Sunday, November 06, 2016

Do You Wonder Why Loretta Lynch And Obama Have Been Unable To Make The FBI Obey The Law?

>




Olbermann seems to agree with many people-- including me-- that the FBI needs, at the very minimum, a major over-haul. He's been fighting the battle to hold fascism at bay. As Joe Conason put it Friday in the National Memo , "Whatever the outcome next Tuesday, our political system crossed a perilous rubicon during the days leading up to that climax: For the first time in recent memory, officials of the nation’s premier law enforcement agency sought to influence a national election with illicit leaks.

Murky information about investigations of Hillary Clinton’s emails and the Clinton Foundation, even fraudulent rumors of “indictments” have flooded the media, all somehow traced back to the FBI-- with Rudolph Giuliani of the Trump campaign boasting on Fox News that he had advance knowledge of these manipulations... In a police state, prosecutors and police agents seek to direct politics from the shadows. In a democracy, law enforcement officials must never attempt to influence elections. What the rogue agents have done in these past few days is all too similar to the standard practice in Putin’s Russia and other authoritarian states. It is far below the American constitutional standard that those agents swore to uphold."


Much easier to read if you click on it


Two top Democrats, John Conyers from the House Judiciary Committee, and Elijah Cummings from the House Oversight Committee, are demanding that the Justice Department look into why we have a rogue FBI interfering with the election. Above is their letter to the department's inspector general, Michael Horowitz. Are they worried that we're in the midst of an attempted coup d'état?

Oh, and meet Putin ally, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the head of Russia's neo-Nazi party, the Liberal Democrats. He has a message from Moscow:



Friday night, a Washington Post editorial asked the simple question, Can anyone control the FBI?. It lays out the whole outrageous time line of FBI interference in the election, a time line that has to end in significant changes at the Bureau.
It was disruptive enough that James B. Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, injected last-minute uncertainty into the presidential campaign by announcing discovery of additional emails in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server. Mr. Comey’s explanation for the disclosure, that he needed to keep Congress informed, was dubious, and the damaging impact, casting a new shadow over Ms. Clinton, was tangible. In the days since, the FBI’s behavior has grown even more questionable. FBI sources have fanned new doubts about Ms. Clinton’s candidacy with inaccurate leaks about an investigation of the Clinton Foundation. This reflects poorly on Mr. Comey’s leadership and on the FBI.

Former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. wrote in The Post the other day that the Justice Department, which includes the FBI, “has a policy of not taking unnecessary action close in time to Election Day that might influence an election’s outcome.”

Mr. Holder said rules he approved “are intended to ensure that every investigation proceeds fairly and judiciously; to maintain the public trust in the department’s ability to do its job free of political influence; and to prevent investigations from unfairly or unintentionally casting public suspicion on public officials who have done nothing wrong.”



The FBI, or at least a part it, has blasted right through Mr. Holder’s rules. According to reports Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal and Thursday in The Post, agents based in New York thought they should investigate whether donors to the Clinton family charity were given improper benefits by the State Department when Ms. Clinton was secretary. They were motivated in part by Clinton Cash, a book by the conservative author Peter Schweizer that was published in May 2015. According to The Post’s account, when the FBI agents took their desire to probe the foundation to higher-ups, they were advised the evidence was thin. Nothing abnormal about that; prosecutors and officials use their judgment about what cases to pursue all the time.

But this group of New York agents apparently was unsatisfied, and someone decided to prosecute the case through leaks days before the presidential election. Most irresponsible of all was Fox News anchor Bret Baier, who declared an “avalanche” of evidence is “coming every day” and an “expansive” investigation into the foundation was ongoing and would lead “to likely an indictment.” Without any substantiation whatsoever-- indictments are returned by grand juries, not by special agents of the FBI-- the headlines took off. The false report of an impending indictment was then repeated by Donald Trump. Mr. Baier apologized on Friday for a “mistake,” but the political damage had already been done.

We can only guess at the motives of the FBI agents behind this politicization of law enforcement, but their behavior is sickening. The campaign has been hard enough with the ugly chants of “lock her up.” The last thing we need is to find the fingerprints of the nation’s premier law enforcement agency all over an 11th-hour smear of Ms. Clinton.

Labels: , , , , , ,

3 Comments:

At 6:41 AM, Blogger Nicole White said...

Comey is Obama's pick, and until very recently he and the FBI generally were held in high regard by Democrats, in spite of pursuing unconstitutional domestic surveillance and trumpeting terrorism charges against people with mental disabilities sucked into FBI-inspired bomb plots. Right-wing "justice" wasn't a problem until it got in the way of politics, apparently.

Will stuffing the FBI full of Democratic loyalists change its character? No. It'll simply shift investigations into political corruption from the Dems to the Republicans. The agency needs progressive reforms to ensure that justice isn't doled out according to party affiliation or political influence. Otherwise, it will become a partisan weapon that switches sides with each administration.

I don't expect any such reform under either nominee's administration.

 
At 9:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder why Obama hasn't been able to do any law enforcement at all.

 
At 9:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's never what HRC has done but, rather, the unmitigated nerve of those who have revealed what she has done. She sounds a lot like a standard Republican.

Is there any particular law that one could independently read to support the insistence that the FBI "should obey the law"? No law is cited. I see reference to agency "policy" and "unprecedented" action. The huffing and puffing about FOX news imbeciles renders the letter an unfortunate joke. (The press IS allowed to influence elections every minute to the close of the polls.)

I especially like the part in the letter complaining that Comey talked about emails he had not yet seen but the letter writers KNOW that the emails are false. Are they admitting THEY have seen the emails?

Whoever is upset with Comey, ANOTHER Republican appointed by Obumma, should write their letters to the president asking whether he, at last, understands the recklessness (ring a bell?) in filling his administration with members of the party whose public mission is to destroy him.

We could have made it through the day without another Putin hate.

John Puma

 

Post a Comment

<< Home