Papal Death Penalty Update; a Respectful Dissent

Recently, Pope Francis announced, that “the death penalty is now inadmissible,” and that the church’s teaching on the death penalty, as set out in section 2267 of the church’s catechism, has been updated.


Here are the five changes, and my comments.


1. “The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”


If the state, after a full and fair trial, and exhaustive appeals, can’t impose the death penalty because of “the inviolability and dignity” of the murderer’s person, how can other agents of the state be permitted to kill?

How can a police officer kill a terrorist who is threatening to execute hostages? How can an officer shoot the armed robber who first shoots at the officer? After Pearl Harbor, how could our soldiers and sailors kill Japanese soldiers and sailors?

If the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, aren’t the responses of our police officers, and our soldiers and sailors also inadmissible as attacks on the inviolability and dignity of the terrorist, the armed robber, and the Japanese soldiers and sailors?

Or are such killings permitted out of necessity?


2. “The dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.”
What exactly is “the dignity of the person?”

It cannot be the same thing as the life of the person. Does the act of murder extinguish the dignity of his victim’s person, or only terminate his victim’s life?

“Dignity” is defined as the “quality of being worthy of honor or respect.” Does the murderer deprive his victim of being worthy of honor or respect? Does the murderer forfeit his own right to be deemed worthy of honor or respect?

Or is the pope saying that human life is sacred?

Is not God alone sacred? Worthy alone of adoration? Is man sacred if there is no God? Without his connection to God? Does not the power of life and death belong to God? Doesn’t the murderer usurp God’s power over life and death?

The church has always taught that murder is mortal sin, and that the mortal sinner loses God’s friendship. If man is sacred only by virtue of his connection to God, what becomes of that dignity when man severs his relationship with God?

But, then, if you deny the existence of God, is anything sacred?


3. “A new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. “

Exactly what is this new understanding?

In the years when I was on the bench, sentences were imposed to protect the pubic, punish the defendant, deter the defendant and others from committing like crimes, and rehabilitate the criminal.

Additionally, sentences were required to be “proportionate” to the severity of the offense.


4. “More effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens.”

A murderer is serving three life sentences without the possibility of parole for murdering and dismembering three children, ages 3 to 5. The murderer then murders a prison guard, and while he is awaiting trail for that murder, he murders a second guard. If the death penalty cannot be imposed, what meaningful penalty is there which “ensures due protection of citizens” — including guards?

Whether additional life sentences are served concurrently or consecutively, isn’t every life sentence after the first meaningless? How are four more meaningless life sentence “proportionate” to the four additional murders?

Where the only meaningful and proportionate sentence is a death sentence, then the death sentence is both reasonable and necessary to protect the public.


5. “More effective systems of detention have been developed which do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.”

Is he referring to the murderer asking God for forgiveness? Statistics show that in Texas a murderer spends an average of 15.6 awaiting his execution. Isn’t that sufficient time for a murderer to ask God’s forgiveness?

Or by redemption, is the pope referring to rehabilitation? Richard Speck raped, tortured and murdered eight student nurses. Is the pope saying that if the parole board decided Speck was rehabilitated after 10 years he should have been paroled?

I have never believed that the death penalty should be the sentence in all cases of murder. I believe, however, it should be the penalty where it is the only sentence that is “necessary” and “proportionate.” In that, I am entirely consistent with Section 2266 of the church’s catechism. I suggest, the church’s catechism is now inconsistent with itself.

If only the death penalty is “proportionate” to the crime, then it must be “admissible,” and the now-repealed Section 2267 had it right.

Posted: QCOline.com Aug. 23, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Was JFK Right About Tax Cuts? If so, so Is Trump

When candidate Donald Trump promised 4 percent growth for the U.S. economy in September of 2016, CNN scoffed, “Trump promises 4 percent growth. Economists say no way.”


In an Oct. 11, 2016 op-ed, CNN continued, “No chance, say 11 economists surveyed by CNNMoney. ‘No, pigs do not fly,’ says Robert Brusca, senior economist at FAO Economics, a research firm. ‘Donald Trump is dreaming.’


“So what’s realistic? The San Francisco Fed estimates the ‘new normal’ for annual economic growth to be 1.5 percent to 1.75 percent.”


Once elected, President Trump promised that if his tax plan were enacted, although taxes rates would be cut, there would nevertheless be an increase in federal revenues and a decrease in the deficit.


This increase in revenues would occur because the economy would grow, and businesses would see greater profits and pay more in taxes, not withstanding the lowering of the tax rates.


Now, the president’s first prediction, that the economy would take off, seems to be coming true to anyone with an open mind.


On July 27, the Department of Commerce announced that the “U.S. gross domestic product advanced by 4.1 percent in the second quarter of 2018.” CNN now dismisses that 4.1 percent growth rate, trotting out economists who now claim that it is “unsustainable.” Probably the same 11!


Trump disagrees and says the 4 percent growth rate is sustainable and promises “it will get even better.” So who are you rooting for, the President or CNN?


But assuming that the President’s first prediction that economic growth would take off if his plan were approved is coming true, what about his prediction that the deficit would be reduced?


The belief that a decrease in tax rates could result in increased federal revenues, and a decrease in the deficit, is not an original Trump idea. President John F. Kennedy made the same prediction 56 years ago.


On December 14, 1962, Kennedy in an address to the Economic Club of New York laid out his case for a cuts in individual and corporate federal income taxes rates.


Kennedy explained, “Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget — just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.



“Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.


“I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve, I believe ... this can be done — a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.”


Kennedy believed that high tax rates stifled the economy. He believed that lowering the tax rates would, in the short run, decrease tax revenues. But in the long run, lowering tax rates would unshackle the American economy.


He believed that if the government took less money from the private sector, the private sector would have more money to invest, expand, and hire workers. He believed in the long run that an expanding economy would produce far greater profits and far greater tax revenues sufficient to cut the deficit and even balance the budget.


To put this in concrete terms, the George W. Bush Presidential Center in 2013 projected that a 4 percent growth rate for 10 years would produce an additional 10 million jobs, $3 trillion in revenues, and a 30 percent reduction of the deficit. (And that does not take account of repatriated dollars.)


Trump is using Kennedy’s playbook. I have always believed Kennedy was right. If Kennedy was right, Trump is going to come out of this looking of a lot smarter than CNN’s gaggle of dismissive economists.

Posted: QCOline.com Aug. 16, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Trump a Free Trader, Not a Protectionist

Last week President Donald Trump, at a joint press conference with the European Union’s senior trade representative, Jean-Claude Juncker, announced a trade deal with the EU.


“This was a very big day for free and fair trade, Trump said. “We agreed today ... to work together toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsidies on non-auto industrial goods. We will also work to reduce barriers and increase trade in services, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical products, as well as soy beans. ... The EU will begin almost immediately to buy a lot of soy beans from our farmers .... The EU also wants to import more liquefied natural gas from the U.S. .... They will be a massive buyer.”


What the president said was confirmed by Juncker: “I had an intention to make a deal today, and we made a deal today.”


So, is the president a free-trader or a protectionist?


Trump has taken on two issues, the U.S. trade deficit, and tariffs. The issues are related, but distinct.


Here’s a simple illustration of a trade deficit:


A sells Chevy automobiles. B sells snowblowers. B buys a Chevy from A and pays $30,000. A buys a snowblower from B at a price of $500. B has a trade deficit of $29,500. A has a trade surplus of $29,500.


Kimberly Amadeo of balance.com writes, “The United States ... [total] deficit in goods and services was $566 billion in 2017. Imports were $2.895 trillion and exports were only $2.329 trillion. The U.S. trade deficit in goods [excluding services] was $810 billion. The United States exported $1.551 trillion in goods. The biggest categories were commercial aircraft, automobiles, and food. It imported $2.361 trillion. The largest categories were automobiles, petroleum, and cell phones.”


The U.S. has its largest trade deficit with China. We import about $505 billion worth of goods from China. China imports about $130 billion worth of goods from us. The U.S. deficit is therefore about $375 billion. China’s trade surplus is $375 billion.


There is some good, and some bad in that relationship. The relationship is good for American consumers. They might be able to buy an American-made TV for $500. They, however, may be able to buy a comparable Chinese-made TV for $400.


But the relationship is bad for U.S. workers. If American consumers are buying enough Chinese-made TVs, American TV manufactures may go out of business for lack of sales, or relocate their businesses to China, or Mexico where labor is cheaper and where they can build TVs for the American market to compete with Chinese imports.


Furthermore, buying all our manufactured goods from foreign countries may be very bad in the case of a national emergency.


We won WWII largely because our auto manufactures adjusted their assembly lines to build planes, ships and tanks. If there are no American manufacturers, that won’t be possible in the case of the next national emergency.


That situation is exacerbated when the foreign country imposes a tariff on U.S. goods entering their country. If a Canadian consumer can buy a gallon of U.S. milk imported into Canada at $2 per gallon, he may not be able to afford buying that same gallon of milk if a 200 percent Canadian tariff raises the price of that milk to $6 a gallon.


The U.S. dairy farmer gets no benefit from the $4 added to the price of his milk by the tariff. And worse, if the price of milk is $6 rather than $2, the U.S. dairy farmer will sell less milk to Canada. It’s the Canadian dairy farmer who benefits. He can sell his milk at $5.90 per gallon, and beat the $6 price of U.S. milk.


The agreement with the EU demonstrates that when the president says, “I want free trade, not tariffs,” he means it.


For the president, U.S. tariffs are a tool to force the reduction of foreign tariffs. He wants free trade; reciprocal trade.


If a trade war develops, China, by raising tariffs, can keep $130 billion of U.S. exports out of China. We can keep $505 billion of Chinese exports out of the U.S.


If that happens, U.S. consumers will pay a little more for U.S. goods. U.S. manufacturers will find it easier to compete.


U.S. exporters will be hurt, unless our government protects them during the war. (U.S. farmers export about $12.4 billion of soybeans to China.)


China’s economy will face depression.

Posted: QCOline.com Aug. 2, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Original Intent vs. Everything Else

President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court because the president believes Kavanaugh will construe our Constitution consistently with the “original intent” of the men who wrote it.


I came to Rock Island County in September 1966 to work as an assistant state’s attorney. Shortly after I came, one of my fellow assistants told me of his uncle, a former justice of the peace, who had proclaimed, “I don’t care who makes the laws, so long as I can say what they mean.”


I was appalled. His uncle was saying that under the guise of interpreting the law, he would rewrite the law to say what he wanted it to say, rather than what the people’s representatives who wrote it, meant it to say.


The United States is a democratic republic.


We are a democracy because we elect the people we want to represent us and make our laws.


We are a republic because the people we have chosen make our laws on our behalf. That is the first principle of our U.S. Constitution. Article I provides, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”


Note, it says “all.” It does not say “some” or “most.” If all legislative power is vested in Congress, then none is vested in the president or in any judge.


Article II provides, “The executive power shall be vested in [the] president.” He takes an oath to “faithfully execute” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”


Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are judges; not members of Congress. They are not elected to make our laws. Under our Constitution, no power has been vested in judges to make or rewrite our laws.


Under Article III of the Constitution, they are vested with judicial power.


Article V provides two alternative methods to amend our Constitution. Neither the president nor any judge has any role in the amendment process.


This tripartite process — Congress making our laws, the president executing those laws, and the Supreme Court judging what our Constitution and those laws mean — is known as the “separation of powers.”


Our Constitution is a product of experience, not logic.


The experience of the American people living in the 13 English colonies was the force behind Article I. The colonists had grown used to electing their own colonial representative assemblies. Those assemblies made their laws, and taxed them.


When the English King and Parliament asserted a parliamentary right to impose taxes on the colonies in an end run around their colonial assemblies, we fought and won a Revolutionary War, largely over the principle of “no taxation without representation.”


During the constitutional cConvention, it quickly became obvious that the American people would accept no king. The men who drafted our Constitution were well aware of the kingly claims of royal prerogative.


To insure that the American president could have no basis to claim a divine right to make laws or rule by decree, the founders vested ALL legislative power in the House of Representatives elected by the people, and a Senate by state legislatures.


The executive, the president, was vested only with power to execute those laws, not make, amend or repeal them.


The notion that judges can make laws or amend the Constitution by their decrees is even more undemocratic and unconstitutional than a president ruling by decree.


The president, at least, is elected by the people through their electors. We did not boot out a king who wanted to rule by decree to replace him with nine guys in black robes who would do the same.


The canard that a judge, who construes the Constitution consistently with the intent of the men that wrote it, is somehow a far right-winger or out of the mainstream is either a lie, stupidity, or the ranting of a lunatic with a superiority complex who wants our Constitution replaced with one that embodies his more enlightened notions of what a better constitution should say.


Once Supreme Court judges abandon construction of our Constitution in accordance with the founder’s original intent, then every judge's notion of what the Constitution should mean is equally valid. There is no anchor.


Every judge's new rule of construction becomes, “I don’t care who makes the laws, so long as I can say what the laws mean.”


My liberty is secure under James Madison’s construction of our Constitution. I don’t want to risk it with the more enlightened 21st century constructions.

Posted: QCOline.com July 26, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Is it Evil to Disagree with the Pope?

Two disparate groups of people who are convinced that man-made climate change is a scientific fact have a new champion: the pope!


The first group has a genuine respect for the pope. When he indicates he is speaking infallibly on a matter of faith or morals, they take what he teaches to be religious truth.


Where he does not indicate that he is speaking infallibly, as is the case when he is speaking of man-made climate change, they generally regard his teaching as, at least, highly persuasive.



For a second group, the pope will remain their hero only as long as his pronouncements can be used to demonize the president and other “climate-change deniers.”


Saul Alinsky taught, “Marginalize and demonize your opponent, so that others will disregard his opinions.” The marginalizing process proceeds like this:


The president is deaf to the pope’s teachings on climate change. He cannot be persuaded and is therefore invincibly ignorant. He’s self-centered. He’s an evil billionaire. He has spent his entire life in pursuit of worldly success. By way of contrast, the pope has spent his life caring for the poor. The pope is good. The president is evil.


For the second group, as long as the pope’s religious teachings on climate change coincide with their beliefs, they will treat his climate-change pronouncements as infallible.


They use the papal pronouncements to demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of the president and anyone else who dares to doubt, or deny that climate change is man-made.


Their syllogism is straightforward. The pope and his position on man-made climate change is good. The opposite of good is evil. Therefore, President Donald Trump, who holds the opposite view, is necessarily evil. But even if the president is wrong, does it necessarily follow that he is evil?


When the pope speaks on man-made climate change is he speaking infallibly? Obviously, no.


Canon 749 spells out when the pope speaks infallibly: “By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful ... he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.”


So, assume, for argument’s sake, that when the pope speaks of man-made climate change he indeed is speaking on a matter of faith or morals. Does that mean that he is speaking infallibly?


No. In fact, almost everything the pope says or writes touches upon faith or morals. But that does not mean he is speaking infallibly.


Before a pope speaks infallibly, he must indicate that he intends to do so, by proclaiming unequivocally that he is speaking infallibly and that the doctrine of faith or morals which he is teaching must be held to be true.


What is disingenuous about all this is that many in the second group who treat the pope’s pronouncements on climate change as if they were infallible, utterly reject other papal teachings they find objectionable.


How many of those who approve the pope’s teachings on global warming, utterly reject the pope’s views and his church’s official position on abortion?


The pope believes his church is the”one true church.” To suggest the pope speaks infallibly on climate change while denying that the pope speaks infallibly when he says the Catholic Church is the “one true church,” seems somewhat inconsistent.


Doesn’t that touch on faith? Morals? If the pope is infallible on any issue, shouldn’t his expertise be greatest here? The selective adulation suggests that many of those who are lauding the pope for his position on climate change are covering themselves with the papal robes to demonstrate the moral superiority of their position and the moral bankruptcy and depravity of any one who disagrees.


So is the pope your moral beacon? Or is he merely your tool of choice when you need a cudgel to silence those with whom you politically disagree?


Today the pope teaches that man is causing climate change.


Not very long ago, the church was certain the earth was the center of the universe. So, was Galileo evil?

Posted: QCOline.com July 19, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Stop Demonizing - Pass Rational Immigration Policy

It is currently fashionable for those on the left to compare President Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler.

I can understand young people with little knowledge of WWII and German history from 1930 through 1944 engaging in that hyperbole on the immigration issue.

I cannot understand any adult who lived through those years equating our president to Hitler.


On June 30, 1934, Hitler ordered the summary execution of the leaders of his own SA (Sturmabteilung, translated literally, Storm Detachment).

He personally arrested Ernst Roehm, the head of the SA, conveyed him to prison in Munich, and executed Roehm in his cell without trial. Roehm had been Hitler’s best friend.

Gregor Strasser, the No. 2 man in the Nazi Party who had crossed Hitler, was arrested in Berlin and murdered in his cell. Former Chancellor Von Schliecher and his wife were shot dead in their home by Hitler’s men. Von Schliecher was Chancellor Hitler’s predecessor. Hitler crushed his own storm troopers to win the support of the German army.

Then there was the “final solution.” Over six million Jews were murdered by Hitler’s Nazis. Jews died of starvation, disease, and poor living conditions. They were shot down in the streets, and sent to gas chambers in extermination camps. Children were reunited with their parents only in death.

Hitler raped Austria, devoured democratic Czechoslovakia in two bites, made war on small peaceful Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, and Greece.

He savagely unleashed his military on Poland, France, England and the USSR. Some 26 million Russians, and 5.8 million Poles died. German military casualties are estimated at 5.3 million, including Austrian conscripts.


Anybody opposing Trump’s immigration policies who compares Trump with Hitler is nuts. Mr. Trump has not arrested and murdered without trial a single political opponent, or his critics in the media.

Hitler invaded his neighbors. Our president hasn’t invaded anybody. And to compare placing children who cross our border illegally into detention facilities for 20 days with children sent to Auschwitz or Treblinka for extermination is absurd.


On Feb. 24, 2017, before the present furor, the Chicago Tribune wrote that “Nearly 60,000 children came across the border without their parents during the fiscal year ending in September.”

Were they to be allowed to roam free? Unless detained, how would they ever be placed? Reunited? Calling the president’s immigration policies racist or him Hitler is, at best, a puerile diversion from the real immigration issues that Republicans and Democrats should be discussing.


Isn’t it about time these issues, and others, are calmly, conscientiously and publicly discussed?

1. How many immigrant laborers does our country’s workforce need each year?

2. What level of skills should the immigrants have?

3. How many immigrants should we accept for humanitarian reasons?

4. What is the true cost of providing immigrant children with an elementary and secondary education (including salaries and pensions of teachers, administrators, etc., as well as school supplies and busing)?

5. What is the true cost of providing housing assistance for illegal immigrants? Foster care? Medical care? Meals?

6. What do illegal immigrants pay in federal and state income taxes? FICA?

7. How many illegal immigrants commit felonies? Serious misdemeanors? What is the cost of incarcerating these individuals? Probationary services? Parole services?

8. How many illegal aliens are driving without financial responsibility? What are the costs to others from accidents caused by uninsured illegals?

9. How many total dollars will we spend providing services for illegal immigrants? Would these dollars be better spent on the elderly, veterans, the disabled, inner-city schools, our infrastructure, etc.?

10. Out of every 1,000 illegal aliens who enter our country, how many have felony records in their own country? How many are drug dealers, mules, cartel enforcers, gang members, Islamist terrorists, medical doctors, engineers, teachers, scientists?


How do we keep bad people out? Calling Trump names will solve nothing.

It is, however, a lot easier, and perhaps more politically expedient, for Democrats and anti-Trumpists to engage in name-calling than it is to fix the mess.

There are many good reasons to admit aliens into our country, but admitting them to gain votes is not one of them.

Posted: QCOline.com July 5, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Is Campaign Spying Another Watergate?

On May 17, President Donald Trump tweeted, “Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI ‘SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN EMBEDDED INFORMANT.’

“Andrew McCarthy says, ‘There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.’ If so, this is bigger than Watergate!”

Watergate, if you weren’t around in those days, was a major political scandal during President Richard Nixon’s re-election campaign. It was the Congressional investigation of the June 17, 1972 burglary by five Republican operatives at DNC headquarters at the Watergate Office Complex in Washington, D.C.

Facing impeachment for covering it up, Nixon resigned. Based on an interview with Jeb Magruder (then deputy at the Committee to Re-Elect the President), the New York Times wrote that the purpose of the break-in, was to have the White House operatives wiretap Democratic Headquarters.

Nicknamed “the plumbers,” their intent was to plug a potential leak. They feared that Democratic campaign chairman Lawrence O’Brien possessed information concerning an illegal gift from Howard Hughes to Nixon, the disclosure of which might complicate the president’s re-election.

The wiretap was designed to dredge up political dirt useful in sealing potential Democratic leaks.

So is history repeating itself? Is Trump’s Watergate analogy reasonable? Not according to President Barack Obama’s CIA director, John O. Brennan.

Brennan, not unexpectedly, immediately accused Trump of lying and “mischaracterization” for saying his campaign was spied upon by the FBI. Brennan argues that the operative the president labels a spy was in reality a “confidential human source.”

Brennan then narrowly defines his terms to support his charge:

“A spy is someone who is recruited. Usually it’s a foreign national who is going to work on behalf of U.S. intelligence agencies to provide information about issues related to our national security. A confidential human source is what the FBI uses in order to have some insight into what may be going on that could involve criminal activity.”

But is Brennan’s definition consistent with the commonly understood dictionary definition of a spy?

The Apple Dictionary defines one as “a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.” 

Merriam Webster Dictionary says it’s “one who keeps secret watch on a person or thing to obtain information.” 

The Oxford Dictionary defines spy as “a person employed by a government or other organization to secretly obtain information on an enemy or competitor.”

Trump’s May 17 tweet was entirely consistent with its common dictionary meaning. More importantly, to call the president a liar, Brennan had to intentionally engage in his own mischaracterization.

The president did not simply tweet that the FBI spied on the campaign. He added the FBI used an “embedded information” or a “confidential informant” to spy on his campaign.

To have any rational basis for calling the president a liar, Brennan had to pretend that the president didn’t say the spy used by the FBI was an embedded informant or a confidential informant.


Indeed, Brennan seems to be saying that the FBI didn’t spy, it merely used a “confidential human source.”

So who is mischaracterizing? Trump or Brennan? Or is Brennan merely obfuscating? Is a spy usually a foreign national? Does a spy usually work on behalf of U.S. intelligence? Does a spy usually deal with national security?

What is a confidential human resource working on behalf of Corporation X who goes to work for a company for the purpose of stealing trade secrets but a spy?

"Spy" equals “confidential informant,” equals “embedded informant,” equals “confidential human source.”

If the real purpose of inserting the confidential human source was to protect the integrity of the election process, why wasn’t one inserted into the Hillary Clinton campaign?

Did FBI leadership insert a confidential human source into the Trump campaign? Why? The president believes it did, and that it was for partisan political purposes. If he’s right, how does this differ from Watergate?

The Mueller investigation goes on without end in sight. Congressional Democrats call for full disclosure. The president should oblige them. It is time for the president to order the FBI to provide Congress with every document Congress has requested — in unredacted form.

If FBI leaders defy the president, they should be fired.

Posted: QCOline.com June 21, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea