Parkland students have been bussed to the state capitol in Tallahassee, will meet with President Trump and plan a march on Washington. They are shocked and saddened and are demanding action, and that action seems to be centered on banning various firearms. It is ironic that we are told to "listen to the children," because the school authorities in Parkland assuredly did not "listen to the children" when they were trying to warn how dangerous the shooter was.
By John Shaffer The horrific murders at the high school in Parkland, Florida have focused the public’s mind, and the appalling sorrow caused by the killing of seventeen innocent people has driven some to lash out to find the villain – and for the progressive left, it is, as it always is, firearms. Many folks are angry, and the angriest ones are angry, not with the shooter, nor with the school authorities or local law enforcement officers who failed to prevent the crime. No, they are angriest with, in no special order, the NRA, Republicans and President Trump. In fact, there has been remarkably scant anger expressed at the shooter. (We will describe him as “the shooter” because we do not want to give his name any publicity.)
Parkland students have been bussed to the state capitol in Tallahassee, will meet with President Trump and plan a march on Washington. They are shocked and saddened and are demanding action, and that action seems to be centered on banning various firearms. It is ironic that we are told to "listen to the children," because the school authorities in Parkland assuredly did not "listen to the children" when they were trying to warn how dangerous the shooter was. BY JOHN SHAFFER One always can count on former Obama administration National Security Advisor Susan Rice to say something worthy of comment, and the news that she wrote a "memo to herself" on Inauguration Day is interesting in itself - after all, how many of us write memos to ourselves that explain meetings that occurred fifteen days earlier? Yes, that's right, the memo, written on January 20, relates to a January 5 meeting with President Obama, FBI Director James Comey, Ms. Rice, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and Vice President Joe Biden which discussed possible Russian interference in the 2016 election. One problem - Mr. Comey did not mention this meeting when he testified to Congress about his meetings with the President and the “Russia” investigation. We’re sure it was a simple oversight.
Interesting also that the President and his inner circle and the FBI were concerned about the possible associations that the President-Elect had with Russia, especially considering that they showed extraordinarily little interest in the associations that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had (or perhaps was having) with Russians. Not even when a Russian oligarch funneled half a million dollars to Mrs. C’s husband. Those would seem to be at least as interesting. BY JOHN SHAFFER A couple of stories came to light last week that show us why so many people cannot stomach the sleazy, dishonest tactics of career bureaucrats and of career politicians.
Number One - Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, who was "removed" from his position last week. It seems that last year, (this according to Howard Kurtz in his book Media Madness: Donald Trump. The Press, and the War Over Truth), Mr. McCabe privately told President Trump’s then-Chief of Staff Reince Pribus that the there was nothing there to a New York Times story claiming that Trump administration's officials had had repeated contact with the Russians. Mr. Priebus asked Mr. McCabe if it would be all right if the FBI could say that in public. Mr. McCabe, and his boss, FBI Director James Comey, declined, but then a few days later, CNN broadcast the following: "According to multiple U.S. officials the FBI rejected a White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between President Trump’s associates and Russians known to U.S. intelligence.” So the FBI leadership told the White House the President was in the clear, refused permission to allow that word to be made public, but leaked the “news” that the White House had “pressured” them to clear them. Pretty sleazy, and, if we recall, Mr. Comey played almost the identical trick on President Trump – privately telling him he was not the target of an investigation but refusing to do so in public. Number two - CIA director Mike Pompeo met with his Russian counterpart, and US Senator Chuck Schumer decided to make some political hay - so he did a little grandstanding, and released a letter he sent to Mr. Pompeo asking for an explanation. Mr. Pompeo's response included this: “We periodically meet with our Russian intelligence counterparts for the same reasons our predecessors did, to keep Americans safe.” This soon appeared on CNN, but the story left out the words “for the same reason our predecessors did," which made it appear that the CIA director was a stooge of the Russians, an idiot, or hopelessly naïve. We are not sure if that one should be blamed on Senator Schumer or CNN, but the former did nothing to correct the record, even though his office released a copy of the letter proving exactly what Mr. Pompeo said. Number 3 - Congressman Adam Schiff - who did not want the FISA memo released. He issued a breathless statement claiming that the memo had been changed from the one the committee voted on - and you know what, that was true - as far as it goes. But the changes were of three types - grammatical; one change requested by the FBI, and - get this - a third change, requested by Mr. Schiff! Yes, that's right, Mr. Schiff demanded a change, and then when it was made, screamed that the memo was changed. Sort of like the person who murders his parents, then wants the court to show mercy because he is an orphan. We are not sure if the Republican FISA memo is a “nothingburger” or a “threat to our National Security.” The Democrats have claimed both. Mr. Comey dismissed it with an airy, “That’s it?” BY JOHN SHAFFER The House Intelligence Committee has voted to release a four-page summary of various documents relating to the FISA investigation of President Trump (and, perhaps, of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well). The Democrats on the committee voted against releasing the report. Why, in this era of “transparency” would they not want it released? There are several possibilities, but let’s go with the most logical one: there is something in it that would be damaging to them. The fact that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has been “removed” from his position may provide some hints in that direction.
The most important thing to remember is that the 2016 election took place when Barack Obama was President of the United States and Loretta Lynch was Attorney General. Whatever it was that the Russians were doing – the Obama administration did not make an issue of it. The probable reason is that there was no “Russian interference” in the election at all – at least no more than there has been in the past. Think about it – if a Democrat administration, term-limited and not seeking reelection but wanting to be succeeded by a fellow Democrat, had evidence that a Republican challenger was working with the Russians to subvert the electoral process – would they not publicize it? Would they not shout warnings? Would they not call out that candidate? They did none of those things. They had no problem with throwing all sorts of charges and accusations at Donald Trump, but doesn’t one find it interesting that the only accusation that has lasted a year after the election is one that was never mentioned during the election? In fact – President Obama, his National Security Advisor, his Director of National Intelligence, his CIA Director, his Vice President, all publicly denied that there was interference in the election. But what did not exist in reality has been concocted to exist through a rigged investigation; and the four-page memo is likely to explicitly outline that rigging, and thus the departure of Mr. McCabe and the negative reaction to the Democrats who have staked everything on “Russia, Russia, Russia.” They have staked everything on challenging the legitimacy of the election – and "Russia" did not become a theme until. all the other themes failed (the popular vote, the electoral college, recounts, etc. Only then did they latch onto the Russia notion. |
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|