BloggeRhythms

Kevin Johnson @USAToday.com, presented a story yesterday regarding the background of FBI Director James Comey.  What comes through is that above all, the director comes across as totally dedicated to law enforcement while remaining independent from the political pressure’s of his position.  

     

In that regard, he has “ruffled some with a repeated suggestion that a pull back by police, stung by streaming videos of violent public encounters, is contributing to surges in violent crime in a number of cities across the country.” He told reporters last month: “I was worried about it last fall. And I am, in many ways, more worried now."

As a result: “A day later, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the administration response to such crime trends would be “based on evidence, not anecdotes.” 

In support: “New York Police Commissioner William Bratton said the FBI director should be free to speak his mind, regardless of the uncomfortable political implications. He's a breath of fresh air. The system is working the way it was intended.'' 

Mr. Johnson opines: “That a New York police commissioner is even publicly expressing 

such regard for an FBI director represents a fairly recent breakthrough of its own. For years, the relationship between the two agencies was fractured by turf wars and mutual suspicion.”

On the other side: “Some civil liberties advocates assert that the FBI director's very public role in the Apple dispute — coming less than halfway through Comey's 10-year appointment — represents a long-term threat that stretches far beyond the San Bernardino terror case.” 

Thus, two very critical points were made in the article itself. First is the director’s history of unwavering from always proceeding in a way that the evidence leads him. And then the added factor that he’s only half way through his ten year term in office. Both of which intimate that the decision of the FBI regarding Bill Clinton’s wife should come down solidly in favor of Indictment. 

On another issue, Nicholas Casey headlined his article @nytimes.com, this morning: “Venezuela is convulsing from hunger.” 

“Hundreds of people here in the city of Cumaná, home to one of the region’s independence heroes, marched on a supermarket in recent days, screaming for food. They forced open a large metal gate and poured inside. They snatched water, flour, cornmeal, salt, sugar, potatoes, anything they could find, leaving behind only broken freezers and overturned shelves.” 

As often mentioned here since the Venezuelan unrest erupted, the situation shows that: “[E]ven in a country with the largest oil reserves in the world, it is possible for people to riot because there is not enough food.” 

“In the last two weeks alone, more than 50 food riots, protests and mass looting have erupted around the country. Scores of businesses have been stripped bare or destroyed. At least five people have been killed.” 

Mr. Casey then states: “This is precisely the Venezuela its leaders vowed to prevent. The event seared the memory of a future president, Hugo Chávez, who said the country’s inability to provide for its people, and the state’s repression of the uprising, were the reasons Venezuela needed a socialist revolution.” 

So, here we have another indication of what happens when political beliefs take precedent over the real needs of a population, whereas: “A staggering 87 percent of Venezuelans say they do not have money to buy enough food, the most recent assessment of living standards by Simón Bolívar University found. 

“About 72 percent of monthly wages are being spent just to buy food, according to the Center for Documentation and Social Analysis, a research group associated with the Venezuelan Teachers Federation.” 

Demonstrating that, the similarity to the U.S. is abundantly clear in this tragic aspect of governance whereas the pandering to environmentalists have forced fossil fuel costs to drain American citizens budgets. And, as a result, this unnecessary addition to the cost of living has helped to reduce the nation’s GDP to the one of the lowest levels in its history.  

And now, Democrat presidential candidates loudly proclaim their intention to make matters worse for citizens, by further curbing fossil fuel production, regardless. Which will cause self-inflicted economic losses and continue to decrease national productivity for no valid reason whatsoever. 

Bringing us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife. 

With no specific news breaking today regarding Bill’s wife, Shane Harris @thedailybeast.com writes about: “The Lawyers Who Could Take Down Hillary Clinton’s Campaign” 

The article presents a detailed chronology of Judicial Watch’s continued drive to uncover wrongdoing and/or criminality by those holding the highest posts in public office. Having targeted individuals in both major party’s in the past, current activity is focused on Bill Clinton’s wife and those immediately around her. 

Mr. Harris writes: “In February, a federal judge took the highly unusual step of ruling that State Department officials and aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about her use of a private email server, a controversy that has dogged the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for more than a year. 

“In comments from the bench, a visibly frustrated Judge Emmet Sullivan complained about the fragmentary way that new revelations about Clinton’s email use have come to light—largely through press reports and leaks and her shifting explanations for why she set up the server in her New York home rather than use an official “.gov” account when she was secretary of state. 

“This is a constant drip… That’s what we’re having here, you know, and it needs to stop,” Sullivan said. He ruled that Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that had brought a lawsuit answers about Clinton’s email server, could question six officials and top Clinton aides about why the email system was set up in the first place and how it was used. Transcripts of those interviews must be made public.” 

The key point in the piece, however, is a paragraph farther on explaining: “[Tom]  Fitton, Judicial Watch’s president, may have found himself in the middle of a battle royale with the most important political family in America. But this is hardly new territory for the self-described conservative activist, who has been investigating government corruption and alleged malfeasance in Washington for more than 20 years. Since its founding in 1994, his group has filed suits against every presidential administration. But in Hillary Clinton, Fitton may have found his white whale.” 

Thus, there is a long and well-established history demonstrating that Fitton, and his organization, do not abandon their goals. And it's that very persistence that may eventually prove significantly damaging to Bill’s wife and her current campaign. 

It also reinforces the ongoing question: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys reading this?    

That’s it for today folks.      

Adios