comrade. Any given person is guilty as charged by the more discerning and the unpolluted radicals, qualified as they believe themselves to be to deliver the sentence of death; death to enemies real or perceived being seen as the necessary gateway to utopia.

How did Robespierre and his allies attain the power to deliver death sentences to whomever they wished?

They succeeded the way the Left has always succeeded and still succeeds.

They jettisoned the structures of the society in which they lived, destroying the old institutions (rather than reforming them), and substituting new ones they had dreamed up. Their new structures were intended to destroy the old foundations of state and Church while giving the revolutionaries the power to dispose of their enemies.

Together with his allies, Robespierre developed a legal basis for the Terror.

The “Law of Suspects” ordered the arrest of persons suspected of opposing the revolution. It was followed by a “Decree on Emergency Government,” which ditched the French Constitution and individual rights. Completing the coup was the Law of Frimaire, which essentially handed over all power to Robespierre and his comrades ensconced in the Committee for Public Safety. Topping off the whole was the attempt to create a substitute for Catholicism, one that demanded allegiance to the new state religion honoring the “Supreme Being.”

The Committee of Public Safety’s The Law of Suspects became a template followed almost to the letter by the Left in the Democratic Party, as well as much academia and the media. Robespierre was quite clear about just who “suspects” were:

“The following are deemed suspects:


i. those who, by their conduct, associations, comments, or writings have shown themselves partisans of tyranny or federalism and enemies of liberty;


ii. those who are unable to justify, in the manner prescribed by the decree of March 21st, their means of existence and the performance of their civic duties;


iii. those to whom certificates of patriotism have been refused.”


The Committee also included civil servants not aligned with the Revolution as well as well all members of the aristocracy (their extended families included) who did not constantly demonstrate “their devotion to the Revolution.” Any who had fled France in 1789 were deemed enemies.


If there were additional enemies, the newly established “Surveillance Committees” would be responsible for drawing up “lists of suspects, with issuing warrants of arrest against them, and with placing their papers under seal.”

Have the tactics of the Left changed since the establishment of the Terror’s dictatorial Committee for Public Safety? In fact, it is abundantly clear that all aspects of Robespierre’s new order were and still are part and parcel of the agenda of the Left wherever it is found.

Isn’t it clear the rule of law in America is increasingly disposable when it comes to mob and media “justice” and the decrees of secret committees and tribunals which are authorities unto themselves? This is to say nothing of sanctuary cities whose leaders have essentially established duchies with their own set of rules.

Title IX was and still is used to deny due process to college and university men accused of assaulting women. Similar in-house tribunals have proliferated throughout academia at large.

Workplace show trials for inappropriate behavior or speech have long been standard, with sensitivity seminars dictating elaborate codes of conduct and language. Transgressors are either fired or forced to repent.

Secret examinations and punishment doled out by a few in power in academia have resulted in cases like that of Canadian teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd. She was berated and interrogated for showing a few minutes of a Jordan Peterson tape in which he protested against anyone being forced to use transgender pronouns.

Without the rule of law and due process to establish the guilt or innocence of the hundreds of powerful men who are accused of sexual assault, who is to know just who is really guilty?

When the media and the mob rule, no one is exempt from accusation and condemnation. Mass hysteria is no impartial judge of the facts.

John Keke’s excellent article in City Journal, “Why Robespierre Chose Terror,” notes the results of mass hysteria. He quotes J.M. Thompson:

“The result of this climate of hysteria was Robespierre’s Decree of the 22nd Prairial. It expressed in principle the views of the whole Committee. The Committee was fanatical enough to approve, and the Convention powerful enough to enforce, as a New Model of Republican justice . . . a law which denied to prisoners the help of counsel, made it possible for the court to dispense with witnesses, and allowed no sentence except acquittal or execution; a law which, at the same time, defined crimes against the state in such wide terms that the slightest indiscretion might bring one within the article of death. To any right-minded or merciful man such procedure must seem a travesty of justice.” (Italics mine.)

The basis of Robespierre’s ideology was not reason or facts but angry passion, an ideological anger that justified the execution of many innocents in order the perfect Revolution be established. He never looked back, not even at the end. He never asked if he was wrong because he thought his vision was incorruptible. He did not ask if terror should overrule facts, because facts might get in the way of quickly actualizing the revolution. He would make the world fit his vision by any means necessary.

