THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND CONGRESS HAVE BOTH FAILED THE NATION. IT’S UP TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NOW TO RIGHT THE WRONG.
PART ONE OF TWO PARTS
“Then out spake brave Horatius, The Captain of the Gate: ‘To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late. And how can man die better Than facing fearful odds, For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his Gods.’”
~“Horatius at the Bridge,” from “The Lays of Ancient Rome,” by Thomas Babington, Lord Macaulay (1800—1859)
Note to readers: You may read the entirety of this Poem at Bartleby.com.
The Shadow Government comes out of the “shadows.” The Democratic Process is an illusion. It’s a sham. The media, controlled by the Shadow Government, continues to smear Donald Trump. It does so on behalf of its owners. The mainstream media’s owners cannot “buy” Trump. He won’t take their money. He won’t do their bidding. Trump represents America, not the internationalist financiers who seek to buy up Nation States, creating, as they hope, a single, unified corporate empire—their New World Order. So, not surprisingly, ‘nationalism,’ is, today, an obscenity.
The mainstream media castigates Trump. It does so incessantly. It does so emphatically and relentlessly. But Trump has committed no crime. For all the nonsense spouted against Trump, the mainstream media has not said Trump is a criminal. Why not? The answer is simple. It has not said this because it cannot. Trump isn’t a criminal.
That same mainstream media trumpets Hillary Clinton. This creature, though, is a criminal. She is an uncommon criminal because no one has committed more crimes, more often, and with more relish and audacity than Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton’s crimes against this Country and against its citizenry are serious. Her crimes are legion. They will continue should she become U.S. President. She would not, then, suffer punishment. Rather, she would be rewarded for her crimes. She is a very successful criminal.
The crimes of Clinton’s confidantes, hangers on, and toadies—such as John Podesta and Huma Abedin—are also serious and many in number. These are Clinton’s Captains in crime. Rest assured, they will serve their master, the Queen of Crime, well, if their master secures the Presidential suite.
F.B.I. Director James Comey understands the horror this Country faces if a sociopathic criminal and her battalion of flunkies take control of the machinery of Government. Comey is the one man who could have prevented Clinton from running for President. If Clinton ascends to the throne, she can yet fall, unceremoniously, if honest, forthright, and courageous individuals in the FBI, in the Justice Department, and in Congress see to it that Clinton’s days in the Highest Office in the Land, are few—very few—in number. Likely though—and sad to say—there are few in Government who will stand up against this criminal should she gain the White House. Best, then, to see that she does not.
The international financial banking cartel knows this. These Captains of Finance run the Shadow Government. Had Comey recommended indictment of Hillary Clinton, that singular act would have thrown a wrench in their plans to destroy America.
One person, in a Nation of over 324 million, could have prevented Hillary Clinton from continuing her march to the U.S. Presidency. That person was James Comey, Director of the FBI. The international financial banking cartel realized that something had to be done to stop Comey. Something was done. Someone got to Comey. Clearly, someone threatened Comey.
No matter. Comey did what he could in light of the threats. He warned the American people of the coming disaster of a Clinton Presidency. He did so in his statement, of July 5, 2016, to the American people. He delivered his statement one day after Independence Day. Consider the import of his statement to the American people. Consider its timing—one day after our National Holiday, proclaiming our independence from tyranny.
Consider the thought that went into Comey’s statement to the American People.
Consider the irrefutable proof pointing to Clinton’s felonies. But Comey did not recommend indictment. Yet, his arguments for not recommending indictment were lame. Comey obviously intended for them to be lame, ridiculous even, a stark counterpoint to his message of Clinton’s clear guilt.
Comey told the American people in the clearest language he could muster, apparently fearing the suffering of retribution had he spoken more plainly, that Clinton has committed serious crimes against this Country; that she had committed them many times over; and that she had committed them over an extended period of time.
We must assume that powerful, evil forces compelled Comey to forbear recommending indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton. For, had Comey recommended indictment of Clinton, she could not rationally continue her bid for the U.S. Presidency. She would like to, of course. She would do so, indictment or not if she could. Hillary Clinton has no shame. But it would be unseemly. She would have to step down. The Democratic Party would be compelled to demand she step down.
Still, more damning information about Clinton’s crimes came out in recent days. Copies of emails Clinton had destroyed, and thousands more, wound up on Anthony Weiner’s computer.
Weiner is a disgraced U.S. Congressman. He was a close friend of Hillary Clinton. He remains, at the moment, Huma Abedin’s wayward husband. Abedin and Weiner have been separated since August 2016.
FBI officials, in their probe, investigating Weiner for sex crimes, found 650,000 emails, implicating Huma Abedin, Clinton’s confidante and associate in the mishandling of classified information. They turned those emails over to Comey. Comey informed Congress.
Powerful, corrupt, evil international financiers—the puppet masters who control the Clintons and who control our present President, Barack Obama—must have fretted over this. They realized they must do something. Comey had thrown another wrench into their plans for dismantling America. Would he now recommend indictment?
Clearly, indictment or no, so long as the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s sordid conduct and dealings continued, she would live and operate under a cloud of suspicion. That was not something she would or could abide. That wasn’t something her benefactors could or would abide. What crimes have they committed—these sinister individuals in the shadows—that we can only obtain a glimmer of through the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton?
These corrupt, evil, extraordinarily wealthy and powerful international financiers and power brokers intend to crush this Country. They intend to crush the Nation’s Constitution; to crush this Nation’s heritage; to crush this Nation’s culture; and to crush this Nation’s spirit. Their goal for a one world government would go off schedule, would go off kilter, if their puppet, Hillary Clinton, failed her bid for the U.S. Presidency.
They had to do something. Something they did. They attacked the F.B.I. Director. They attacked the Nation’s Messenger.
They attempted to smear Comey’s reputation. We speculate they found a willing accomplice. But that accomplice wasn’t a Democrat. Their accomplice, curiously, wasn’t a Democrat. He’s a Republican. Fancy that. The Republican’s name is Richard Painter. Painter filed an ethics complaint against Comey.
Painter “served as the chief White House ethics attorney under President George W. Bush, and he’s now professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.”
We know the Bush family detests Donald Trump. That’s no secret. The Bush family believes Trump stole the Republican Party nomination from Jeb. Donald Trump was supposed to be Jeb’s foil, not the other way around. The Bush family obviously supports Hillary Clinton. The Bush family says: “GOP be damned!”
If we are to believe Painter, he is saying his motivation for filing a complaint against Comey is to ensure ethics in Government. We are to believe that no one suggested or urged Painter to file a complaint against Comey. The American people are to believe he did this on his own. Sure!
Richard Painter filed his Complaint, on October 29, 2016. He filed it with the Office of Special Counsel and with the Office of Government Ethics.
Painter says he filed a formal Complaint, claiming Comey violated the “Hatch Act.” Painter says, in his Complaint, that Comey “was going beyond what he needed to do. And so one could argue that Director Comey had animosity against Clinton, wanted her to lose. But that’s only one way to violate the Hatch Act.” Painter, continues, “The other is where you have a government official who – they are pressured by somebody else who wants to influence the election to perform an official act in their capacity as a government employee that will have a likely effect on the election, and there is no other good reason for that official action.”
It is odd that neither NPR nor the New York Times–the mainstream news organization that published Painter’s self-serving article, explaining his rationale for filing his Complaint–asked Richard Painter whether the Bush family or anyone else suggested he file a complaint against Comey. Apparently, no reporter posed this question to Painter. If, though, a reporter for NPR or with the New York Times did ask Painter whether anyone urged Painter to file a complaint, neither reporter bothered to mention that fact in his written piece on Painter.
Yet in Painter’s article, published in the Times article, we do have this: “For the sake of full disclosure, in this election I [Richard Painter] have supported Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton for president, in that order.” Clearly, Painter would not take much persuading.
Painter is also an obsequious apologist for Hillary Clinton. He is quick to condemn Comey. But he says Clinton has committed no crime. Really?
We can surmise that Painter’s motivation for filing a complaint against Comey extends beyond the stated desire to promote ethics in Government. That point aside, let’s consider the merits of Richard Painter’s arguments.
We discuss Painter’s arguments in Part Two of this Article.
PART TWO OF TWO PARTS
WHAT DOES THE HATCH ACT SAY?
The “Hatch Act” was named for the sponsor of the original bill, Senator Carl Hatch, Democrat, New Mexico, in 1939. Then, as now, the import of the Act is to preclude federal bureaucrats from becoming involved in political campaign activities. The Act in its present form, diluted from the original Statute, is codified in 5 U.S.C.S. § 7323. The Statute is titled, “Political activity authorized; prohibitions.”
The applicable portion of the Act Painter ostensibly relies on says:
“(a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not—
(1) use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election. . . .”
Now, in his letter to Congressional leaders, Comey says “the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”
The legal issue that Painter raises in his complaint is whether, through his letter to Congress, James Comey has “use[d] his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.”
Specific intent to influence is required to support a charge under the Hatch Act. The FBI Director was simply doing what his duties require him to do. He was investigating violations of federal law. The fact that the FBI was investigating a person who happens to be running for Public Office doesn’t obviate the Director’s duty to investigate violations of federal law whether a person is running for political office or not. In the instant case, the FBI was investigating serious crimes, felonies, and multiple counts that Hillary Clinton and her henchmen and her henchwomen had committed over a period of several years.
It is specious to make the argument, as Painter does, that the FBI is to forbear investigating violations of federal law simply because a person happens to be running for political office. But, that, in its essence is the foundation of Painter’s argument that Comey violated the Hatch Act. In fact Painter undermines whatever merit he claims for having filed his Complaint by saying, “I do not know whether the Director of the FBI personally wanted to influence the outcome of an election, although the content and wording of this week’s letter is of concern.” So, Painter paints his Complaint against Comey on bald conjecture and opinion. Painter knows his Complaint has no legal basis.
We can infer, then, that Painter filed his Complaint against Comey in bad faith. Painter, an expert on the law is not ignorant of the import and purport of the Hatch Act. We must, then, return to Painter’s motivations. Did someone approach Painter, asking him to file an ethics claim against Comey? That is certainly possible, even probable. Since Painter doesn’t support Trump, he would be a willing partner in filing a spurious claim against Comey to cast false aspersions on the FBI Director. Painter’s objective, then, in filing his Complaint, is clear. He seeks to prop up Clinton—to dupe the American people. He attempts to cast a vile criminal, Clinton, in a good light, by drawing attention to Comey, attempting to cast a basically honorable man in a bad light. Painter’s purpose? He seeks to draw votes, in these final hours, to Clinton, and away from Trump.
We are not alone in our judgment that Painter filed a dubious Complaint against James Comey.
A prominent legal scholar, Jonathan Turley, also took Painter to task. Turley points out that nothing in Painter’s complaint supports a reasonable inference that Comey intended to influence the outcome of the election through his notification to Congress. Turley’s legal analysis of Richard Painter’s complaint is instructive. Turley says,
“Comey has kept Congress informed in compliance with oversight functions of the congressional committees but has been circumspect in the extent of such disclosures. It is troubling to see Democrats (who historically favor both transparency and checks on executive powers) argue against such disclosure and cooperation with oversight committees. More importantly, the Hatch Act is simply a dog that will not hunt.
Richard W. Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and the chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House from 2005 to 2007, has filed a Hatch Act complaint against Comey with the federal Office of Special Counsel and Office of Government Ethics. He argues that “We cannot allow F.B.I. or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway.”
However, Comey was between the horns of a dilemma. He could be accused of acts of commission in making the disclosure or omission in withholding the disclosure in an election year. Quite frankly, I found Painter’s justification for his filing remarkably speculative. He admits that he has no evidence to suggest that Comey wants to influence the election or favors either candidate. Intent is key under the Hatch investigations. You can disagree with the timing of Comey’s disclosure, but that is not a matter for the Hatch Act or even an ethical charge in my view.
