FBI Director Comey Sells Out


#1

Yesterday FBI Director, James Comey, proved that he will never get a chapter in the addendum to Profiles in Courage. Like Chief Justice, John Roberts, he decided that it would better for his career to cow-tow to the Obama administration and not recommend an indictment of HillaryClinton.

It’s a good political bet on his part. Now he has Hillary in his debt, and after she is elected president, which is more than likely, he will be set for at least four and probably eight years. In one stroke he absolved the Obama administration from the embarrassment of indicting Hillary if the Comey had recommended it. Now her crimes will be swept under the rug.

Perhaps in a move to absolve his conscience, he laid out the case as why Mrs. Clinton should be indicted. That doesn’t mean anything. The blank check Democrats (“I’ll vote for anything the party nominates.”), the feminists, (“It’s our turn”) and the low information voters, (“I don’t know anything, and I don’t want to know anything.”) are now the people who elect the president. You could be the best informed and most knowledgeableperson in the electorate, but that doesn’t matter. Your vote will be overwhelmedby ignorance and greed. Receiving you next government benefit is far more important than honesty in government.


#2

At the center of our representative republic is the requirement that the governed view the government as LEGITIMATE.

In the United States the foundation of legitimacy is The Rule Of Law.

Yesterday that foundation took a major hit.

Not much else to say.


#3

From the Meter Maid to the Supreme Court our Justice system is wholly corrupt, this is not news but their boldness of late is making it very hard for their apologist’s to argue for the integrity of the “System”.

Recent events will prove to be a good thing, the people outnumber the Justice System many times over so the moment the people fully embrace the lack of Judicial integrity will be the moment they start simply ignoring whatever the Judicial System does or says.

Once the political realm sees that the people no longer view them as credible or act as if they are credible, they will scramble to start fixing things in a hurry, the entire political realm is a house of cards and the only glue they have is the citizenry generally accepting their authority; in our system there is no need for “revolution” since we can simply ignore them if we choose to do so in large enough numbers.

Those numbers are getting larger every day and with each slap in the face the government deals out to the citizens to remind them that government is royalty and the people are their subjects, I will live to see the day that Americans pay no more attention to correspondence from the government than they do to any other junk mail.


#4

RET, I hope you are correct. Let me know when you see evidence of this transformation of a largely comatose populace.


#5

No, that was different.

Roberts did what he did to preserve the court. You can’t accuse him of professional jockeying, as he’s already at the top of his profession as Chief Justice; the only place he can “advance” to is down & out.

The Supreme Court in recent years was put under immense pressure that the Founders never intended. Not even after the Marbury vs Madison decision that gave them Judicial review.

There were supposed to be several, redundant layers ensuring constitutionality. The Progressive amendments however stripped most of those away, by denying Federalism, empowering the Federal legislature with money it uses to influence lower bodies, politicians who act according to ideologies directly opposed to the Founders.

SCOTUS has essentially been left out on its own, and its been worn down over the years into granting broader and broader Federal power.

You can call into question the rationality of his means, but Roberts Reasoning was not self-serving. I suspect the opposite for this FBI director.

Nonetheless, it hilarious to contrast what he said vs what Hillary claimed she did:

Hillary Clinton vs. James Comey: Email Scandal Supercut - Reason.com

he decided that it would better for his career to cow-tow to the Obama administration and not recommend an indictment of HillaryClinton. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

It’s a good political bet on his part. Now he has Hillary in his debt, and after she is elected president, which is more than likely, he will be set for at least four and probably eight years. In one stroke he absolved the Obama administration from the embarrassment of indicting Hillary if the Comey had recommended it. Now her crimes will be swept under the rug.

Perhaps in a move to absolve his conscience, he laid out the case as why Mrs. Clinton should be indicted. That doesn’t mean anything. The blank check Democrats (“I’ll vote for anything the party nominates.”), the feminists, (“It’s our turn”) and the low information voters, (“I don’t know anything, and I don’t want to know anything.”) are now the people who elect the president. You could be the best informed and most knowledgeableperson in the electorate, but that doesn’t matter. Your vote will be overwhelmedby ignorance and greed. Receiving you next government benefit is far more important than honesty in government. [/QUOTE]


#6

Sorry but your “preserve the court” argument does to hold water. If he had wanted to preserve the court, he would voted to uphold the constitution. Instead he contorted the constitution to call Obama Care a tax, which not even its defenders had labeled it.

No, Roberts sold out just like Comey did.


#7

I agree, Sendgop. No Supreme Court justice–not even the CHIEF Justice–has the power and authority to change how a law is worded in order to give it the appearance of constitutionality. All the Constitution (and Marberry) allows them to do is to rule on whether or not a law is in conformance with the Constitution…period. And Obamacare (and Kelo) were patently NOT.
Who knows what Roberts’ reasons were for violating the Constitution in that manner? Maybe he was afraid the left would bring articles of impeachment against him. More likely, he was threatened with exposure of some skeleton in his closet if he didn’t rule like the left wanted.


#8

Roberts flatly declared that he saw it as the Supreme Courts role to "Find a way to make the elected Legislators and Presidents laws Constitutional because elections have consequences"

To my knowledge Roberts is the ONLY Supreme Court Justice to ever admit that publicly, he stated in no uncertain terms that he REJECTED the responsibility inherent in the Supreme Court to serve as a firewall between any rogue incarnation of government that might find it’s way to power and the Constitution; to make certain that the Rights of the citizens and the limits on the government outlined in the Constitution are preserved for future generations even if we vote stupid for awhile.

ALL activist judges want ALL future citizens to bear the corruption of their time on the bench via precedent, they do NOT see themselves as protectors of the Law but instead as the ones best positioned to write the Law and amend the Constitution in their own image; that is the whole premise of the “Living Document” view and Roberts is the high priest of that apostasy.

In practical terms Roberts is no bigger a scumbag than many who have held his seat in the past, what makes him worse is that he is bold enough to admit it openly and he is of poor enough character to let everybody watch him wipe his butt with the Constitution; his predecessors at least pretended to have an argument for the Constitutionality of their votes.

Evil and corruption are not new in government, evil and corruption proudly bragged about in government is a fairly recent development; they fear nothing now so they are making no effort to disguise their corruption.


#9

A lot of people went to a lot of trouble to get John Roberts approved for his Supreme Court seat. His response to their efforts was side with the Obama administration in the most far reaching bill passed during his sorry presidency. Roberts in an ingrate and a coward, and I’d tell him that to his face if I ever met him.

Why don’t the Democrats ever get the shaft from the people they put on the Supreme Court? All of the Democrat statists and constitution wreckers who are appointed to the Supreme Court stay the course once they on the beach.

For our side, who we get? We get liars like Dave Souter who said one thing before he was appointed and then sided with Ruth Bader Ginsburg after he was one the bench for the rest of his life or when he decided to quit. Why don’t the Democrats ever get an unpleasant surprise like that? All of their appointments, especially the Clinton and Obama nominees, are like liberal robots. They are perfectly programmed and perform flawlessly.


#10

True. Following are just a few “laws” that are, on their face, UNconstitutional:

1-A declaration of War against the seceding States to “Preserve the Union.” Where in the Constitution does it say that individual States CANNOT legally secede if they find the federal government to be intolerable? It, in fact, says the OPPOSITE.

2-Dred Scott

3-Marberry vs Madison - A decision that effectively gave the SCOTUS more legislative power than the Constitution grants to the Legislature OR the Executive branches.

4-Plessy vs Fergusson - Separate but equal is NEVER “equal.”

5-Amendment 17 to the Constitution, effectively did away with the Federalism system the founders designed. Maybe not unconstitutional because it was passed, but a stupid move, nonetheless.

6-Amendment 18 to the Constitution, which gave the federal government authority the founders never intended for it to have. Admittedly, this was later corrected by the 21st Amendment.

7-The decision by FDR to INCREASE the number of SCOTUS Justices so he could pack the court with “his people.”

8-Miranda vs Arizona - Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that one must advise anyone of their “constitutional rights” before questioning them.

9-The Escobedo decision by the Warren Court proclaimed that an LEO MUST advise a suspect that he has the right to have an attorney present both before and during questioning and, if he can’t afford one, one will be provided at “no cost.” There ain’t no such thing as a “free lunch.” Nothing in the Constitution requires THIS either.

10-Roe vs Wade. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a woman has a “right” to kill her unborn children–or even HINTS at such a “right.” There IS NO “right to privacy” found anywhere in the Constitution, either.

11-Obamacare. Nothing in the Constitution allows the SCOTUS members to CHANGE the wording of a law passed by Congress and signed by the President in order to MAKE it “Constitutional” when, as written, it most assuredly WASN’T. That is simply beyond the authority of the court.

12-Kelo. The laws of Eminent Domain do NOT allow a taking in order to increase potential tax revenue.