Comey and Lynch’s Pre-Pardon of Hillary: It’s a Pity Thing

FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch acted beyond their moral and judicial authority in refusing to prosecute Hillary Clinton. It must have been pity, because the only other possibility is outright political hackery and banana-republic shenanigans.

Comey used a legal term of art in his “unusually transparent” presser Wednesday. The term was “reasonable person.” Erick covered that, in the FBI recommending no charges, they must assume Clinton lacks mental capacity to form intent.

About the only thing we can conclude is that Hillary Clinton lacks mental capacity. She did all the things that no reasonable person would do, according to the FBI Director. She held a press conference and made statements that directly contradict the truth. She lied to the American people or, if we stay consistent with James Comey’s position, Hillary Clinton had no idea whatsoever what she was doing.

Of course, the FBI lacks the mandate to form opinions on mental capacity to commit a crime. That would be up to a judge. The DOJ decided beforehand that it would “follow the FBI’s recommendation” without giving any kind of legal review. Remind me why we have a Department of Justice and prosecutors? Why not let the FBI do it all?

So it had to be pity instead.

Comey used another legal term of art, “gross negligence.” He applied that against what he called Clinton’s “extremely careless” conduct. This goes to what attorneys tell me is called “Mens Rea” or the intent to do the act with which you’re being charged.

My friend and former District Attorney Kelly Burke laid it out this way.

Mens Rea is an interesting issue. I contend that you ALWAYS need to have intent, but that doesn’t mean intent to break the law. If your intent is to do the act, whether you know that the act is illegal or not is irrelevant. (The ol’ ignorance of the law thing).

Gross negligence is proven by intent to be sloppy. Intent to look the other way. Intent to ignore consequences. She’s guilty as hell of that, and that is all the FBI needed to forward the charge.

Comey, an experienced federal prosecutor who could stand toe-to-toe with Chris Christie any day, decided to add a little more to the “intent” than what the law states. From David French writing in The New York Times:

The relevant statute places a special burden on public officials to safeguard national secrets, making it a crime to remove national defense information from its “proper place of custody” even through mere “gross negligence.” There is no requirement of finding specific intent.

Yet in explaining why he believed that “no reasonable prosecutor” would seek to indict Clinton, Comey didn’t refer back to this standard. Instead, he made up his own – declaring that prior prosecutions included elements like “willful mishandling,” “indications of disloyalty” or “efforts to obstruct justice.” Yet these factors don’t define the crime, they merely exacerbate it. The crime itself depends on gross negligence, not these aggravating factors.

In other words, Comey required Clinton to have intent to break the law on purpose for some specific reason, not to merely be grossly negligent, which in itself is a violation of the law. Put another way, from Burke:

You are doing 85 in a 70.

“I didn’t know the speed limit was 70, officer.” You lose.

“I think my speedometer is broken, it said I was doing 70.” You lose, but a judge might let you go if you have no record. It’s a pity thing though.

“I was on my way to the hospital with my pregnant wife.” It’s a good excuse, but you were speeding. You lose.

Comey didn’t act as a law enforcement investigator, which is his mandate. He didn’t act as a prosecutor, which is his background. He acted as a judge showing pity by dismissing a charge because the defendant had a good excuse.

In this particular case, the excuse was “I’m Hillary Clinton.” And they pitied her. Because the only other option would be that they did it for purely political reasons, and that would be a scandal of enormous proportions.

WATCH: AG Lynch Meeting With Slick Willy ‘Bad Judgment’

Can we get an “Amen?” As every woman stuffed into a private jet with Bill Clinton eventually admits, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said it was “bad judgment” and “I wouldn’t do it again.” From the Top Ten list at MSNBC‘s comedy department.

Former Dem. Party Chair Ed Rendell: If there was anything nefarious going on, they wouldn’t have done it on an airplane in public view. They’d do it over the telephone.

Everyone knows Bill prefers face time.

But when cornered, Lynch thought it wouldn’t impact her work with the Department of Justice to meet with the husband of a woman running for president who is under an active FBI investigation. [Click here for video courtesy of Daily Caller.]

Acknowledging that it was the “question of the day” Lynch said, “I think that’s a perfectly reasonable question… because people have also wondered and raised questions about my role in the ultimate resolution of matters involving the investigation into the State Department e-mails.”

“And to the extent that people have questions about that, about my role in that, certainly my meeting with him raises questions and concerns, and so believe me, I completely get that question, and I think it is the question of the day,” Lynch said

In places outside the fantasy-world of Washington, D.C., I am willing to wager that a chief prosecutor in any jurisdiction meeting privately with the spouse of a person under active law enforcement and grand jury investigation, in a private plane, would be reason for censure. In most places where Real Things Happen, it might even result in that person being fired or prosecuted, or at least disbarred.

But in Phoenix, when both parties are a wink-and-a-nod away from high crimes and misdemeanors, it’s just “bad optics.”

Sometimes, I have to ask myself if Clinton and Trump have a bet going on to show who can win an election despite trying hardest to lose it. After election day in November, it will be like the Dukes in “Trading Places” when one of them hands the other a crisp $1 bill.

Chief Liar Lynch, U.S. Attorneys in 26 States Lied About Immigration Lawsuit

We expect the our government to tell the truth, and its agents to be truthful. The United States Department of Justice is anything but, and has been exposed as the lying, conniving and deceiving bunch of marauders that they are.

When I accuse the government of lying to us, some take umbrage with that declaration and chastise me, telling me that “the government is us” and “we are all in this together.” My heart aches at the loss of liberty at the hands of the beast we call our government. I recognize that do-gooders really don’t want to believe that the government intentionally lies, just like a forlorn lover who is left at the altar wants to believe that something bad must have happened to keep their putative spouse from the wedding.

Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General of the United States. Under her watch, the DOJ has just been handed a stinging rebuke by a federal court judge, the likes of which I can’t recall. Two weeks ago, Judge Hanen, a federal court judge in Texas, ordered annual ethics classes for ALL Department of Justice attorneys in 26 states because the DOJ lied. It wasn’t a little white lie either. The DOJ tricked 26 states, who having filed a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s deferred action initiative, were told by DOJ that no action would be taken on deferred action until the litigation was resolved. DOJ then consulted with the White House (proven by testimony and records of telephone calls) and proceeded to grant 100,000 deferrals anyway.

DOJ, when confronted with facts, “admitted making statements that did not match the facts”, according to Judge Hanen’s order. “It has admitted that the lawyers who made these statements had knowledge of the truth when they made these misstatements … This court would be remiss if it left such unseemly and unprofessional conduct unaddressed.”

As punishment, Judge Hanen ordered that all DOJ attorneys in all 26 states affected who wish to appear in any federal or state court will have to undergo three hours of ethics training per year. Now as someone with friends who are Assistant U.S. Attorneys, I feel sorry for those who had nothing to do with this blatant falsehood and misleading of a federal judge, as their good names are being sullied by an Administration that flagrantly lies to federal courts and the public. It’s a classic case of one team member causing everybody to have to run 10 laps. The judge obviously feels that if the thousands of good attorneys get irritated enough, they will put pressure on DOJ to learn to tell the truth. There is some merit to that, however, I prefer to have seen the ones who lied to the judge prosecuted. If we want to stop DOJ attorneys lying to courts, put a few in prison and it’ll stop.

The DOJ, not willing to take the trivial punishment lying down, has told the judge that his mandate is too expensive for DOJ to implement. Three whole hours of ethics training? Too much says Loretta Lynch. While states differ, Georgia requires its attorneys to have two hours of ethics/professionalism each year, so a DOJ attorney in Georgia would simply have to take ONE more hour. In that hour, which DOJ can’t stomach, maybe their attorneys would learn that lying, conniving and deceit are wrong. We can only hope, but somehow, I think an hour would make no difference to the Washington crowd.

Obama’s Bathroom Grab Is Like School Segregation and Jim Crow

President Obama’s transgender bathroom access isn’t about transgenders, and it isn’t about bathrooms. It’s about Federal power over every aspect of our lives, by decree and by use of force to compel us to live as one man in Washington pleases. Obama is about to segregate schools, separating the well-funded, transgender-friendly ones from the funding-starved ones that refuse to comply with his bathroom grab.

Listen, I understand that people have different opinions about who should use a men’s room or a ladies’ room. We’ve spent a lot of time discussing the whole idea here at The Resurgent, and there’s no complete consensus of opinion, other than the facts. The facts are that boys are boys and girls are girls by biological certainty. Aside from true biological hermaphrodites (of which there are likely less than 3,000 total in the U.S.), plumbing determines whether a person can successfully use a urinal.

The discomfort occurs when someone previously known as a male decides to impersonate a female without changing the plumbing (or vice versa). Especially when that person was, up to 24 hours ago, dressing, acting, and walking as a male, and now they’re in a dress and high heels. It’s weird and distressing, but our government seems not to care about the distress everyone else suffers, only the distress of this person seeking to use the ladies’ room to pee standing up over the bowl. Or the teenage girl looking for a place to discard her tampon in the boys’ room.

Thankfully, this does not happen often. It’s rare enough that the total number of people afflicted with this particular distress (some doctors call it a mental disorder) is somewhere around the population of Montana. (Not to be unfair to Montana or to suggest that all transexuals can go live there; it’s also about the population of Rhode Island.)

So, many parents feel they can just ride this one out and, as one parent put it “keep her head in the sand and not deal with it.” Fair enough. My wife and I simply told our soon-to-be first grader that if a girl walked into his school boys’ room, not to go in there, or to leave as soon as he could. We think it’s wrong. Some parents are pulling their kids from public schools, and we can expect to see private school enrollments rise. But private school may offer no protection from Obama’s decree.

And that’s why this is an enormous problem for the American republic.

Obama used a federal law passed in 1972, Title IX, which was written to prevent discrimination against women, to compel schools to offer transsexual access to restrooms. I am 100 percent certain that the lawmakers in 1972, and President Nixon, who signed the bill into law, did not have this in mind. So the first problem is that the president has decided for himself how to interpret laws written well before his term (not the first, or even second time he’s done this).

The second problem is that the federal government will compel compliance with this bathroom “guidance” not by using the courts, or by criminalizing not offering transsexuals access to the restroom of their choice. It’s much more pernicious than that. They will use the power of the purse (which is Constitutionally reserved to Congress) by withholding billions of dollars of federal education dollars from schools that don’t comply.

That’s your kids’ school, my kids’ school, public schools, private schools, schools that get USDA reduced price lunches (including church schools, even daycares). Obama has resorted to pre-integration “separate but unequal” policies, but instead of race, he’s applying it by religious status and worldview.

If any state enacted such a caste system for schools, the federal courts would be slapping injunctions like a meter maid in a fire lane. But the federal government operates in its own rule-by-fiat world.

At least eleven states are fighting back. Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin have joined a lawsuit accusing the Obama administration of “educational settings across the country into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over commonsense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the lawsuit.

The Obama Administration is attempting to rewrite Congress’s use of the term “sex” in federal law to now expand to include “gender identity.” If successful, this radical change opens up all intimate areas within schools simultaneously to members of both sexes. Texas is joined by 10 other states in pushing back against enforcement of these unconstitutional rules.

If the current president can successfully redefine a word like “sex” in federal law, what can the next president do? Maybe redefine “citizen,” or “mother,” or “father.” There’s really no limit to the damage this could do to our republic. Not only that, but by tying federal funding budgeted by Congress and administered by executive agencies to compliance with “guidance” based on these definitions, the imperial president can blackmail any class of Americans to comply or suffer insurmountable tragedy.

Even liberals should oppose this kind of centralized power, because it could very easily be used to rob them of their own liberty. African Americans spilled blood and suffered jail to win the right to attend the best schools along with white people and overturn segregation. Attorney General Loretta Lynch compared transgender bathroom access to that fight against Jim Crow.

Clarence Henderson, one of the students who occupied the lunch counter at Woolworth’s in Greensboro, N.C. in 1960 took issue with her.

During the Jim Crow Era, we stared down the nozzle of firehoses, felt the piercing bite of police dogs, dangled from trees after being strung up by an angry mob, all because of the color of our skin. Our businesses were burned, churches bombed, communities destroyed, all because of the color of our skin. We had to drink at separate water fountains, shop at different stores and even had to sit at the back of the bus, all because of the color of our skin. All this and more took place after enduring 400 years of arguably the most heinous crime in history – slavery.

In comparison, transgender individuals do not have to fight dogs, can shop anywhere and can use any water fountain. They are free to work, shop and ride the bus. And to my knowledge, they have not experienced 400 years of slavery and the ongoing fight for parity 151 years after emancipation.

The Obama administration, with this bathroom power grab, is pulling out the threads to unravel all those civil rights activists fought for. This is Jim Crow all right, but not by the people of North Carolina; it’s Jim Crow by a vengeance-obsessed Obama administration drunk with its own power.