The constitutional crisis that isn't

By Paul Ackerman | May 18, 2017

As of Tuesday evening, May 9, one would think from the hysterical news reports that aliens from space had landed in New York City and Washington, D.C., simultaneously. Perhaps in a way they had, mentally, for the speculative rantings and delusional narratives pronounced as “news” really illustrated the grasping-at-straws unhinged method of declaring partisan posturing and dissembling to be reality, facts, and a “constitutional crisis in the making.”

The mainstream news media, and their collective pundits, the primary moving force behind virtually all Democratic talking points, had seemingly gone insane over the dismissal of FBI Director James Comey.

First they loved the guy, July 2016, then they hated him, October 2016, then they seemed to be of both minds until now, when they’ve declared him the new Paul Revere. As long as they could somehow smear Trump and his administration with their view of Comey’s efforts they would go with it.

Recalling that back in July 2016, during the heady days of the campaign, while Hillary was still being casually declared the presumptive landslide winner by the media, Mr. Comey delivered a first for an FBI director. During a press conference announcement, he outlined many of the criminal activities of Hillary Clinton and her staff relating to the secret email server they maintained/used and much highly classified material found therein.

Comey asserted that “no reasonable prosecutor would pursue this case,” and wishfully claimed that they found no evidence of intent. None of these judgments was his to make, though by doing so he insulated his boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, from having to whitewash the investigation.

Some of the recently highlighted politicos making hypocritical statements about Comey:

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY: "I do not have confidence in him any longer," he said in early November, calling Comey's 11th-hour decision to look into Clinton's improper private email server "appalling, " as repported in a May 9 article by Paul Bedard on the Washington Examiner website.

Last week, a reconsidering Sen. Schumer invents yet another conspiracy theory when it suits his efforts to create a narrative that the Trump administration is compromised by “Russian influence.” The fact is that Schumer has met with Putin before now, so was he compromised as well?

On May 9, Schumer said, “Why did it happen today? We know the FBI had been looking into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians – a very serious offense. Were these investigations getting too close to home for the president?” as reported on the Daily Mail website.

What about former President Barack Obama's saying (on a hot mic) to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space”? Obama could be heard talking to Medvedev, according to a reporter from ABC News, who was traveling with the president.

Mr. Obama then elaborated in a portion of the exchange picked up by the cameras, “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

“I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev said, referring to Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, who had just won an election to succeed Mr. Medvedev. The remarks were reported by J. David Goodman March 26, 2012, in the New York Times.

We all know how that brilliant offer turned out: the Poles did not get the missile defense system promised them, yet the news media doesn’t think this represents hidden collusion with the Russians.

As far as directly interfering in elections, the Obama administration had demonstrated that it was very willing to do this, right up to the end of his term. The Obama administration sent political consultants (at taxpayer expense) to Israel to help organize opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s election campaign, and advised against countries' exiting the EU through elections. Obama, while visiting England, personally criticized the British who wanted the EU out of their lives via “Brexit.”

The reality is that all this hysteria about the Russians and Comey getting fired is yet another example of the media coordinators for the Democrats with nothing more to offer other than throwing more outlandish claims around to create the impression of a crisis.

The only real crisis is the total failure of the news media to be honest about their own involvement in trying to influence the election. They believe they are beyond reproach. The “hacked” emails of the Clinton organization last summer that revealed the truth about the Democrats' dirty tricks campaigns, disdain for voters, and the entirely corrupt collusion with the news media — all that was ignored by the media, because they now claim “the Russians did it.” A very lame excuse to discredit the accurate material.

However, they were very happy when Comey gave Hillary Clinton a reprieve with his press conference July 5, 2016:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): "This is a great man. We are very privileged in our country to have him be the director of the FBI."

Now, in late 2016, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi states, "Comey was not in the right job."

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in July of 2016 said of Comey: "No one can question the integrity, the competence."

Later on, in December, he sings a different tune:

“In fact, to show how awful this situation is, this man ignored precedent that had been going on for decade after decade after decade. The FBI does not get involved in politics -- except Comey did," Reid said. "Had he not written that letter a week or so before the election, she would have won; we would have picked up at least two more Senate seats," he said, as reported Dec. 13, 2016, by Eric Bradner on the CNN website.

The Chicken Little lesson here is to stop hyperventilating about this made-up crisis. It is not Watergate, by a long stretch, and the only crime clearly known to have occurred so far has been the leaking of “unmasked” names of incidentally surveilled Americans by parties in government yet unknown. Comey was apparently not pursuing that aspect, though hopefully his replacement will be up to the task.

Comments (4)
Posted by: Ronald Horvath | May 20, 2017 14:44

"Anyone being investigated by the FBI is not qualified to be the President of the United States."  -Donald Trump on: August 3, Sept 7ty, Sept 9th, Oct. 5th, Oct. 15th, Oct. 20th,  Oct. 21st, Oct. 25th, Oct. 30th, Nov. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th, 2016.

 

That's the best, Harold.

 

 



Posted by: Harold Bryson Mosher | May 20, 2017 06:53

Good list of quotes, Ron.  Do you think Paul would deem them hysterical?



Posted by: Ronald Horvath | May 19, 2017 11:01

"Think about the magnitude of all of this for a second. Hillary Clinton could be sworn into office while still being under investigation from the FBI, which would then put this country into a major constitutional crisis. Now Clinton says Donald Trump, oh he’s not fit to serve in the oval office, but she and she alone has created a situation that could do severe damage to this country and the office of the presidency, and prevent this country from solving problems."  Sean Hannity March 2016

“Can this country afford to have a president under investigation by the FBI? Think of the trauma that would do to this country."  - Marco Rubio, November 1, 2016

"Most honest people I know are not under FBI investigation let alone two."  -Kellyanne Conway on twitter 28 Oct. 2016

“All I’m saying is that she’s under investigation by the FBI. Just pause and think about that. That’s not, that’s a pretty uncommon thing for a presidential candidate. And each and every week it just seems like there’s more information.”  -Jeb Bush 2016

“Crooked Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI and to the people of our country. She is sooooo guilty. But watch, her time will come!” (Trump) tweeted in July.  That same month, he called for Russian hackers to steal Clinton’s emails and publish them."  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-gop-fbi-probes-attack-clinton-article-1.3004371



Posted by: Sandra Schramm | May 18, 2017 22:19

Well stated Paul. Thank you.



If you wish to comment, please login.