…and not just any law enforcement matter, but an investigation of a former Secretary of State and presumptive Presidential nominee.
Nice. You see, Barack Obama just doesn’t care. That’s the only possible explanation for this pattern which goes way back to 2009, when he opined on whether his old friend from Harvard, Henry Louis Gates, was the party at fault in an altercation with a Cambridge, Mass, police officer. That was his first year as President, so maybe it’s plausible that this “Constitutional scholar” and allegedly brilliant man didn’t know that the President of the United States warps the justice system and law enforcement when he declares how he thinks they should handle a particular matter, since he is at the tippity top of our rule of law. Obama has done this again and again, however—with Trayvon Martin… in the Big Branch Mine disaster…as Obamacare approached a key challenge in the Supreme Court…in the military sex abuse scandal…regarding Arizona’s illegal immigration laws, and regarding other matters. He has to know by now that it biases the process, but his supporters cheer, the news media makes excuses, only Republicans, the “conservative media” and Ethics Alarms complain, so he keeps doing it anyway. He can get away with it, so he just doesn’t care.
This, however, was special. The same day that the White House admitted that the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s intentional mishandling of official e-mails for her own personal needs–she didn’t want citizens to be able to see her business and political machinations using the Freedom of Information Act—was a criminal investigation, he endorsed Clinton for President in glowing terms.
Fox News’ Chief Washington Correspondent James Rosen asked White House Paid Liar Josh Earnest about the appropriateness of this—heaven forfend that any non-conservative-biased news outlet would ask such an obvious and necessary question, queried “You have other employees of the executive branch, career prosecutors, FBI agents, working this case who have now just heard how the president wants to see this case resolved, in essence. Isn’t there some conflict there?”
Rosen, you may recall, was the journalist who had his computer illegally monitored by this very same Justice Department.
“James, there’s not,” Earnest replied. “The reason that the president feels confident that he can go out and make this endorsement and record a video in which he describes his strong support for Secretary Clinton’s campaign is that he knows the people who are conducting the investigation aren’t going to be swayed by any sort of political interference. They aren’t going to be swayed by political forces. This is the reason that we actually ask career federal prosecutors to take the lead on these kinds of matters. They don’t have political jobs. They have career jobs as law enforcement officers and as prosecutors and investigators. That’s what their responsibility is.”
Ah. So if you work for the President of the United States, and your direct superior was appointed by the President of the United States, and the President of the United States says that the person you are investigating is spectacularly qualified to be the next President of the United States, and thus he would be embarrassed politically and personally should that person be indicted by his own Justice Department, that statement will not affect your judgment in any way.
Nah. Why would it?
He’s only the President of the United States.
It’s not going to influence anybody’s decision.
Who believes that? Obama doesn’t believe that. I assume that Earnest doesn’t believe that.
A clearer signal could not be sent that Barack Obama does not want Hillary Clinton indicted. It is an abuse of power and an insult to the integrity of the justice system for President Obama to do this.
14 thoughts on “The Flat Learning Curve Again: Obama Signals His Desires In A Law Enforcement Matter Of Some Considerable Consequence”
At what point does the combination of corruption, thuggery, and incompetence (among all else) throughout the Democratic Party finally force a reconsideration from “Never Trump” people?
From this analyst, never. It is per se irresponsible to vote for an unstable, dim-bulb, loud mouth, ignorant narcissist like Trump. Party, alleged positions, none of it matters until you get past that.
At the risk of thumping my own chest, when will you guys learn to listen to Uncle Dragon? There was NEVER the slightest chance that Clinton would be indicted, not now, not ever. In point of fact, no-one in this administration will ever be held to account for their actions, ever, and if Hillary wins the election, as seems probable, there will never again be a Republican President. Thus, we will have given up being a Republic and will become an Empire, much like Rome did. It just didn’t take us as long.
There are absolutely no good choices for President this Presidential election cycle, only worse choices; all we have left is to vote against because there’s nothing reasonable to vote for. This is what the shear ignorance and blatant apathy of the majority of We The People have allowed our politics to become. This is what the dumbing down of the American populous has done. This is exactly what the Democratic Socialists, Progressives, and a fair amount of Liberals have been striving for for many years; absolute dominance (or as close as they can get), but not by promoting their ideology, but by demonizing their opposition – they are winning by default.
In my opinion, Clinton would not be on the verge of winning a Presidential election if it had not been for the presence of Trump in the campaign, period, end of discussion. With every passing day, with every spoken word out of Trump’s mouth; everything in my gut tells me that this scenario was planned. I predict that Clinton will win the Presidential election with the largest landslide in the history of the United States and the Republicans will loose the majorities in congress in short order. The Republican party is effectively finished.
We’re doomed. 😦
Can you fix the closing tag after the word “exactly” where the bold should have ended; I flop-flopped the / and the b.
I saw a clip on TV of Biden endorsing Clinton, and I swear to you that one of the reasons he gave was that she has “a profound respect for the rule of law.”
If anybody out there have a transcript, maybe they can reassure me that It was just a fever dream and that there are some lies so insultingly brazen that not even the Obama White House would utter them.
The Emperor wants to protect his legacy so is it any surprise that he and Biden endorse crooked Hillary. America is getting to resemble Mussolini’s Italy except Obama has not made the trains run on time.
Neither did Mussolini…he changed the schedules.
Just back from a break-in ride on my new motorcycle. Read this. Reached for my pendulum. Asked if Clinton will be indicted. The answer is yes.
If Hillary is Obama’s primary legacy after eight years as POTUS, then it’s all worse than I thought. However, however corrupt, secretive, lawless and sickening Obama and Hillary and the Democratic/Clinton machine are, I cannot, and will not, vote for a dangerous nutball like Trump. I really don’t want to see our nation and the world go down in flames. We’ve survived corrupt presidents before — the leviathan of government just trundles on, for the most part — but we have not, have never, had a completely ignorant, hateful, psychopath in office before this. I know it is our own fault: but we won’t survive Trump. Neither, perhaps, will the rest of the civilized world. And not incidentally, can we really embarrass ourselves as a nation by having such a loudmouth ignoramus lead the United States of America? Where is the gravamen, the importance, the history of the office? It will be dead, dead, dead with Trump as President. I will swallow my gorge and vote for Hillary. Never thought I’d say it or do it, but then I never though a Trump would be a candidate, either.
Very well put, E2, although I think the US could survive a Trump presidency. But it wouldn’t be pretty. Four years of reality TV writers running the executive branch would be awful. But then again, we’ve had almost eight years of Valery Jerritt and Ben Rhoades writing executive branch policy…
Think on this, as well…HRC, if elected, will almost certainly appoint 2 and possibly as many as 4 SCOTUS Justices. Her litmus tests will be gun control and abortion. God only knows what Trumps would be.
This quote from your introduction to your site: ” The objective is to provoke thought about the issue that isn’t controlled by biases, pre-conditioned reflexes, ideology or rationalizations.”
Do you really believe that it is possible to form thoughts that are independent of our own biases and presuppositions, conscious or otherwise?
Sure it is. You need to be aware of those biases, and be determined to not allow them to interfere with independent and objective thought. It’s not easy, and it’s not always possible. But it must be an ongoing objective.