Sunday, April 23, 2017

BloggeRhythms

Much is being made of the new POTUS’s “breaking tradition” by not attending the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner next Saturday. He plans to hold a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s New Holland Arena in the PA Farm Show Complex & Expo Center instead.

And once again, he’s reached a perfectly common-sensical conclusion on both counts. Because it serves him no purpose whatsoever, to spend an evening among a bunch of biased elitists who openly hate him, while using their dwindling power to demean and debase him 24/7/365.  

But by going to Harrisburg to say thank you to those who put him in office, he’ll reinforce the premise that he sees his job as fulfilling promises made while campaigning as opposed to sharing insider jokes with reporters.   

What’s also interesting is that the last president to not attend was Ronald Reagan. However, he was recovering from being shot in an assassination attempt at the time. 

Next is an item @nytimes.com by Matt Apuzzo, Michael S. Schmidt, Adam Goldman and Eric Lichtblau about how FBI Director, James Comey “tried to keep the bureau out of politics but plunged it into the center of a bitter election.” 

The article’s quite long, involved, and contains significant amounts of detail as it tracks the history of both, the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails as well as that of the campaign of Donald Trump.   

It is the contention of the authors that although two separate and distinct investigations took place, they were handled quite differently. The implication being that Trump was handled far gentler in order for the FBI to avoid being seen as biased toward the then presumptive next president, Clinton.    

The text reads: “But with polls showing Mrs. Clinton holding a comfortable lead, Mr. Comey ended up plunging the F.B.I. into the molten center of a bitter election. Fearing the backlash that would come if it were revealed after the election that the F.B.I. had been investigating the next president and had kept it a secret, Mr. Comey sent a letter informing Congress that the case was reopened. 

“What he did not say was that the F.B.I. was also investigating the campaign of Donald J. Trump. Just weeks before, Mr. Comey had declined to answer a question from Congress about whether there was such an investigation. Only in March, long after the election, did Mr. Comey confirm that there was one. 

“For Mr. Comey, keeping the F.B.I. out of politics is such a preoccupation that he once said he would never play basketball with President Barack Obama because of the appearance of being chummy with the man who appointed him. But in the final months of the presidential campaign, the leader of the nation’s pre-eminent law enforcement agency shaped the contours, if not the outcome, of the presidential race by his handling of the Clinton and Trump-related investigations.” 

As far as the differences in approach toward both individuals is concerned, the authors explained: “An examination by The New York Times, based on interviews with more than 30 current and former law enforcement, congressional and other government officials, found that while partisanship was not a factor in Mr. Comey’s approach to the two investigations, he handled them in starkly different ways. In the case of Mrs. Clinton, he rewrote the script, partly based on the F.B.I.’s expectation that she would win and fearing the bureau would be accused of helping her. In the case of Mr. Trump, he conducted the investigation by the book, with the F.B.I.’s traditional secrecy. Many of the officials discussed the investigations on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters.”

From there, the authors add shape to a premise that although Clinton remained innocent of charges, Comey’s procedural steps and timing of his inquiry proved greatly damaging to her electability. At the same time, nothing material arose regarding Trump at all. Therefore providing Trump with significant advantages. 

Yet, much farther along in their piece the authors finally write the following few paragraphs: 

“With a black binder in hand, Mr. Comey walked into a large room on the ground floor of the F.B.I.’s headquarters. Standing in front of two American flags and two royal-blue F.B.I. flags, he read from a script. 

“He said the F.B.I. had reviewed 30,000 emails and discovered 110 that contained classified information. He said computer hackers may have compromised Mrs. Clinton’s emails. And he criticized the State Department’s lax security culture and Mrs. Clinton directly. 

“Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position” should have known better, Mr. Comey said. He called her “extremely careless.” 

“The criticism was so blistering that it sounded as if he were recommending criminal charges. Only in the final two minutes did Mr. Comey say that “no charges are appropriate in this case.”

“Mr. Comey’s criticism — his description of her carelessness — was the most controversial part of the speech. Agents and prosecutors have been reprimanded for injecting their legal conclusions with personal opinions. But those close to Mr. Comey say he has no regrets.

“By scolding Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Comey was speaking not only to voters but to his own agents. While they agreed that Mrs. Clinton should not face charges, many viewed her conduct as inexcusable. Mr. Comey’s remarks made clear that the F.B.I. did not approve.”

Thus, after Mr. Comey disclosed that the FBI “discovered 110 [emails] that contained classified information. He said computer hackers may have compromised Mrs. Clinton’s emails. And he criticized the State Department’s lax security culture and Mrs. Clinton directly, “ the authors still contend that Clinton is unquestionably innocent and that Comey himself attempted to steer the election toward Trump. Making one wonder what they would need to see to grasp the fact that her conduct was indeed "inexcusable" and "careless" and therefore should have faced appropriate repercussions. 

Whereas the article appeared in the New York Times, readers were overwhelmingly favorable to Clinton. At present, 2245 have registered supportive commentary regarding her. And of that group, one stood out. 

Lois Schmidt from Wisconsin wrote: “So many articles, differring opinions, etc. but as I see it, Hillary lost for the simple reason that nobody likes her! She was not, and is not, an attractive and believeable person, not that any of the others were, but she simple had too much baggage. The Clintons are done. Move on. To keep arguing and revisting this thing over and over doesn't change that. Even many Democrats and others voted for Trump rather than Hillary. The mantra was 'anyone but Hillary.' 

"Best to search out and support a candidate that really speaks to the concerns of the average American, than to waste time searching for answers that don't exist. Find a solid person that is electable. 


"Anyway, just my thoughts.” 


149 others agreed with her as does this writer.

That's it for today folks.

Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment