The Patriot Post Digest 7-8-2016

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 7-8-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

Mid-Day Digest

Jul. 8, 2016

THE FOUNDATION

“Without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.” —Benjamin Rush (1806)

TOP RIGHT HOOKS

Obama and the Cop Killers1

The horrific news from Dallas this morning is that five police officers were murdered at a “Black Lives Matter” protest. As we go to press, the only officer to be identified is Brent Thompson of Dallas Area Rapid Transit, who had just married another officer two weeks ago. Seven more officers were wounded, as were several other people. The protesters were gathered to object to two fatal police encounters2 this week, in which black men were killed. With Dallas police serving as crowd control, four suspects opened fire on them, at least two reportedly from “ambush-style” sniper positions. One suspect was killed after a standoff, and three others have been detained. Dallas Police Chief David Brown said one assailant told authorities “he was upset about the recent police shootings” and “wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”

While in Warsaw for a NATO summit, Barack Obama weighed in, offering condolences, praising police and Black Lives Matter protesters. He then pivoted to — what else — gun control, saying, “When people are armed with powerful weapons, unfortunately it makes attacks like these more deadly and more tragic and we’re going to have to consider those realities as well.”

If bad guys killing cops is a “gun problem,” why is police shooting too many people racism? Regarding Obama’s predictable political pivot shifting blame to “powerful weapons,” the most powerful weapon is his political rhetoric, dividing instead of uniting America on every issue.

Indeed, in his remarks about Dallas, Obama echoed his “racial disparity in the justice system” diatribe from just hours earlier, when Obama called police shootings earlier in the week “symptomatic of a broader set of racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system.” He rattled off some horrible-sounding statistics to prove his point.

Only then did he offer faint praise. “Now let me just say that we have extraordinary appreciation and respect for the vast majority of police officers who put their line on the lives every day.”

And as soon as he’d said that, he reiterated that he put together a “task force” to look into racist policing practices. He slammed jurisdictions that had not yet adopted its recommendations.

That was the stage he set when it came time to express condolences after Dallas. We’re sure police would welcome his support if it was authentic. But Obama, Hillary Clinton and their fellow NeoComs perpetuate the urban poverty plantations3 where 95% of our nation’s violence occurs, then paint all cops as “racist”4 after there are deadly confrontations with the Demos' gang-banger constituency. In turn, that results in the murder of law enforcement officers. And by the way, we’re waiting on Obama’s order to lower flags to half-mast.

A final thought and the bottom line: The people responsible for these murders are the murderers themselves.

Fireworks in June’s Jobs Report5

After a harrowing week, we could use some welcome news. Thankfully, Friday dawned with an encouraging development on the economic front. But first, recall that May’s jobs report was abysmal6. The government originally reported the economy posted a measly 38,000 jobs, representing an exceedingly low quota. However, newly modified figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) are even worse. Just 11,000 jobs were created in May. Fortunately, that was somewhat negated by the fact April came in at 144,000, or 21,000 more than originally reported. Better, but both months were lacking nevertheless.

June was far more respectable. This morning BLS reported the addition of 287,000 jobs last month. That both dwarfed April and May and defied expectations. Just 170,000-175,000 jobs were anticipated. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate rose to 4.9%, a few tenths higher than May’s 4.7%. That’s not necessarily bad, however, because labor participation also increased. As American Enterprise Institute’s James Pethokoukis tweeted, “If labor force participation rate had held steady, jobless rate would have been 4.7%. So higher 4.9% rate for good reason: larger workforce.”

The question remains: What the heck happened in May? Moreover, as CNBC notes, “Over the last three months, job gains have averaged about 147,000 per month.” We should note too that, as with every jobs report, the true unemployment figure is higher than 4.9% when everything is taken into account. All that being said, June’s jobs report was positive, and it’s good to see at least something going in the right direction this week. Let’s hope it lasts.

BEST OF RIGHT OPINION

Charles Krauthammer: Comey: A Theory7
Mona Charen: Orgy of Guilt8
Brent Bozell & Tim Graham: Now Controversial: ‘God Bless America’9

For more, visit Right Opinion10.

TOP HEADLINES

State Department Reopens Clinton Probe11
Democrat Rep. Indicted on Corruption Charges12
New Data Reveals 20 Veterans Commit Suicide Every Day13

For more, visit Patriot Headline Report14.

FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
Keeping Clinton on the Ropes15

By Michael Swartz

Most Americans who’ve followed the investigation into Hillary Clinton and her private email server fall into one of two camps. The first — those who believe the system is rigged and that she engaged in criminal acts but got away with them simply because her last name is Clinton. And the second — those who feel Hillary was the victim of yet another partisan witch-hunt that ended up being much ado about nothing, and that she’s being harassed simply because she’s a woman intent on breaking the highest “glass ceiling” of all.

Undoubtedly congressional Republicans fall into the former group, so it was no surprise once the news broke that no criminal charges would be brought against Clinton16 that their first act would be to haul FBI Director James Comey in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to ask him for an explanation. Comey essentially argued that the applicable law — a 1917 statute based on “gross negligence” in mishandling classified information — wasn’t actually applicable.

“No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years focused on gross negligence,” testified Comey, a former U.S. attorney. “That’s just the way it is. I know the Department of Justice, [so] I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case.” The case against Clinton, Comey added, did not meet the “mens rea” legal standard of criminal intent.

Yet one has to ask: What, then, was Hillary’s intent? Perhaps it wasn’t necessarily criminal intent, but there certainly was a lot of shady dealing going on between the Clinton Foundation, foreign leaders and others in the private loop with Hillary at the center. Even aside from the likelihood of hackers accessing the classified information on her private server, the reality that the Clintons used the secretary of state’s office to peddle influence and thereby enrich themselves is outrageous. The personal email setup likely helped her cover-up Benghazi, too.

Instead, the whole affair is chalked up to “carelessness.” As Comey pointed out: “I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton or those with whom she was corresponding both talked about classified information on email and knew when they were doing it that it was against the law.” While Comey claims no “reasonable” prosecutor would bring charges, it’s also true that one can indict a ham sandwich. Indeed, frivolous and politically motivated charges have often come from an overzealous prosecutor and a stacked grand jury bent on political mischief. (Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy picks apart this defense17 from Comey by comparing it to a similar type of case where criminal negligence is often determined.)

Or, taken the other way, how many who are accused of similar acts will now be using the “Hillary defense”18 to imply that they were only careless and had no criminal intent? One certainly could have lumped David Petraeus into that group had he been investigated post-Hillary.

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Digest 7-8-2016
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

It’s more difficult to sit there with a straight face and assure Americans that the system isn’t rigged19, as Comey did, when two high-profile cases turn out so differently — to the benefit of the political party in power, no less. And when the top law-enforcement official in the country agrees to a secret meeting20 with the suspect’s former-president husband, Comey’s insistence that he “did not coordinate … with anyone” rings hollow.

No one in “the White House, the Department of Justice, or anyone outside the FBI family had any idea what I was about to say,” added Comey. “I say that under oath, I stand by that. There was no coordination.” We call bovine excrement on that: After all, why would Barack Obama be campaigning with Hillary on the very day she was cleared if he didn’t know the fix was in? (Does anyone think a sitting president would share a stage with a politician who’d just been indicted?)

Comey didn’t need to have a phone conversation with Attorney General Loretta Lynch or Obama or anyone else to know that Clinton was to be let off the hook. For one thing, Obama’s been tipping the scales of justice since last spring, claiming during a “60 Minutes” interview that Clinton’s malfeasance didn’t pose “a national security problem.” The FBI director is appointed by the president, and serves at the pleasure of the president. Comey knew the score.

There may be a second chance to give Hillary her due, though. In his opening remarks for the House hearing, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who chairs the Oversight Committee, asked Comey if the FBI investigation probed into Clinton’s congressional testimony and whether she lied under oath. When it was learned Comey had not and was waiting on a referral from Congress to do so, Chaffetz assured Comey he will get one. While the case could be a slam dunk on the factual side, the problem may be in proving intent there as well21. Republicans don’t have a great record against Clinton perjury.

