Comey's Boss Makes Strong Case for his Firing

In his "Memorandum to the Attorney General" recommending the dismissal of FBI director James Comey, deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, Comey's immediate superior, begins by setting out the damage Comey has done to the FBI:

"Over the past year, however, the FBI's reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice.”

Rosenstein then writes, "I cannot defend the Director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken."

Rosenstein then set out his principal charge of misconduct.

"The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution.

"It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors.

"The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict.

"But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department.

"There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General.

"On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders."

Rosenstein then points out that Comey compounded his error.

"The Director [then] ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation."

Rosenstein condemns the specifics of that press conference.

"The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

"The goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference.

Rosenstein then explained the line between the FBI's duties, and prosecutorial duties.

"The goal [of the FBI] is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then -- if prosecution is warranted -- let the judge
and jury determine the facts."

Rosenstein rejects Comey's claim that his failure to hold the press conference would have been tantamount to concealment.

"When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open [sic:close?] a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.”

Rosenstein said that judgment is consistent with the views of former attorneys general and deputy attorneys general -- from different eras and both political parties.


Judge Laurence Silberman, deputy attorney general under President Ford: "it is not the [FBI's] responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted."

According to Silberman, Comey's "Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover."

Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush, opines that the director had eschewed FBI traditions, and "chose personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness."

Both Silberman and Gorelick concluded that Comey had violated his duty to "preserve, protect and defend" the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey under President George W. Bush, observed the director "stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion" because the FBI

director "doesn't make that decision."

Eric Holder, President Clinton's deputy attorneys general and President Obama's attorney general, stated Comey's decision "was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season."

Holder concluded that Comey "broke with these fundamental principles ... negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI."

Rosenstein concludes, "The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them."

"Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions."

Rosenstein appointment as deputy AG was confirmed by a nonpartisan 94-6 Senate vote. Sen. Charles Schumer said, “He had developed a reputation for integrity.”

Posted: QCOline.com May 17, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Of Cats, Slaves and the Unborn Child

When a court says something is “legal," does that make it “moral?” For the sake of discussion, consider three quite disparate things: cruelty to animals, abortion and slavery.

On May 2, this paper ran an article about a former Galva resident who used a pellet gun to shoot a cat in the eye, and who was charged with Aggravated Cruelty to Animals, a Class 4 felony (which carries the possibility of 1-3 years imprisonment).

I have no sympathy for people who shoot out the eyes of cats. For me, the conduct should be illegal. I also think it’s immoral. But there is another "cruelty" -- that to a viable unborn child -- that shocks me far more.


In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court wrote "Abortion methods vary depending to some extent on the preferences of the physician ... the term of the pregnancy and the resulting stage of the unborn child’s development.

"Between 85 and 90 percent of the approximately 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United States take place in the ... first trimester.

"Of the remaining abortions ..., most occur in the second trimester. The surgical procedure referred to as “dilation and evacuation” or “D&E” is the usual abortion method in this trimester. Although individual techniques for performing D&E differ, the general steps are the same.

"The doctor ... inserts grasping forceps through the woman’s cervix and into the uterus to grab the fetus. The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed. A doctor may make 10 to 15 passes with the forceps to evacuate the fetus in its entirety ...

Have you sympathy for that fetus? Since Roe v. Wade, women have had the legal right to abortion. The fetus generally has had no rights; merely a duty to die.

One-hundred and fifty years ago, Abe Lincoln, during his Galesburg debate with Senator Stephen A. Douglas for the open Illinois U.S. Senate seat, drew a distinction between legality and morality. For Lincoln, slavery was a "legal right," but not a "moral right." For Lincoln, slavery was a moral wrong.

"Every thing that emanates from Sen. Douglas, or his coadjutors, ... carefully excludes the thought that there is anything wrong in slavery -- that there is anything whatsoever wrong in slavery.

"If you will take the Judge's speeches -- his declaration that he "doesn't care whether slavery is voted up or down" -- you will see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that slavery is (morally) wrong.

"If you do admit that it is (morally) wrong, Judge Douglas cannot logically say he doesn't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down.


"Judge Douglas declares that if any community wants slavery they have a right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is no wrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong

in it, he cannot logically say that anybody has a (legal) right to do (moral) wrong."

Now, substitute the word "abortion" for the word "slavery" in Lincoln's speech.

A cat is not a person. Yet, our laws protect cats. A fetus, even if viable (even one minute before birth), is not a person -- but only in a legal or "constitutional sense" (because it is not yet born). Medically and scientifically, that fetus is unquestionably a human person. Since the fetus carried both maternal and paternal DNA, it is a human person distinct from either parent.

So, should a cat have greater protections in our courts than second and third trimester unborn children who are "viable?”

The slave owner closed his eyes to the moral question. Are those who demand "abortion on demand" doing the same?

Posted: QCOline.com May 12, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Republican Choice: Support Trump or Lose

On May 28, Republicans and Democrats compromised - to continue the status quo! The Congressional short-term funding bill, which avoids a government "shut-down," calls for $1.07 trillion in government spending. All those Americans who have wished for "compromise" and "more of the same," got what they wanted. Those Americans who voted for President Trump's platform -- to "drain the swamp" -- have been "given the bird" and told Mr. Trump's election counts for nothing.

The bill provides no funding for President Trump's wall along the Mexican border. It continues to provide federal funds to sanctuary cities. It continues subsidies for both Obamacare and Planned Parenthood.

The Americans who voted for President Trump should be furious. Republicans, and others who voted for President Trump, gave the Republicans a 54 to 46 majority in the Senate, a 238 to 193 majority in the House, and the presidency. The president needs 50 supporters in the Senate (plus the VP) and 216 in the House. Americans who elected Trump, elected Republican congressmen to support him; not to side with Democrats.


So what are the Republican hacks in the House and Senate doing? Undermining the president's agenda. With these dolts in office, who needs a Democratic opposition?

How many times during the last eight years did the Republican Congress vote to defund Obamacare, only to have former president Barack Obama veto their bill? Now that they have majorities in both Houses, plus a Republican president who would approve their Obamacare de-funding, they lack the guts to pass a simple de-funding bill. Why not dust off a de-funding bill that Obama vetoed and send it to President Trump?

What grows clearer daily, is that feckless Republicans in the House and Senate who refuse to support the President's agenda, need to be sent packing - even at the risk of seeing their seats go to the Democrats. To borrow a phrase from Mrs. Clinton, if every (Republican in name only) RINO was replaced by a Democrat, "What difference would it make?" Do we really need Republican "denizens of the swamp" obstructing the president? Aren't the Democrats doing that job well enough?

The RINOs give every appearance of fearing that if they vote to repeal Obamacare, all those on Obamacare -- most of whom wouldn't vote for a Republican if the Republican was their mother -- will vote against them. But if a repeal is bad, why did they vote for it during the Obama years? Political theater? If so, they deserve to be relegated to the scrap heap of history.

As I watch this Republican theater of the absurd unfold, I feel as if I am watching a comic opera -- as if Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe is being staged in the halls of Congress, rather than Parliament. Did “Private Willis” not “nail it?"

"When in that house M.P.'s divide,

If they've a brain or cerebellum, too.

They've got to leave that brain outside,

And vote just as their leaders, tell 'em to.

But then the prospect of a lot of dull M.P.'s in close proximity

All thinking for themselves, is what

No man can face with equanimity."

Trump won the election despite the opposition of the Democrats and many "establishment" Republicans. If the "establishment Republicans" think their party will prosper scuttling the Trump agenda, and doing nothing, they are nuts.

If Trump abdicates leadership of the Republican Party to the Republican "denizens of the swamp," he will lose the support of the people who elected him. If he wants to see his agenda made law, he can't "lead from behind."

Trump was elected by conservatives -- not liberals, not progressives, not RINOs. His base will support him only so long as he fairly and vigorously fights for what he promised during his campaign. He only has one choice, "drain the swamp" or be sucked into it. If he has to encourage primary fights to get the RINOs aboard, then so be it.

The president's "friends" are not in Washington, D.C. They are in the states that gave him his 304 electoral votes. Republican Congressmen have a choice: support Trump's agenda, or lose your majorities.

Posted: QCOline.com May 6, 2017

Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea