WHY DO PEOPLE LIKE NEW YORK’S GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE?

POST-BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS AND WHAT ITS IMPACT IS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT AND CHERISH THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO DO NOT; THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT BOTH FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS

MULTI SERIES

PART EIGHTEEN

THE NEW YORK HOCHUL ADMINISTRATION'S PROBLEMS ARE OF ITS OWN MAKING. IT WOULD RATHER SPEND ITS ENERGIES AND TAX-PAYER MONIES  FIGHTING LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, RATHER THAN FIGHTING CRIME. NEW YORKERS CAN EXPECT MUCH MORE OF THIS IN THE FUTURE, FOUR YEARS OF IT.

On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court came out with its third seminal case law rulings, following Heller in 2008 and McDonald in 2010. The three cases, taken together, hold the right of armed self-defense is a natural law right embodied in the Second Amendment.These three cases don’t sit well with State and local jurisdictions that abhor both guns and the notion of the right of civilian citizens to keep and bear them. And they have weaseled around the Heller and McDonald cases for over a decade—well before Bruen.Bruen arose as a direct challenge to one of the most restrictive Gun Law regimes in the Nation: codified in N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00 et. seq. The foundation of New York’s Gun Law is its draconian licensing requirement. All handgun licensing interposes the Government between the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms and the Government that intrudes upon the exercise of that right.New York’s handgun licensing scheme is among the most intrusive in the Country.Prior to Bruen, a person who sought to carry a handgun had to demonstrate “proper cause” to do so. But the State Government held armed self-defense against a visible threat in public as de facto insufficient “proper cause” justification for issuance of a license to carry.The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.In Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the right of armed self-defense applies equally outside the home and in it. This ruling isn’t a Court based legal fiction, as Anti-Second Amendment proponents maintain. The right of armed self-defense is embodied in the Second Amendment.The Court in Bruen, and in Heller before it, simply illuminated and elucidated upon what the language of the Second Amendment asserts. It did not make new law.The Court thereupon struck down New York’s “may issue” “proper cause” requirement for those people applying for a concealed handgun carry license. Armed self-defense is de jure sufficient reason to carry, and it is presumptive in any application for a license. Therefore the applicant need not be required to expressly assert it.To be sure, New York Federal and State Courts never directly attacked the inherent right of the people to keep and bear arms because that was irrefutable natural law, cemented in the U.S. Constitution. And, if the Courts harbored the belief that the right, though fundamental, applied only to one’s service in a militia, the Heller case settled the matter, cadit quaestio.Even so, New York Courts routinely affirmed licensing officials’ denial of handgun carry licenses. The Courts reasoned that, even if a person has a fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, the person must have a valid handgun license to exercise the right, and acquiring one is a privilege, not a right, a privilege bestowed upon one by the grace of the State, and a privilege easily revoked. And, because the license serves as a condition precedent to exercising the right, the New York Government effectively created a proverbial “Catch 22.”Thus, Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions could continue to offend the Second Amendment guarantee while pretending to pay homage to it.New York’s handgun licensing scheme interferes with the exercise of a natural law right on an elementary level. There’s no doubt about that. That fact is clear, categorical, unequivocal, and irrefutable.The Court simply tinkered gingerly around the edges.But, by failing to strike down the New York handgun licensing, as unconstitutional, it remains rigid, unscathed.Justices Thomas and Alito knew that the Bruen rulings were faulty, that the rulings did not go far enough, and they could not have been happy about that.They would have struck down the entirety of the licensing structure if given a free hand, but Chief Justice Roberts, and possibly Justice Kavanaugh, too, likely prevented them from doing so if they were to obtain their votes.In Heller, the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, along with Justices Thomas and Alito, had to make concessions to Roberts and to Associate Justice Kennedy to get their votes.Now, in Bruen, Justices Thomas and Alito had to make concessions once again. That meant they must leave Government licensing of handguns alone.And that was all that New York Governor Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany needed to know. It gave them the edge they needed to slither around the Bruen rulings.The Anti-Second Amendment New York Government machine did strike the words, “Proper Cause,” from State Statute, but that meant nothing. They simply inserted “Proper Cause” into the “Good Moral Character” requirement of the State’s Gun Law. And the High Court in Bruen never struck down that latter requirement from the Gun Law.The “Good Moral Character” Requirement had hitherto existed as an unnecessary appendage to New York Gun Law, affixed to a licensing official’s denial of an application for any kind of handgun license.A licensing officer might for example refer to a person’s past arrest record in denying issuance. In the denial letter, the licensing officer would point to the arrest record as the basis for refusal, adding the redundant phrase that such past arrest record shows the applicant lacks Good Moral Character to possess a handgun.In the package of amendments, referred to as the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” or “CCIA,” the Hochul Administration’s “Good Moral Character” Requirement serves now as the salient basis for denying one a handgun license of any kind: restricted premise or unrestricted carry license.The applicant for a New York handgun license must now produce a volume of information, demonstrating his internal thought processes, especially his political and social ones.Given the depth and breadth of the Amendments to the Gun Law, the Hochul Government likely had the amendments prepared well in advance of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings—their passage in the Senate and Hochul’s signing them into law operating as a mere formality, taking place scarcely a week after the Court came down with its decision.The challenges to those amendments came just as hurriedly.The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the original suit filed against enforcement of the CCIA, without prejudice. But the Court had dismissed the case for administrative, not substantive failings, in the lawsuit. The Court made clear its concern with the law, tacitly encouraging the Plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, holder of a valid New York handgun carry license, to refile his complaint.Hochul, as the scurrilous politician she is, took the dismissal as a win and said in a statement on her website that the Court agreed with the constitutionality of the CCIA. It did not.The original Plaintiff, Antonyuk, along with several other holders of New York handgun carry licenses filed a new lawsuit.This time, they named Governor Hochul as a Party Defendant, along with several other New York officials, including the Attorney General of the State.And this time the same U.S. District Court that heard and dismissed the original suit, granted the Plaintiffs a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).Hochul was furious and her Attorney General immediately filed an emergency appeal of the District Court’s order, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Not unexpectedly, the Second Circuit did not act on the Appeal, probably because the Midterm Elections were around the corner, and the Court may have wished to wait to see whether Hochul was elected Governor although that should not factor into their decision.The Midterms are now over, and, whether Hochul won the election by hook or crook, she is York’s Governor, and the residents of the State must suffer her for at least four years. And that means, among other things, that she will fervently defend New York’s amendments to its Gun Law. And she has plenty of time to do so. And that raises the question:What will the Second Circuit do? Will it overturn the TRO or allow it to continue? If the TRO were the only matter before the Court, the Second Circuit would remand the case to the District Court that had issued it.The Second Circuit could issue its order keeping the stay in place while the District Court decides the substantive issues. That would benefit the Plaintiffs. Time would be on their side because Hochul could not lawfully enforce the CCIA during discovery and trial, however long that takes. Or the Second Circuit could lift the stay. That would benefit Hochul, as she would be free to enforce the CCIA while the District Court hears the Constitutional challenges to it. That would benefit Hochul and her Administration. They would likely prolong a final resolution of the case as the District Court had made known its antipathy toward the CCIA in lengthy Court opinions.But, as Hochul’s appeal of the TRO order remains still to be acted on by the Second Circuit, the District Court that ordered a TRO against Hochul’s enforcement of the CCIA had recently ruled on Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed on September 2022. The case is Antonyuk vs. Hochul, (Antonyuk II), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201944 (N.D.N.Y. November 7, 2022)Contributing Ammoland writer John Crump wrote about this in his article posted on Ammoland, on November 7, 2022.The District Court’s impetus for this new ruling on a Preliminary Injunction though might render the TRO moot.Why did the District Court rule on the Preliminary Injunction before the Second Circuit ruled on the TRO?This might be due to the actions of Hochul’s Government, itself.In a caustic, strident, YouTube video, a new Acting Superintendent of State Police, Steven Nigrelli, replacing Kevin Bruen, threatened New York gun owners. The District Court wasn’t amused. In its comprehensive detailed opinion, the Court commented on Nigrelli’s outburst, saying this:“. . . unlike Superintendent Kevin Bruen in Antonyuk I, here Defendant Nigrelli has been shown to have threatened a ‘zero tolerance’ enforcement of the CCIA. On August 31, 2022, Defendant Nigrelli stated as follows in a YouTube video:‘We ensured that the lawful, responsible gun owners have the tools now to remain compliant with the law. For those who choose to violate this law . . . Governor, it's an easy message. I don't have to spell it out more than this. We'll have zero tolerance. If you violate this law, you will be arrested. Simple as that. Because the New York State Troopers are standing ready to do our job to ensure . . .  all laws are enforced.’Of course, here, Defendant Nigrelli did not limit his YouTube message to Plaintiffs. . . . However, five of the six Plaintiffs were members of the specific group of citizens (concealed-carry license holders) in New York State that was orally and visibly threatened by Defendant Nigrelli on August 31, 2022. The fact that the oral and visible threat occurred by video rather than in person fails to serve as a material distinction here, in the Court's view. For example, the fact that Nigrelli did not personally know yet of Defendant Mann's existence (as he does now) appears of little consequence, given that Defendant Nigrelli's 3,500 State Troopers were ‘standing ready’ to investigate and discover the violators. Indeed, the fact that the threat occurred by video actually increases the potency of it, due to its ability to be replayed. And Plaintiff Mann heard the message. It is difficult to see how one could fairly say that Defendant Nigrelli did not expressly direct his threat, in part, at Plaintiff Mann. In this way, Defendant Nigrelli's statement on August 31, 2022, was more than (as the State Defendants argue) a ‘generalized statement[] made . . . in the press.’ Rather, his statement specifically referenced arrest and was made in a YouTube video aimed specifically at license holders such as Plaintiff Mann who were considering violating Sections 4 or 5 of the CCIA.  As a result, the Court finds that Defendant Nigrelli has been charged with, and/or has assumed, the specific duty to enforce the CCIA.Finally, the Court finds that these threats of arrest and prosecution, or even mere citation and/or seizure of his handgun, are enough to show that Plaintiff Mann faces a credible threat of enforcement of Section 4 of the CCIA, which is fairly traceable to Defendants Hilton, Oakes and Nigrelli [Court documents and Case Citations omitted].”The Court opined that the Government’s message is demonstrative of the Plaintiffs’ concern they would be arrested for carrying a handgun in public—this notwithstanding the fact the Plaintiffs currently hold valid New York handgun carry licenses.The CCIA severely restricts where holders of New York handgun licenses can carry licenses.The Court’s granting of the Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction in substantial part, introduces a new wrinkle in what has grown into a complicated legal matter, and all due to Kathy Hochul’s stubborn refusal to comply with U.S. Supreme Court rulings, along with her contemptuous attitude toward law-abiding American citizens who simply wish to exercise their fundamental, natural law right of armed self-defense.Hochul’s team will file a response to the District Court’s November 7, 2022, Preliminary Injunction ruling. No doubt the AG’s Office is working on it at this moment, and it will submit it to the Second Circuit in a few days.Hochul may ask the Second Circuit to suspend a ruling on the TRO in view of the District Court’s new ruling on the Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction.The Second Circuit may itself, on its own motion, sua sponte, suspend a ruling on the TRO or, render the TRO matter given the District Court’s ruling on the Preliminary Injunction.The District Court ruling may have the effect of a final order on the merits. If so, this means the Second Circuit itself might render a final decision on at least a portion of the substantive merits of the issues on the constitutionality of the CCIA.If the Second Circuit affirms the Preliminary Injunction and, further, treats it like a Permanent Injunction that will render those portions of the CCIA affected by the Injunction permanently unenforceable.At that point, the administration's options will be limited. Hochul’s Government could appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but she likely wouldn’t do that. Of course, the High Court need not hear the case. The problem is that it probably would, and that would be dangerous for both New York and all Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions.The Court could grant review and use the opportunity to strike down the entirety of the New York handgun licensing structure. The Court would likely be in the frame of mind to do so, given Hochul’s contemptuous attitude toward the Court.The Hochul Administration could also ask for an en banc Second Circuit Court hearing. That means the entire Second Circuit would be empaneled to hear the case. Hochul would prefer that option, as the safest strategy. But the Second Circuit need not grant her a hearing of the full Bench. As with the U.S. Supreme Court, an appellant cannot demand a hearing of the full Bench, as a matter of right.There are more wrinkles in this Post-Bruen morass than on a Shar Pei.We’ll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.The natural law right of armed self-defense is coming to an ultimate showdown. At present that showdown is being fought in the Courts. Hopefully, it will not have to be fought in the streets. It need not come to that. Let us all hope it doesn’t.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

HILLARY’S ‘SMOKING GUN’ CANNOT BE UNDONE

“Let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is King. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” ~ Thomas PaineLost in the moment of the Dallas shooting tragedy is the serious matter of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s mishandling of official Government information. Many are those who would excuse this conduct. Most citizens likely would not. No American should.As awful as the gunning down of police officers by a lunatic is to contemplate, our Country, a Sovereign Nation, grounded upon a system of laws and a Bill of Rights, can survive this tragedy and others like it. Police departments around the Country can cope with lunatics, criminals, and terrorists if politicians in Washington D.C. would not second-guess police officers’ actions and if they would restrain themselves from running roughshod over them, and let due process take its course.But, can this Nation cope with a renegade ex-Secretary of State occupying the White House? It is more than doubtful. If Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes the 45^th President of the United States, she will have the willingness and power to undermine the Constitution, more than any U.S. President in recent times, beginning with the Second Amendment. The scorn she holds for our Second Amendment is evident. The American People know exactly where she stands on gun possession and gun ownership in this Country.The damage she might do is not only limited by her determination and desires but by the powers she would wield as U.S. President. Those powers she would wield as President would be second to none. She would control the vast intelligence apparatuses, the military, and the federal police forces. She would mold public education and even exert control over mass media.Should Congress fail to yield to her devious determination, ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as United States President Hillary Clinton, would make law through executive fiat. Hillary Clinton has proved, time and again, she does not respect “the rule of law”—the bedrock of our Nation. Yet, we are a Nation grounded on the rule of law, as our founders intended. Our Nation is not grounded on rule by mere mortal men (or women).Mrs. Clinton’s behavior as Secretary of State makes up “Exhibit A” of her willingness to break the law. We see this through her obvious incompetency, through her disrespect for our Nation’s laws, and through the harm she would inflict on this Country—harm she would inflict on our Country with abandon and alacrity. Mrs. Clinton’s behavior as Secretary of State should serve as a warning to the American People. For, as she has operated as Secretary of State—as someone who perceives herself well above the law—so she will most certainly operate as President of the United States. Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State presage her actions as U.S. President.The mainstream media says F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey, determined—after investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of several private email servers to conduct official Government business—that Clinton committed no crime. The mainstream media says this because Comey told the American public, in his July 5, 2016 statement, that he will recommend, to the Attorney General, that no criminal charges be filed against Hillary Rodham Clinton.The mainstream media has it wrong. The mainstream media is misleading the public. The F.B.I. Director’s recommendation to the Attorney General not to indict Hillary Clinton on criminal charges does not, ipso facto, mean Hillary committed no crime. The F.B.I. Director, James B. Comey said no such thing, nor did he intimate any such thing. The F.B.I. Director said, in his July 5, 2016 statement to the American People, though tacitly, that Hillary Clinton did commit a crime; that she had, in fact, committed a crime continuously over several years. Further, the F.B.I. Director said, though tacitly, that Hillary Clinton’s conduct amounted to a felony—that she committed a felony repeatedly.The F.B.I. Director’s recitation of a long list of Hillary Clinton’s criminal misdeeds make these points abundantly clear. Cataloging Hillary Clinton’s misdeeds in a public statement for the American People is the primary purpose for the F.B.I. Director’s unprecedented public statement to the American People. Comey intended that such evidence of Clinton’s criminal misdeeds be made manifestly clear to the American People. The tacit question posed to the American People as implied through Comey’s recitation of Clinton’s criminal misdeeds is this: Is Hillary Rodham Clinton a person whom American citizens truly wish to represent both them and their Country?James Comey, F.B.I. Director, the top police official in the Land, intended for the American People to understand, full well, Clinton’s culpability for her actions. Contrary to some commentators’ remarks, Comey’s statement to the American People is not a political stunt. It isn’t grandstanding. The F.B.I. Director delivered his statement in deadly earnest.Comey sets out, clearly, cogently, comprehensively, categorically, and convincingly a litany of damning evidence against Hillary Rodham Clinton. Listening to Comey’s lengthy delineation of Hillary Clinton’s wrongful conduct as Secretary of State, one expects him to conclude with something like this:“I will make the following recommendation to the Attorney General: In the F.B.I.’s estimation, after conducting an extensive investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s actions, in which she used several private email servers, exclusively and continuously over a period of years, to conduct official Government business, in her capacity as Secretary of State, a Cabinet level position, under the U.S. President, Barack Obama, the F.B.I. concludes that Hillary Rodham Clinton did in fact violate—either with actual knowledge of the wrongful, criminal nature of her actions and conduct in the handling of classified information, or through gross negligence in the handling of classified information—Section 793 of the United States Code, captioned, ‘Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information,’ that falls under Chapter 37 of the United States Code, captioned, ‘Espionage and Censorship,’ of Title 18 of the United States Code, captioned, ‘Crimes and Criminal Procedure.’ As Director of the F.B.I., I, James B. Comey, do therefore recommend to the Attorney General that Hillary Rodham Clinton be indicted and prosecuted forthwith for the aforesaid federal crime, having forsaken her duty to the United States Constitution and to the American People.”But Comey made no such recommendation to the Attorney General. This much we know. This he made clear. To the contrary, after reciting a lengthy list of criminal misconduct by Hillary Clinton, Comey asserted, singularly incongruously, that he would recommend to the Attorney General that no criminal charges be brought against Hillary Rodham Clinton.The F.B.I. Director made this assessment of Hillary Clinton’s actions: She was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified Government documents. Still, notwithstanding his failure to recommend indictment of Hillary Clinton on criminal charges, the Director never said—nor did he imply—that Hillary Clinton had not committed a crime. The tacit conclusion to be drawn from the F.B.I. Director’s statement was that Hillary Clinton did commit a crime.Failure to recommend indictment is not equivalent to and is not indicative of an absence of criminal conduct; and, failure to recommend indictment does not entail lack of evidence of criminal conduct. In this instance, upon the cataloging of a laundry list of criminal misconduct on the part of Hillary Clinton, James Comey makes Hillary Clinton’s criminal conduct patently clear. So, then, why didn’t the F.B.I. Director recommend bringing criminal charges against Clinton? He said he wouldn’t recommend indictment because, as he asserted, he didn’t believe that, among other things, Clinton’s criminal actions were prosecutable. That is an odd declaration to make and one that Rudy Giuliani, former New York City Mayor and a former United States Attorney, took immediate exception with. Giuliani said he was “shocked” by James Comey’s conclusion that Clinton’s actions were not prosecutable.More shocking still was Comey’s testimony before Congress. For, two days later, on July 7, 2016, in sworn testimony before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, James Comey seemingly retracted his tacit conclusion that, in his estimation, Hillary Clinton did break the law. For he asserted, clearly, categorically and unequivocally—in contradistinction to his earlier statement to the American public—that, in his estimation, Hillary Clinton didn’t break the law.There is an obvious disconnect between James Comey’s statement to the American public on July 5, 2016 and his testimony before Congress just two days later. Second, there exists an obvious disconnect between Comey’s litany of evidence supporting indictment of Hillary Clinton and the flimsy arguments he makes against it. Third, concerning whether Hillary Clinton lied to the F.B.I., there’s also a clear disconnect between Comey’s testimony in response to questions posed by U.S. Congressman, Jason Chaffetz, Republican-Utah, and Chairman of the Committee conducting the Hearing, and questions posed to James Comey by U.S. Congressman, Trey Gowdy, Republican-South Carolina, at the same Hearing.U.S. Congressman Trey Gowdy chairs the Select Committee on Benghazi. His worked helped bring Clinton’s criminal handling of classified Government information to light.But that isn’t all. Since Clinton had lied to the F.B.I., she has also violated another federal law: 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which sets forth in pertinent part,“Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism . . . imprisoned not more than 8 years . . . or both.” So, there exists a basis to indict Clinton under federal Statute, apart from the matter of her mishandling of classified Government information. She lied outright to the F.B.I.Clinton carries within her an air of supreme imperiousness and a feeling of imperviousness to personal harm. Indictment on criminal charges for lying to the F.B.I. would certainly preclude Clinton from continuing her campaign. So why isn’t Hillary Clinton charged with lying to the F.B.I.?Recall, Martha Stewart—wealthy businesswoman and television personality—was sent to prison was sent to prison in 2004 precisely because she lied to the F.B.I. on a matter involving insider trading—a matter significantly less critical to our Nation’s well-being than the matter at hand. The Attorney General’s Office could forgive Martha Stewart for the crime of insider trading. But the Attorney General’s Office clearly would not forgive Stewart for lying to the F.B.I. Why, then, is our Justice Department so willing—so readily willing—to forgive Hillary Clinton for