It will also be perceived, thanks to the mainstream media, as another partisan effort to smear Hillary, who may get away with this one too because we’re certain her already-shaky memory will repeatedly fail her in this case. “I don’t recall” may be the catchphrase of this campaign, perhaps even supplanting “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

One telling exchange in that regard happened when Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), a former prosecutor and the leader of the Select Committee on Benghazi, confronted Comey with numerous false statements made by Clinton before Congress. Gowdy then asked Comey, “In interest of time … I’m not going to go through any more of the false statements. But I am going to ask you put on your old hat [as a prosecutor]. False exculpatory statements, they are used for what?”

“Either for the substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution,” Comey answered.

“Exactly,” Gowdy said. “Consciousness of guilt and intent.” Case closed?

Our nation has stomached the Clintons for about a quarter-century now. “Clinton fatigue” may have set in long ago, but the reason they stay in the news is that they just can’t seem to live outside the spotlight or within the law. It’s a sad state of affairs that she could be our next president in part because of a rigged investigation that purportedly hinged on what a “reasonable” prosecutor would do.

Message to Director Comey: We have long since departed from reason in this country. Your job was to restore the sanity of Rule of Law.

MORE ANALYSIS FROM THE PATRIOT POST

Obama’s Premature Pullout Slows Down22
Still Debating Iraq23
Hillary’s Poker Tell24
Kobayashi Sulu25

OPINION IN BRIEF

Charles Krauthammer: “When Chief Justice John Roberts used a tortured, logic-defying argument to uphold Obamacare, he was subjected to similar accusations [as FBI Director James Comey] of bad faith. My view was that, as guardian of the Supreme Court’s public standing, he thought the issue too momentous — and the implications for the country too large — to hinge on a decision of the court. Especially after Bush v. Gore, Roberts wanted to keep the court from overturning the political branches on so monumental a piece of social legislation. I would suggest that Comey’s thinking, whether conscious or not, was similar: He did not want the FBI director to end up as the arbiter of the 2016 presidential election. If Clinton were not a presumptive presidential nominee but simply a retired secretary of state, he might well have made a different recommendation. Prosecuting under current circumstances would have upended and redirected an already year-long presidential selection process. In my view, Comey didn’t want to be remembered as the man who irreversibly altered the course of American political history. And with no guarantee that the prosecution would succeed, moreover. Imagine that scenario: You knock out of the race the most likely next president — and she ultimately gets acquitted! Imagine how Comey goes down in history under those circumstances. I admit I’m giving Comey the benefit of the doubt. But the best way I can reconcile his reputation for integrity with the grating illogic of his Clinton decision is by presuming that he didn’t want to make history. I don’t endorse his decision. (Nor did I Roberts'.) But I think I understand it.”

SHORT CUTS

Insight: “In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king.” —Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536)

Upright: “Trump is himself a product of a crisis of legitimacy, of a party where a substantial minority and perhaps even a plurality of voters don’t trust their leaders or elites of any kind. Essentially overturning their primary votes the first time they successfully vote against those party leaders is more likely to further erode that legitimacy than restore it.” —W. James Antle III

Sexism? Really? “When you’re the first woman with a real shot at winning the White House, you know at least one thing is for sure. The men at the top are going to have a lot to say about you.” —CNN’s Don Lemon alluding to sexism in the FBI’s scolding of Hillary Clinton’s email practices

Friendly fire: “There should not even be one [Clinton email in question].” —Nancy Pelosi

Missing the point: “We don’t want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn’t do. That is the characteristic of all the prosecutions involving the mishandling of classified information.” —James Comey

Non sequitur: “We deserve to live. We deserve to survive. We deserve to thrive. Being Black should not be a capital offense.” —Planned Parenthood (That’s true. Why, then, does Planned Parenthood disproportionately target black babies for abortion as advocated by PP founder and eugenist Margaret Sanger?)

And last… “The same people who literally blamed the NRA for the Orlando shooting while the blood was still being mopped up are today demanding that Black Lives Matter not be smeared by association with the violence in Dallas. … I myself hold to the view that we hold criminals responsible for their actions and that speeches given by third parties are generally, at most, tangential questions. Maybe your view is different, and that’s fine: But pick one.” —Kevin Williamson

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.