Does the above not also characterize the Left in all its manifestations?

How ironic that in America, the sexual revolution begun in the 60s, based on passion and the freedom to exhibit passion in any time and way as long as the thin reed of “consent” was leaned on, now has turned in on itself. But that is what happens when rage is the basis of justice. That is what happens when extremes of feeling completely replace the rule of law based on reason and revelation.

When the ideological fever rises to a temperature similar to that of the Terror, guilt or innocence does not really matter — in fact, the very concepts have been drowned out by the screams of the mob. Only raw emotion and power matter. Only ideological purity matters.

Perhaps, knowing the fate before him would be one of the living dead no matter what he did or didn’t do, that is why Dan Johnson, a lawyer in Kentucky accused of sexual assault, committed suicide.

Perhaps Johnson knew, as did Robespierre at the end, the verdict of the mob would be death — of one kind or another, be it actual or a living death.

We don’t know for sure.

But death in one form or another is always what happens when mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

The current hysteria must be opposed and halted. The rule of law and due process must be re-established. Otherwise, we may find the country taking a path to The Terror — American style.

Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many other online magazines. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com. 

What might Robespierre, “The Incorruptible” have been thinking after he attempted suicide only to leave the job unfinished? The man who managed the Terror of the French Revolution succeeded only in shattering the jaw that had enabled his rabble-rousing speeches. He then faced the very mobs he had impassioned. But in the end, they hustled him to the guillotine.

Thomas Carlyle described Robespierre’s last moments:

“All eyes are on Robespierre’s Tumbril, where he, his jaw bound in dirty linen, with his half-dead Brother, and half-dead Henriot, lie shattered; their ‘seventeen hours’ of agony about to end. The Gendarmes point their swords at him, to shew the people which is he. A woman springs on the Tumbril; clutching the side of it with one hand; waving the other Sibyl-like; and exclaims: ‘The death of thee gladdens my very heart, m’enivre de joie;’ Robespierre opened his eyes; ‘Scelerat, go down to Hell, with the curses of all wives and mothers!’ — At the foot of the scaffold, they stretched him on the ground till his turn came. Lifted aloft, his eyes again opened; caught the bloody axe. Samson wrenched the coat off him; wrenched the dirty linen from his jaw: the jaw fell powerless, there burst from him a cry; — hideous to hear and see.” The truth is that the architect of the Terror perished deluded, still thinking of himself as incorruptible — perfect in vision and actions. A reconstructed death mask shows him as he was in real life, pockmarked and malevolent; not at all the handsome, blemish-free young man portrayed done by propagandists of the time.

Sic semper tyrannis, be it Robespierre still shouting curses at the “corruptibles” he wished to exterminate or his ideological heir Stalin, who, while dying of a stroke and lying in his own urine, still was convinced he was invincibly incorruptible. Both believed themselves justified in exterminating enemies in order the perfect revolution be achieved. Theirs was a righteous persecution for a righteous cause. As Robespierre stated, “Terror is nothing more than justice, prompt, secure, and inflexible. It is therefore an emanation of virtue.”

The demand for complete purity actualized by terror always turns lethal.

No one can ever live up to the ideals required of the incorruptible citizen or the perfect comrade. Any given person is guilty as charged by the more discerning and the unpolluted radicals, qualified as they believe themselves to be to deliver the sentence of death; death to enemies real or perceived being seen as the necessary gateway to utopia.

How did Robespierre and his allies attain the power to deliver death sentences to whomever they wished?

They succeeded the way the Left has always succeeded and still succeeds.

They jettisoned the structures of the society in which they lived, destroying the old institutions (rather than reforming them), and substituting new ones they had dreamed up. Their new structures were intended to destroy the old foundations of state and Church while giving the revolutionaries the power to dispose of their enemies.

Together with his allies, Robespierre developed a legal basis for the Terror.

The “Law of Suspects” ordered the arrest of persons suspected of opposing the revolution. It was followed by a “Decree on Emergency Government,” which ditched the French Constitution and individual rights. Completing the coup was the Law of Frimaire, which essentially handed over all power to Robespierre and his comrades ensconced in the Committee for Public Safety. Topping off the whole was the attempt to create a substitute for Catholicism, one that demanded allegiance to the new state religion honoring the “Supreme Being.”

The Committee of Public Safety’s The Law of Suspects became a template followed almost to the letter by the Left in the Democratic Party, as well as much academia and the media. Robespierre was quite clear about just who “suspects” were:

“The following are deemed suspects:


i. those who, by their conduct, associations, comments, or writings have shown themselves partisans of tyranny or federalism and enemies of liberty;


ii. those who are unable to justify, in the manner prescribed by the decree of March 21st, their means of existence and the performance of their civic duties;


iii. those to whom certificates of patriotism have been refused.”


The Committee also included civil servants not aligned with the Revolution as well as well all members of the aristocracy (their extended families included) who did not constantly demonstrate “their devotion to the Revolution.” Any who had fled France in 1789 were deemed enemies.


If there were additional enemies, the newly established “Surveillance Committees” would be responsible for drawing up “lists of suspects, with issuing warrants of arrest against them, and with placing their papers under seal.”

Have the tactics of the Left changed since the establishment of the Terror’s dictatorial Committee for Public Safety? In fact, it is abundantly clear that all aspects of Robespierre’s new order were and still are part and parcel of the agenda of the Left wherever it is found.

Isn’t it clear the rule of law in America is increasingly disposable when it comes to mob and media “justice” and the decrees of secret committees and tribunals which are authorities unto themselves? This is to say nothing of sanctuary cities whose leaders have essentially established duchies with their own set of rules.

Title IX was and still is used to deny due process to college and university men accused of assaulting women. Similar in-house tribunals have proliferated throughout academia at large.

Workplace show trials for inappropriate behavior or speech have long been standard, with sensitivity seminars dictating elaborate codes of conduct and language. Transgressors are either fired or forced to repent.

Secret examinations and punishment doled out by a few in power in academia have resulted in cases like that of Canadian teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd. She was berated and interrogated for showing a few minutes of a Jordan Peterson tape in which he protested against anyone being forced to use transgender pronouns.

Without the rule of law and due process to establish the guilt or innocence of the hundreds of powerful men who are accused of sexual assault, who is to know just who is really guilty?

When the media and the mob rule, no one is exempt from accusation and condemnation. Mass hysteria is no impartial judge of the facts.

John Keke’s excellent article in City Journal, “Why Robespierre Chose Terror,” notes the results of mass hysteria. He quotes J.M. Thompson:

“The result of this climate of hysteria was Robespierre’s Decree of the 22nd Prairial. It expressed in principle the views of the whole Committee. The Committee was fanatical enough to approve, and the Convention powerful enough to enforce, as a New Model of Republican justice . . . a law which denied to prisoners the help of counsel, made it possible for the court to dispense with witnesses, and allowed no sentence except acquittal or execution; a law which, at the same time, defined crimes against the state in such wide terms that the slightest indiscretion might bring one within the article of death. To any right-minded or merciful man such procedure must seem a travesty of justice.” (Italics mine.)

The basis of Robespierre’s ideology was not reason or facts but angry passion, an ideological anger that justified the execution of many innocents in order the perfect Revolution be established. He never looked back, not even at the end. He never asked if he was wrong because he thought his vision was incorruptible. He did not ask if terror should overrule facts, because facts might get in the way of quickly actualizing the revolution. He would make the world fit his vision by any means necessary.

Does the above not also characterize the Left in all its manifestations?

How ironic that in America, the sexual revolution begun in the 60s, based on passion and the freedom to exhibit passion in any time and way as long as the thin reed of “consent” was leaned on, now has turned in on itself. But that is what happens when rage is the basis of justice. That is what happens when extremes of feeling completely replace the rule of law based on reason and revelation.

When the ideological fever rises to a temperature similar to that of the Terror, guilt or innocence does not really matter — in fact, the very concepts have been drowned out by the screams of the mob. Only raw emotion and power matter. Only ideological purity matters.

Perhaps, knowing the fate before him would be one of the living dead no matter what he did or didn’t do, that is why Dan Johnson, a lawyer in Kentucky accused of sexual assault, committed suicide.

Perhaps Johnson knew, as did Robespierre at the end, the verdict of the mob would be death — of one kind or another, be it actual or a living death.

We don’t know for sure.

But death in one form or another is always what happens when mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.

The current hysteria must be opposed and halted. The rule of law and due process must be re-established. Otherwise, we may find the country taking a path to The Terror — American style.

Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many other online magazines. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com. 



Source link