Congress passed the Hatch Act in response to scandals during the 1938 congressional elections and intended the Act to bar federal employees from using “[their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” Comey is not doing that in communicating with Congress on a matter of oversight.”
In his Complaint to the Office of Special Counsel and to the Office of Government Ethics, Richard Painter also asks the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics to investigate the Director of the FBI to ascertain whether the Director violated 5 CFR § 2635.702 which forbids use of public office for private gain. The Statute says, in principal part that:
“An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.”
Beyond the naked request, Painter offers no reason at all for claiming the FBI Director has gained anything personally, from investigating violations of federal law. Isn’t the purpose of the FBI to do precisely what the FBI Director did: investigate violations of federal law?
In his Complaint, Painter says, “Violations of the Hatch Act and of this ethics rule [5 CFR § 2635.702] are not permissible in any circumstances, including an executive branch official acting under pressure from persons such as the president and politically motivatedmembers of Congress.”
Apart from stating the obvious, Painter says nothing that would paint a picture of wrongdoing on Comey’s part. Curiously, Painter has painted a most exquisite painting of Hillary Clinton’s violation of 5 CFR § 2635.702. Wasn’t the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation predicated on substantive and substantial evidence that Hillary Clinton used the Department of State as a mechanism through which she doled out favors for cash? Did she not use her position as Secretary of State to establish a grand “Pay to Play,” scheme reaping in tens of millions of dollars? Would she not extend that “Pay to Play” to the White House? Imagine the vast stores of money–the huge hoard of cash–Clinton could accumulate through the sale of the Office of the President of the United States? Such bribery and corruption this Nation has never before been seen!
If Painter is truly concerned about Ethics in Government, why did he not file his Complaint against Hillary Clinton? The evidence supporting claims of Clinton’s ethics violations would fill volumes. He could certainly have made a much stronger case for ethics violations against Clinton than he has actually done, attempting to besmirch the FBI Director who was doing what was required of him: enforcing the Nation’s laws. Letting Congress and the American public know that the FBI is investigating a person for criminal wrongdoing–a person who seeks the highest Office in the Land–is certainly not an ethics violations under federal law. He gains nothing personal from that: neither wealth nor position. He certainly isn’t campaigning for Trump. One may just as well argue that, keeping the investigation and the findings a secret from the American people, amounts to campaigning for Clinton–a point that Jonathan Turley makes. The American people have a right to know what they are getting. If some Americans wish to vote for a vile criminal, then they should do so with both eyes open. For those Americans who vote for Clinton bear a measure of responsibility for the damage she can and would cause to the Office of the U.S. President, and to the Nation, and to the Nation’s citizenry, and to the Nation’s Constitution.
Those Americans who vote for Clinton cannot be heard thereafter to plaintively say–in the event Hillary Clinton actually secures the Office–that they didn’t know! They can’t thereafter be heard to apologetically ask, “how could we know?” They can’t justifiably say any of these things. They can’t do so for the simple reason that the Director of the FBI, James Comey, has, explicitly as he can, forewarned them. He has forewarned all of us. Richard Painter should not be casting blame and aspersions on Comey. Comey isn’t responsible for Clinton’s criminal conduct. Hillary Clinton, herself, is responsible for her criminal conduct. The FBI didn’t investigate Clinton because of a personal distaste for her. The FBI investigated Clinton because there existed and there does exist probable cause that she broke federal law; that she committed felonies; and that she did committed felonies many times over; and that she committed felonies over an extended and extensive period of time. Is Hillary Clinton still committing felonies? Possibly she is. Would Hillary Clinton commit felonies were she to secure the Office of the President? Undoubtedly, she will. She has a criminal nature. Holding high public Office doesn’t change that. Holding high public Office can’t change that. A zebra never changes its stripes. Holding high Office–the highest Office in the Land–would only allow Clinton to continue her criminal behavior. Even more, the Office of the U.S. President will allow Clinton to amplify that criminal behavior in a manner and to an extent that only a writer of horror fiction can imagine, except for the fact that the writer of such horror won’t be writing fiction. He or she will be writing fact.
ALAS, NO HORATIUS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
Comey could have been America’s “Horatius at the Bridge.” Alas, at the Eleventh Hour, he failed the Nation and the American People. Comey buckled under to the forces that seek to push through a criminal for President.
We then receive a bombshell from Fox News. Fox News reports, on November 3, 2016, that an indictment of Clinton is almost certain. Then, one day later, the same news network hits the public with another bombshell. Fox news not only retracts its statement that an indictment is almost certain but apologizes for making it.
Fox News apparently heard that Comey would not recommend an indictment after all. The American public is then hit with the third bombshell, on November 6, 2016. Although it would ordinarily take weeks if not months to sift through all the emails found on Weiner’s computer, James Comey says the FBI won’t recommend an indictment of Hillary Clinton. It seems that whoever threatened James Comey, originally, reminded Comey that the threat still stands.
Understand, if Trump becomes President, Clinton likely will be indicted on one or more charges of violations of federal law. If the U.S. Department of Justice cannot or will not indict and prosecute Clinton, Congress will likely enact legislation appointing independent counsel to investigate, indict, and prosecute both Bill and Hillary Clinton and their Foundation. Likely, Obama would be caught up in the investigation. Many other powerful, influential people would be caught up in the dragnet.
DO AMERICANS STILL LIVE IN A FREE REPUBLIC?
We infer that a quiet coup of our Government has occurred and only a Trump Presidency will be able to flush it out. Those who have much to lose have taken steps to thrust a Clinton Presidency down our throats.
So, we come full circle. Powerful interests in Government—Centrist Democrats and Republicans—working on behalf of each other, and on behalf of powerful, wealthy, influential, and wholly corrupt international financial interests both here and abroad, do not want to see their power diminished and defused. They do not want to see their personal goals and aims for a one world government—one they have worked long and hard for—undermined and jeopardized.
The destructive course they have set for our Nation will be set aright only by a Trump win in this election. The Bushes and Clintons—and their silent, powerful, secretive backers—have pulled out all the stops.
They intend to seat, in the White House, the most venal, and vain, and vile individual ever to hold public office, Hillary Rodham Clinton. That says as much about them as it does about her.
Only we, Americans, can bring this frightful, terrible juggernaut to a screeching halt. We have flushed these denizens of the night out into the light of day—these vampires of the night that would deny us our Birthright, that would break our Will, that would suck the lifeblood of our Nation. We cannot rely on Congress to preserve and protect our Nation. We cannot rely on the U.S. Supreme Court to secure our sacred Bill of Rights and to maintain the supremacy of our laws over those of other Nations and over those of extrajudicial foreign bodies. And, we certainly cannot rely on the Imperial Presidency to safeguard our freedoms.
It is up to each and every American citizen to remind those who hold high Office in Government that they serve us, and they do so at our pleasure; that we do not serve them at their pleasure.
“We are our own destiny. If we are victims at all, or conquerors, we have done it in our minds and our will, or with our faulty judgments or our illusions. If we permit others to exploit us, in private life or in government, we chose it. Or we made the fatal error of acquiescence, and for that we should be condemned. The world forgives everything but weakness and submission. It forgives everyone but a victim. For there is always battle, even if you die in it. In any event death comes to all men. How you died was your own choice, fighting or submitting.” ~Taylor Caldwell, “Captains and the Kings,” Part One, Chapter 17, page 178 (Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1972).
We are at a definite crossroads. The founders bequeathed to us a Bill of Rights; and they made clear to all other Nations and to all foreign interests that we are an independent sovereign Nation composed of a free people—a people who control their own destiny. Our founders are watching us now. They are wondering whether we, Americans, their descendants, are worthy of retaining the Nation and the Constitution they bequeathed us.Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.