lying to the F.B.I.?Less known, but just as serious, is the matter of the F.B.I.’s criminal investigation into the nefarious goings-on of the “Clinton Foundation.” Mr. Chaffetz specifically asked the F.B.I. Director whether the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct Government business was tied into the F.B.I.’s investigation into the “Clinton Foundation.” Most curiously, James Comey refused to discuss that issue at all, simply responding essentially with a terse, no comment.Given inconsistencies and, in some instances, curt utterances and evident reticence of the F.B.I. Director, James Come, during his testimony before Congress on July 7, 2016, and, too, given the odd dissembling in messaging and peculiar dislocation of meaning in the statement he delivered to the American People on July 5, 2016, we conclude that hidden, nefarious forces are at work protecting Hillary Clinton—are protecting the Executive Branch of Government that President Barack Obama, at the moment, presides over. This amounts to a tremendous miscarriage of justice.There is one supreme maxim that dictates the actions of the Executive Branch of Government: The President of the United States “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” This is mandated by Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. By extension, as is certainly clear, this means that the entirety of the work force under the U.S. President—from the highest Cabinet Official to the lowliest office worker—is expected to faithfully execute the Laws of our Nation. President Barack Obama has chosen in many critical instances, not to do so; neither did Hillary Clinton who was appointed by him and who worked under him as Secretary of State; neither would Hillary Clinton, in her capacity as U.S. President Hillary Clinton. What can be done to remedy this dire state of affairs?The Attorney General, Loretta Lynch could, of course, have indicted Hillary Clinton on criminal charges, regardless of James Comey’s recommendation to not bring criminal charges against the ex-Secretary of State. The Attorney General isn’t bound to accept the recommendation of the F.B.I. Director because a recommendation is just that—a suggested course of action. A recommendation is not a command. The Attorney General’s Office conducts its own review of the F.B.I.’s files.But, Loretta Lynch won’t indict Hillary Clinton. That won’t happen because the Attorney General and the U.S. President, Barack Obama don’t want that to happen. Obviously, the two of them—the Attorney General and the U.S. President—never wanted that to happen. Indeed, they never intended for that to happen. So the President, Barack Obama, carries on as if the entire matter of Hillary Clinton’s criminal conduct never happened. He takes to the road, campaigning on behalf of and together with Hillary Clinton (“Birds of a feather flock together”). The Attorney General, for her part, is happy to have this matter behind her as well. And both Hillary Clinton and her campaign officials breathe a collective sigh of relief.Indictment of Hillary Clinton on criminal charges would likely occur only if the Director of the F.B.I., James Comey had recommended indictment. Loretta Lynch has remarked she would adhere to the Director of the F.B.I.’s recommendation. But she said this only after her clandestine meeting with Hillary Clinton’s husband, Bill, on July 2, 2016, came to light.The Attorney General realized the singular impropriety of that meeting, even as she tried to argue the innocuousness of it. It was only after that meeting came to light that Loretta Lynch said she would accept whatever recommendation the Director of the F.B.I. makes. What is left unsaid, because of this imbroglio, is that the Attorney General knew, as did the President of the United States, Barack Obama, that the Director would make “the right decision”—the only acceptable decision for Obama’s plans to have Hillary Clinton succeed him—that the F.B.I. Director would recommend to the Attorney General that no criminal charges be filed against Hillary Rodham Clinton.The American People face a sad—horrific—and inescapable truth. Wealthy, powerful, secretive, seditious elements within the United States and wealthy, powerful, secretive, insidious interests outside the United States, have, together, orchestrated a charade of justice. The U.S. Department of Justice and its salient enforcement arm, the F.B.I. has been compromised.Can Congress set things right? Specifically, can Congress appoint independent counsel? Can Congress appoint a special prosecutor or team of special prosecutors, to review the accumulated evidence in the F.B.I.’s files and, after duly investigating those files, make its own recommendation to Congress? If that special prosecutor deems an indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton appropriate, and recommends indictment, can Congress then compel the Attorney General to indict Clinton? Much is at stake for the future of this Country and for our sacred Constitution. The thought of a likely criminal occupying the highest Office in the Land should give every American pause. A likely criminal occupying that Office is not only farcical, it is appalling.In the next article we look at the intricacies of the special prosecutor appointment process to ascertain if this is feasible—if anything can be done to override a serious travesty of justice.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2016 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.