Archive for June 8, 2017

« WarSclerotic home page

Jordanian Columnist: The Manchester Bomber Is A Product Of His Society’s Culture Of Hate; Families Are Responsible For Their Sons’ Actions

June 8, 2017

Jordanian Columnist: The Manchester Bomber Is A Product Of His Society’s Culture Of Hate; Families Are Responsible For Their Sons’ Actions, MEMRI, June 8, 2017

(A comparison by the Jordanian author of the actions and motivations of the Manchester bomber and those of Palestinians terrorists would be interesting. Does he think — and could he say — that Palestinian terrorists are similarly infected by the “culture of hate” spewed daily by Palestinian schools, Palestinian media and Palestinian Authority leaders? — DM)

Following the May 22, 2017 Manchester bombing, which has been claimed by ISIS, Fahd Al-Khitan, a senior columnist for the Jordanian daily Al-Ghad, wrote an article in which he placed responsibility for the crime on the bomber’s family and on the immigrant society in which he grew up, which adhere to a culture of hate instead of assimilating in British society and adopting its values. Rejecting the claim often heard in the Arab and Muslim world, that the West is to blame for the emergence of ISIS, Al-Khitan stressed that this organization is the product of the culture of rejecting the other that permeates the Arab and Muslim society and which will continue to produce terrorists even when ISIS itself is eliminated.

The following are excerpts from his article.[1]

Mourning the Manchester victims (image: arabstoday.net, May 26, 2017)

“It was the natural outcome of the culture of hate. That is the only explanation for the heinous deed committed by the terrorist Salman Al-‘Abedi in the city of Manchester. The terrorist’s family fled the tyranny of [former Libyan ruler Mu’ammar] Al-Qadhafi and sought asylum in Britain, and Al-‘Abedi was born and grew up there, in a civilized and pluralist society that respected his right to live in dignity. But hatred for the other, which he absorbed in his closed-off environment, overcame the humanistic values he learned in British society.

“He [came to] support the most benighted stream in history and quenched his thirst by going back to the roots of his former culture, [the culture] of his country of origin. He left Britain for Libya, but then returned there to commit his heinous crime. He had no particular target; all he wanted to do was kill those who differed from him in their culture and beliefs, otherwise why would he choose [to bomb] a concert attended by teenaged girls and boys? [He chose it] just because it was a possible target for practicing his hobby of murder. Had [this target] been unavailable, he would have run people over in the street or spilled their guts in museums or restaurants.

“Loyalty to ISIS is not enough to explain what happened. [The bomber] had deeper motivations. The culture in which he was raised  allowed him to automatically find his place in an organizational framework that has become the authentic tool of expression for a wide stream in our societies, [a stream] that negates the other, defends [the act of] murdering him and is overjoyed whenever there is breaking news about a terror attack.

“The family of the terrorist Al-‘Abedi, and the families of previous terrorists, are not innocent, because they played a central role in what happened to their sons. [The sons] imbibed the culture of hate at home and in the closed-off environment that millions of immigrants in the West inhabit. [The immigrants] have their own schools, and their communities keep themselves to themselves, [living] in their own world isolated from the wider society. Al-‘Abedi is the authentic expression of the social schizophrenia that many [immigrants] suffer from and of the culture of seclusion that dominates millions of people in our societies.

“We are bound to hear [all kinds of] cheap justifications for his crime, most of them holding the West responsible for the current situation in our countries, and all of them falling into the rubric of treating murder and barbarity as normal…

“Al-‘Abedi’s case is perhaps the most typical example [of what I am saying], because his family members might have died or might have been jailed for life had they stayed in Libya.  His father and mother fled [Libya] and sought asylum in Britain to save their lives and find some peace. Do the British deserve to have a member of this family, which was a victim of the Al-Qadhafi regime, repay it with such a cowardly action [as this bombing]? Al-‘Abedi was born in Britain and was given a chance to build [the kind of] successful life that millions of his peers [in the Arab world] wish for themselves. But he remained loyal to his cultural roots and harbored intense hatred which exploded the minute he had a chance to fulfill his terrorist duty. ‘Abedi’s case [shows] that, in order to be a terrorist, one does not necessarily have to join ISIS physically. It is enough to drink from the well of the benighted ideology, because then ISIS becomes the predictable outcome…

“The ISIS caliphate in Mosul and Al-Raqqa will vanish soon, but Al-‘Abedi and his fellow terrorists will long continue to exist among us. Their cultural enterprise will thrive and grow every day and in every place.”

 

[1] Al-Ghad (Jordan), May 25, 2017.

Categories: Culture of hate, Islamic hatred of others, Manchester terrorist attack
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Zuhdi Jasser: Apologists for Radical Islam ‘Coddle the Muslim Community, Use Them for Identity Politics’

June 8, 2017

Zuhdi Jasser: Apologists for Radical Islam ‘Coddle the Muslim Community, Use Them for Identity Politics’, Breitbart, John Hayward, June 8, 2017

(If there is a successful Muslim reformation, it will start — and probably end — in America. I have serious doubts that it will happen in the near future even in America. — DM

“The Islam that I believe in and teach my kids is a personal faith. It’s not up to the government. It’s not up to the imam who is the teacher. I can talk to five, six imams and then make up my seventh decision, some different decision.”

“Remember, what people read as the Koran is interpretation. The only thing that is Koran is the Arabic. The battle over interpretation is, what are the original words in Arabic? How do we actually define them? Many of them are fake and intentionally misleading interpretations,” he argued.

“The others that are about wars and battles, we need to separate and say, ‘You know what? Maybe it made sense in 620, 625 C.E., but we need to circumscribe those and say we no longer apply to today.’ You have to separate the historical part of the passages from applies to today,” he advised. “Muslims have done that with the rejection of polygamy that’s permitted, with the rejection of the cutting of hands for stealing, things like that. There’s a way to separate those things, and other ways to reinterpret.”

“There are modern ways to reinterpret the exact same words in a non-Salafi, non-Wahabbi, more modern liberal way while staying true to the authenticity of the script,” he stressed, referring to two schools of Islam that reject modernization and insist on highly literal interpretations of the Koran.

***********************

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, joined SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Thursday’s Breitbart News Daily to talk about the aftermath of the London Bridge terror attack, and the future of Britain’s struggle against radical Islamic terrorism.

Kassam commiserated with Jasser about the difficulties of being a Muslim reformer in a media environment where stern criticism of Islam, even from Muslims, is treated like racism.

Jasser said apologists for Islam’s excesses were “basically doing takfir on national television,” using the Muslim term for disinformation.

“My response is, I’m proud not to be part of their Islamist community, but these guys talk about Muslims like we’re a gang,” he said. “Like they own the gang, and we can’t participate, when in fact they want to shut down free speech, they want to deny that we’re a diverse community.”

“When people say ‘why do these radical attacks keep happening?’ it’s because the free world refuses to treat Muslims like adults,” said Jasser. “They want to coddle the Muslim community, use them for partisan purposes and identity politics, and ignore all of the signs and precursors of radicalization – which are, by the way, the signs are hallmarks of the principles of our free society.”

“Equality of men and women, respect for free speech, a denial of conspiracy theories, ownership of who we are – all of these principles, which are basic principles of human rights, in order to coddle Muslims they allow the Islamic supremacists, the sharia supremacists to speak for our community,” he elaborated.

“Meanwhile, they are basically telling Muslims like myself who love America, who want to stand up for our country, ‘Oh, go sit at the back of the bus. You don’t deserve any recognition. We’re going to let the men with the long beards and the apologists basically speak for your community.’ It’s bigoted. It is them who are the bigots. We are being told we don’t love our faith, when in fact it’s the tough love of Muslims like myself that really, I believe, should be honored in a free society,” said Jasser.

Kassam asked if the wave of terrorist attacks was a direct result of allowing Islamists and their apologists to “dominate the conversation” at the expense of reformists like Jasser, sometimes equating reformist criticism with apostasy.

“It definitely is,” Jasser replied. “ISIS, the Islamic State, is not only ISIS. Every one of the Islamic states of the 56 Muslim-majority countries that form the Organization of Islamic Cooperation is based on a sharia state platform. That sharia state basically says that you need to follow the laws as determined by the clerics who define what is and is not Islam, what is and is not permitted speech. If you don’t fit in that construct, then you are not a Muslim. Therefore, how do you control that state? You control it by limited free speech and rejecting those who fall outside the confines of their theocracy.”

“People need to understand, political Islam’s goal is not to dominate Muslim-majority countries, but to evangelize, spread their ideas globally and defeat secular states, defeat non-Muslim states,” he warned. “They divide the world into the land of Islam and the land of War.”

“We in the West, by virtue of not evangelizing liberty, being offensive in pushing back – not only against terror, which is a symptom, but against the theocratic ideology of political Islam – are being sheepish. Appeasing, if you will. By not pushing for our ideas of universal human rights, we have been basically unarmed, and we’re starting to see a sonic boom of the lack of assimilation,” he said.

“Those within our society that are Islamists reject who we are. When Britain looks and says wow, there’s almost more jihadis from Britain going to Syria than there are Muslims loving Britain and serving in their own military – just look at the numbers. It should be 99 percent for one, serving in the British military, versus going to jihad. It is almost 50 to 50. That is why we’re losing this war,” said Jasser.

Kassam asked how adherents of a Westernized Muslim could reconcile themselves to the portions of Koranic doctrine that conflict with Western ideals, such as freedom of speech.

“That’s a great question, especially now in this month of Ramadan where we fast and reflect, and seek atonement and humility,” Jasser replied. “The Islam that I believe in and teach my kids is a personal faith. It’s not up to the government. It’s not up to the imam who is the teacher. I can talk to five, six imams and then make up my seventh decision, some different decision.”

“Remember, what people read as the Koran is interpretation. The only thing that is Koran is the Arabic. The battle over interpretation is, what are the original words in Arabic? How do we actually define them? Many of them are fake and intentionally misleading interpretations,” he argued.

“The others that are about wars and battles, we need to separate and say, ‘You know what? Maybe it made sense in 620, 625 C.E., but we need to circumscribe those and say we no longer apply to today.’ You have to separate the historical part of the passages from applies to today,” he advised. “Muslims have done that with the rejection of polygamy that’s permitted, with the rejection of the cutting of hands for stealing, things like that. There’s a way to separate those things, and other ways to reinterpret.”

As a much more delicate example, Jasser noted there is a passage in the Koran about the permissibility of beating women, but he suggested it could be reinterpreted in a modern context as “going on strike” (i.e. separating from her) instead of physically “striking” her.

“There are modern ways to reinterpret the exact same words in a non-Salafi, non-Wahabbi, more modern liberal way while staying true to the authenticity of the script,” he stressed, referring to two schools of Islam that reject modernization and insist on highly literal interpretations of the Koran.

Categories: Muslim Reform Movement, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: ,

Comments: 2 Comments

History, Precedent and Comey Statement Show that Trump Did Not Obstruct Justice

June 8, 2017

History, Precedent and Comey Statement Show that Trump Did Not Obstruct Justice, Gatestone Institute, Alan M. Dershowitz, June 8, 2017

Comey has also acknowledged that the president had the constitutional authority to fire him for any or no cause. President Donald Trump also had the constitutional authority to order Comey to end the investigation of Flynn. He could have pardoned Flynn, as Bush pardoned Weinberger, thus ending the Flynn investigation, as Bush ended the Iran-Contra investigation. What Trump could not do is what Nixon did: direct his aides to lie to the FBI, or commit other independent crimes. There is no evidence that Trump did that.

*************************

The statement may provide political ammunition to Trump opponents, but unless they are willing to stretch James Comey’s words and take Trump’s out of context, and unless they are prepared to abandon important constitutional principles and civil liberties that protect us all, they should not be searching for ways to expand already elastic criminal statutes and shrink enduring constitutional safeguards in a dangerous and futile effort to criminalize political disagreements.

The first casualty of partisan efforts to “get” a political opponent — whether Republicans going after Clinton or Democrats going after Trump — is often civil liberties. All Americans who care about the Constitution and civil liberties must join together to protest efforts to expand existing criminal law to get political opponents.

Today it is Trump. Yesterday it was Clinton. Tomorrow it could be you.

In 1992, then-President George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five other individuals who had been indicted or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra arms deal. The special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, was furious, accusing Bush of stifling his ongoing investigation and suggesting that he may have done it to prevent Weinberger or the others from pointing the finger of blame at Bush himself. The New York Times also reported that the investigation might have pointed to Bush himself.

This is what Walsh said:

“The Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed with the pardon of Caspar Weinberger. We will make a full report on our findings to Congress and the public describing the details and extent of this cover-up.”

Yet President Bush was neither charged with obstruction of justice nor impeached. Nor have other presidents who interfered with ongoing investigations or prosecutions been charged with obstruction.

It is true that among the impeachment charges levelled against President Nixon was one for obstructing justice, but Nixon committed the independent crime of instructing his aides to lie to the FBI, which is a violation of section 1001 of the federal criminal code.

It is against the background of this history and precedent that the statement of former FBI Director James must be considered. Comey himself acknowledged that,

“throughout history, some presidents have decided that because ‘problems’ come from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.”

Comey has also acknowledged that the president had the constitutional authority to fire him for any or no cause. President Donald Trump also had the constitutional authority to order Comey to end the investigation of Flynn. He could have pardoned Flynn, as Bush pardoned Weinberger, thus ending the Flynn investigation, as Bush ended the Iran-Contra investigation. What Trump could not do is what Nixon did: direct his aides to lie to the FBI, or commit other independent crimes. There is no evidence that Trump did that.

With these factors in mind, let’s turn to the Comey statement.

Former FBI Director James Comey’s written statement, which was released in advance of his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, does not provide evidence that President Trump committed obstruction of justice or any other crime. Indeed it strongly suggests that even under the broadest reasonable definition of obstruction, no such crime was committed.

The crucial conversation occurred in the Oval Office on February 14 between the President and the then director. According to Comey’s contemporaneous memo, the president expressed his opinion that General Flynn “is a good guy.” Comey replied: “He is a good guy.”

The President said the following: “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this thing go.”

Comey understood that to be a reference only to the Flynn investigation and not “the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to the campaign.”

Comey had already told the President that “we were not investigating him personally.”

Comey understood “the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December.”

Comey did not say he would “let this go,” and indeed he did not grant the president’s request to do so. Nor did Comey report this conversation to the attorney general or any other prosecutor. He was troubled by what he regarded as a breach of recent traditions of FBI independence from the White House, though he recognized that “throughout history, some presidents have decided that because ‘problems’ come from the Department of Justice, they should try to hold the Department close.”

That is an understatement.

Throughout American history — from Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Obama — presidents have directed (not merely requested) the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute (or not prosecute) specific individuals or categories of individuals.

It is only recently that the tradition of an independent Justice Department and FBI has emerged. But traditions, even salutary ones, cannot form the basis of a criminal charge. It would be far better if our constitution provided for prosecutors who were not part of the executive branch, which is under the direction of the president.

In Great Britain, Israel and other democracies that respect the rule of law, the Director of Public Prosecution or the Attorney General are law enforcement officials who, by law, are independent of the Prime Minister.

But our constitution makes the Attorney General both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the president on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the Attorney General, and his subordinate, the Director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the President had said the following to Comey: “You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him.” Would that exercise of the president’s constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. Presidents do that all the time.

The first President Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason, President Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, as he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason the President fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump “repeatedly” told Comey to “get that fact out,” and he did not.

If that is true, it is certainly not an obstruction of justice.

Nor is it an obstruction of justice to ask for loyalty from the director of the FBI, who responded “you will get that (‘honest loyalty’) from me.”

Comey understood that he and the President may have understood that vague phrase — “honest loyalty” — differently. But no reasonable interpretation of those ambiguous words would give rise to a crime. 
 Many Trump opponents were hoping that the Comey statement would provide smoking guns.

It has not.

Instead it has weakened an already weak case for obstruction of justice.

The statement may provide political ammunition to Trump opponents, but unless they are willing to stretch Comey’s words and take Trump’s out of context, and unless they are prepared to abandon important constitutional principles and civil liberties that protect us all, they should not be searching for ways to expand already elastic criminal statutes and shrink enduring constitutional safeguards in a dangerous and futile effort to criminalize political disagreements.

The first casualty of partisan efforts to “get” a political opponent — whether Republicans going after Clinton or Democrats going after Trump — is often civil liberties. All Americans who care about the Constitution and civil liberties must join together to protest efforts to expand existing criminal law to get political opponents.

Today it is Trump. Yesterday it was Clinton. Tomorrow it could be you.

WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 3: Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey testifies in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee during an oversight hearing on the FBI on Capitol Hill May 3, 2017 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images)

 

Categories: 2016 elections and Comey, 2016 elections and Russia, Comey leaks, Comey testifies, Democrats and Trump, General Flynn and Russia, Media and Trump, Obstruction of justice
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Trump’s attorney responds to James Comey’s testimony

June 8, 2017

Trump’s attorney responds to James Comey’s testimony, Washington Examiner, Alex Pappas, June8, 2017

(Please see also, There’s Nothing About Comey. — DM)

President Trump’s attorney, Marc Kasowitz, responded to former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony on Thursday by saying Comey has confirmed that Trump was not under investigation as part of the Russian investigation.

Here is the full statement:

I am Marc Kasowitz, Predisent [sic] Trump’s personal lawyer.

Contrary to numerous false press accounts leading up to today’s hearing, Mr. Comey has now finally confirmed publicly what he repeatedly told the President privately: The President was not under investigation as part of any probe into Russian interference. He also admitted that there is no evidence that a single vote changed as a result of any Russian interference.

Mr Comey’s testimony also makes clear that the President never sought to impede the investigation into attempted Russian interference in the 2016 election, and in fact, according to Mr. Comey, the President told Mr. Comey “it would be good to find out” in that investigation if there were “some ‘satellite’ associates of his who did something wrong.” And he did not exclude anyone from that statement.

Consistent with that statement, the President never, in form or substance, directed or suggested that Mr. Comey stop investigating anyone, including suggesting that that [sic] Mr. Comey”let Flynn go.” As he publicly stated the next day, he did say to Mr. Comey, “General Flynn is a good guy, he has been through a lot” and also “asked how is General Flynn is doing.” Admiral Rogers testified that the President never “directed [him] to do anything . . . illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate” and never “pressured [him] to do so.” Director Coates [sic] said the same thing. The President likewise never pressured Mr. Comey. The President also never told Mr. Comey, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty” in form or substance. Of course, the Office of the President is entitled to expect loyalty from those who are serving in an administration, and, from before this President took office to this day, it is overwhelmingly clear that there have been and continue to be those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications. Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers.

Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorized disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the President. The leaks of this privileged information began no later than March 2017 when friends of Mr. Comey have stated he disclosed to them the conversations he had with the President during their January 27, 2017 dinner and February 14, 2017 White House meeting. Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he leaked to friends his purported memos of these privileged conversations, one of which he testified was classified. He also testified that immediately after he was terminated he authorized his friends to leak the contents of these memos to the press in order to “prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” Although Mr. Comey testified he only leaked the memos in response to a tweet, the public record reveals that the New York Times was quoting from these memos the day before the referenced tweet, which belies Mr. Comey’s excuse for this unauthorized disclosure of privileged information and appears to entirely retaliatory. We will leave it the appropriate authorities to determine whether this leaks should be investigated along with all those others being investigated. In sum, it is now established that there the President was not being investigated for colluding with the or attempting to obstruct that investigation. As the Committee pointed out today, these important facts for the country to know are virtually the only facts that have not leaked during the long course of these events.

Comey’s testimony, who testified about his past conversations with the president, was the first since Trump fired him last month. The former FBI director said during the hearing he believes Trump ousted him because of displeasure over how the Russia investigation casting a cloud over his presidency. Comey also said he told Trump he personally wasn’t under federal investigation and criticized media outlets for inaccurately reporting stories.

Categories: Comey testifies, Trump's attorney responds to Comey
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Did Comey Violate Laws In Leaking The Trump Memo?

June 8, 2017

Did Comey Violate Laws In Leaking The Trump Memo? Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, June 8, 2017

The admission of leaking the memos is problematic given the overall controversy involving leakers undermining the Administration. Indeed, it creates a curious scene of a former director leaking material against the President after the President repeatedly asked him to crack down on leakers.

**********************

One of the most interesting new disclosures today in the Comey hearing was the admission by former FBI Director James Comey that he intentionally used a “friend” on the Columbia law faculty to leak his memos to the media.  Comey says that he did so to force the appointment of a Special Counsel. However, those memos could be viewed as a government record and potential evidence in a criminal investigation.

Notably, Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman as a faculty webpage that says that he is “currently an adviser to FBI Director James B. Comey.” Richman specializes in criminal law and criminal procedure.

The problem is that Comey’s description of his use of an FBI computer to create memo to file suggests that these are arguably government documents.  Comey admitted that he thought raised the issue with his staff and recognized that they might be needed by the Department or Congress.  They read like a type of field 302 form, which are core investigatory documents.

The admission of leaking the memos is problematic given the overall controversy involving leakers undermining the Administration. Indeed, it creates a curious scene of a former director leaking material against the President after the President repeatedly asked him to crack down on leakers.

Besides being subject to Nondisclosure Agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and nonclassified information.  Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641 which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”

 

Notably, Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman as a faculty webpage that says that he is “currently an adviser to FBI Director James B. Comey.” Richman specializes in criminal law and criminal procedure.

The problem is that Comey’s description of his use of an FBI computer to create memo to file suggests that these are arguably government documents.  Comey admitted that he thought raised the issue with his staff and recognized that they might be needed by the Department or Congress.  They read like a type of field 302 form, which are core investigatory documents.

The admission of leaking the memos is problematic given the overall controversy involving leakers undermining the Administration. Indeed, it creates a curious scene of a former director leaking material against the President after the President repeatedly asked him to crack down on leakers.

Besides being subject to Nondisclosure Agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and nonclassified information.  Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641 which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”

What do you think?

Categories: Comey leaks, Comey memos, Comey testifies
Tags: , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

There’s Nothing About Comey

June 8, 2017

There’s Nothing About Comey, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, June 8, 2017

The FBI, as Comey lays out in a tedious opening that he knows his Democrat admirers will skip over to get to the juicy Trump stuff, was conducting a “counterintelligence investigation” not a criminal investigation. So there was no crime. Nor was the FBI investigating Trump. Nor is Trump being accused of obstructing an FBI investigation. 

All those carefully documented memos, the painstaking labor, amount to absolutely nothing.

But that’s because there was no crime to begin with. The rest is innuendo. The drip drop of a scandal without one ever materializing. Comey’s testimony will be another drop from that leaky faucet. Its only substance is theatrical. Detailed documentation creates the appearance of wrongdoing. Constant hearings maintain the illusion that something is being uncovered. Even when nothing is.

***************************

Never has one man broken more leftist hearts than James Brien Comey Jr.

The 6’8 former FBI director is once again the object of the left’s adoration. “A Beltway dreamboat, handsome as a movie star,” Salon gushes. “Our handsome young FBI director,” Gizmodo flutters its eyelashes. “How tall is James Comey? Tall. Like, really tall,” the Boston Globe coos. 

Now the Beltway dreamboat will be appearing live and in person in the Senate. It’s the biggest show in a big government town. Teenage girls hunting for Justin Bieber tickets have nothing on the media frenzy.

“The Comey Testimony: When, Where and How to Follow,” the New York Times breathlessly posts. As if it’s the World Series instead of awkward exchanges between a resentful lifer government man, Senate Democrats trying to prove that President Trump didn’t win the election and the moon landing was faked, and Senate Republicans trying to get on with the business of running the country.

And the left shouldn’t get too caught up in its new romance with James Comey. Not when his on and off again relationship with the media is Washington’s biggest soap opera.  Comey saved Hillary. Then he got the blame for costing her the election. He was a hero for supposedly investigating Trump. Then his Hillary testimony led to media outrage.  Trump fired him and he became a hero again.

The Washington Post went from “James Comey just stepped in it, big time” to “James Comey, is this man bothering you?”, “20 questions senators should ask James Comey” and “James Comey’s written testimony inspired this playlist” in one month.  Tomorrow it might be, “James Comey, we baked this cake for you.” Or it might be, “James Comey, we hate you and never want to see you again.”

Because James Comey has nothing except resentment at losing a cushy job he wasn’t very good at.

Comey’s career was doomed when he became a player in Democrat conspiracy theories. First, the left blamed him for Hillary’s defeat. Then it enlisted him as its champion to prove the election was hacked.

And the Beltway dreamboat can’t deliver. The curtain rises. The spotlight comes down. And Comey coughs out his carefully worded memos that describe in detail the furniture of the Oval Office.

No really.

“When the door by the grandfather clock closed… Reince Priebus leaned in through the door by the grandfather clock… I then got up and left out the door by the grandfather clock.”

Slate gushes, “James Comey’s Senate Testimony Is a Pulpy, Literary Treat.” If you really like grandfather clocks. Why write about grandfather clocks? Because Comey doesn’t have anything else to write about.

There’s no “there”, there.

The FBI, as Comey lays out in a tedious opening that he knows his Democrat admirers will skip over to get to the juicy Trump stuff, was conducting a “counterintelligence investigation” not a criminal investigation. So there was no crime. Nor was the FBI investigating Trump. Nor is Trump being accused of obstructing an FBI investigation.

All those carefully documented memos, the painstaking labor, amount to absolutely nothing.

But that’s because there was no crime to begin with. The rest is innuendo. The drip drop of a scandal without one ever materializing. Comey’s testimony will be another drop from that leaky faucet. Its only substance is theatrical. Detailed documentation creates the appearance of wrongdoing. Constant hearings maintain the illusion that something is being uncovered. Even when nothing is.

The better question is why do the memos even exist?

The left would like to believe that Comey was gathering evidence on President Trump. But they don’t contain anything incriminating about him. Instead Comey was trying to preemptively protect himself. To understand that is to understand who Comey is and why he got into this mess.

Never has one man broken more leftist hearts than James Brien Comey Jr.

The 6’8 former FBI director is once again the object of the left’s adoration. “A Beltway dreamboat, handsome as a movie star,” Salon gushes. “Our handsome young FBI director,” Gizmodo flutters its eyelashes. “How tall is James Comey? Tall. Like, really tall,” the Boston Globe coos.

Now the Beltway dreamboat will be appearing live and in person in the Senate. It’s the biggest show in a big government town. Teenage girls hunting for Justin Bieber tickets have nothing on the media frenzy.

“The Comey Testimony: When, Where and How to Follow,” the New York Times breathlessly posts. As if it’s the World Series instead of awkward exchanges between a resentful lifer government man, Senate Democrats trying to prove that President Trump didn’t win the election and the moon landing was faked, and Senate Republicans trying to get on with the business of running the country.

And the left shouldn’t get too caught up in its new romance with James Comey. Not when his on and off again relationship with the media is Washington’s biggest soap opera.  Comey saved Hillary. Then he got the blame for costing her the election. He was a hero for supposedly investigating Trump. Then his Hillary testimony led to media outrage.  Trump fired him and he became a hero again.

The Washington Post went from “James Comey just stepped in it, big time” to “James Comey, is this man bothering you?”, “20 questions senators should ask James Comey” and “James Comey’s written testimony inspired this playlist” in one month.  Tomorrow it might be, “James Comey, we baked this cake for you.” Or it might be, “James Comey, we hate you and never want to see you again.”

Because James Comey has nothing except resentment at losing a cushy job he wasn’t very good at.

Comey’s career was doomed when he became a player in Democrat conspiracy theories. First, the left blamed him for Hillary’s defeat. Then it enlisted him as its champion to prove the election was hacked.

And the Beltway dreamboat can’t deliver. The curtain rises. The spotlight comes down. And Comey coughs out his carefully worded memos that describe in detail the furniture of the Oval Office.

No really.

“When the door by the grandfather clock closed… Reince Priebus leaned in through the door by the grandfather clock… I then got up and left out the door by the grandfather clock.”

Slate gushes, “James Comey’s Senate Testimony Is a Pulpy, Literary Treat.” If you really like grandfather clocks. Why write about grandfather clocks? Because Comey doesn’t have anything else to write about.

There’s no “there”, there.

The FBI, as Comey lays out in a tedious opening that he knows his Democrat admirers will skip over to get to the juicy Trump stuff, was conducting a “counterintelligence investigation” not a criminal investigation. So there was no crime. Nor was the FBI investigating Trump. Nor is Trump being accused of obstructing an FBI investigation.

All those carefully documented memos, the painstaking labor, amount to absolutely nothing.

But that’s because there was no crime to begin with. The rest is innuendo. The drip drop of a scandal without one ever materializing. Comey’s testimony will be another drop from that leaky faucet. Its only substance is theatrical. Detailed documentation creates the appearance of wrongdoing. Constant hearings maintain the illusion that something is being uncovered. Even when nothing is.

The better question is why do the memos even exist?

The left would like to believe that Comey was gathering evidence on President Trump. But they don’t contain anything incriminating about him. Instead Comey was trying to preemptively protect himself. To understand that is to understand who Comey is and why he got into this mess.

Categories: 2016 elections and Comey, 2016 elections and Russia, Comey testifies, Democrats and Comey, Democrats and Russia, Media and Comey, Media and Trump, Trump and Comey, Trump-Russia probe, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

One missile takes out ISIS command on Golan edge

June 8, 2017

One missile takes out ISIS command on Golan edge, DEBKAfile, June 8, 2017

DEBKAfile’s military sources report concerns in the US military commend lest Iranian general Qassem Soleimani decides to drop a division of Iranian special forces by helicopter, in order to catch the garrison off guard and capture the border crossing.

This concern increased after the Islamic State conducted a surprise bombing-cum-shooting attack on prize Iranian regime targets in Tehran on June 7. The Revolutionary Guards are bent on revenge and looking for an outstanding military success to cover this humiliation.

The US commanders are also under pressure on another score: the Iranians and Syrians have sent secret messages to Moscow complaining bitterly about the US air strike. They both made it clear that they command sufficient air and artillery fire power to overwhelm and wipe the ground with the American force in Syria.  Both Damascus and Tehran appear to be spoiling for a major showdown between their armies, using Hizballah and other Shiite proxies, and the US-led contingent.

***********************

A single mystery missile, which could have been fired from the ground or the air early Wednesday morning, June 7, wiped out the entire top Islamic State command on the Syrian Golan, DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report. All 16 officers of the 2,000-strong Khaled Ibn al Waleed army, the ISIS operations arm on the Syrian Golan, were present in the targeted building in the town of al-Shagara, located in the triangle where the Israeli, Syrian and Jordanian borders meet opposite the Sea of Galilee in northern Israel.

The unidentified missile blew up in the middle of a hall where the top command echelon were gathered to break their daily fast during the month of Ramadan and draw up plans. None of them survived.

Among them were the group’s chief, Gen. Abu Mohammed al-Makdessi; commander of operations, Gen. Abu Udai al-Homsi; and the group’s explosives expert who doubled as its religious leader, Abu Ali Shabat.

They operated under these aliases to conceal their real identities as former high Iraqi army officers who served in the late Saddam Hussein’s armed forces. They were also in senior command positions at the ISIS Syrian command center in Raqqa, when ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi decided to transfer them to the Syrian Golan to spearhead attacks that were planned to take place inside Israel and Jordan.

It took Al-Baghdad just a few hours to replace Magdessi as Khaled Ibn al-Waleed chief with a new man, Mohamed al-Refaei-Abu Hshem al-Askari.

On Tuesday, June 6, the day before the mysterious missile decapitated the Islamic State’s Golan force, US warplanes acted on another front to bomb a convoy of Iranian, Syrian and Hizballah forces that were traveling eastward from the southern town of Derra in the direction of the Al-Tanf border crossing.

Al Tanf, where US and Jordanian special forces units have established a garrison, is located in the triangle where the Syrian, Jordanian and Iraqi borders converge. The US planes destroyed several tanks, troop carriers, artillery pieces and antiaircraft systems, causing also fatalities and injuries, and so halted the convoy’s advance on the strategic crossing.

This was the second US air strike in three weeks on a similar target. The first was on May 18.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report concerns in the US military commend lest Iranian general Qassem Soleimani decides to drop a division of Iranian special forces by helicopter, in order to catch the garrison off guard and capture the border crossing.

This concern increased after the Islamic State conducted a surprise bombing-cum-shooting attack on prize Iranian regime targets in Tehran on June 7. The Revolutionary Guards are bent on revenge and looking for an outstanding military success to cover this humiliation.

The US commanders are also under pressure on another score: the Iranians and Syrians have sent secret messages to Moscow complaining bitterly about the US air strike. They both made it clear that they command sufficient air and artillery fire power to overwhelm and wipe the ground with the American force in Syria.  Both Damascus and Tehran appear to be spoiling for a major showdown between their armies, using Hizballah and other Shiite proxies, and the US-led contingent.

Categories: Golan, Iran - Syria war, Iranian proxies, Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Islamic State, Russia - Syrian war, Russia and Iran, Syria war, U.S. Military
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Report: PA Starved for Donations, Eager to Negotiate, Will Waive Demand for Settlement Freeze

June 8, 2017
By David Israel

14 Sivan 5777 – June 8, 2017

Source: Report: PA Starved for Donations, Eager to Negotiate, Will Waive Demand for Settlement FreezeThe Jewish Press | David Israel | 14 Sivan 5777 – June 8, 2017 | JewishPress.com

Mahmoud Abbas and Donald Trump in Bethlehem, May 23, 2017.

Mahmoud Abbas is willing—temporarily—to abandon his demand that Israel freeze settlement construction, and would—also temporarily—set aside his campaign to prosecute Israel for war crimes, to get the peace talks moving under President Trump’s sponsorship, Abbas’s senior adviser Mohammad Mustafa told Bloomberg in an interview published on Wednesday.

Interestingly, according to Mustafa, what the PA needs now even more than getting Jews to stop adding rooms to their crammed homes in the settlements, is preventing an all-but-certain economic crisis in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. They need the hundreds of millions of dollars pledged by donor nations. Show me the money, he demands, in essence, it’ll make me much more willing to talk peace.

Advertisement

“We have not made the settlements an up-front issue this time,” Mustafa said, explaining that “we think it’s better for all of us right now to focus on giving this new administration a chance to deliver.”

Mohammad Mustafa is Chairman of the Palestine Investment Fund, the PA’s former Minister of National Economy and its former Deputy Prime Minister. He has a master’s degree and PhD from George Washington University. With those qualifications, he is keenly aware, as he told Bloomberg, of the rampant unemployment in the PA, which is suffering the effects of international donors’ reneging on promised funds. These, obviously, is why Abbas is eager to start negotiating, never mind all those Jews who dare close off their terraces in eastern Jerusalem in alleged violation of the Geneva convention.

Mohammad Shtayyeh, who served as the PA’s minister of public works and housing, and minister of the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction, told Bloomberg that President Trump’s decision to keep the US embassy in Tel Aviv has endeared him to PA Arabs. “There is a new dynamic,” Shtayyeh noted.

Settlement construction freeze has always been a pre-condition for joining peace negotiations for PA Chairman Abbas. Never mind that, if you were to ask Jewish settlers, Prime Minister Netanyahu has kept Judea and Samaria construction-free for nine years now. For the Netanyahu government, talking about new housing in Judea and Samaria has largely replaced actually building anything.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment