Categories
insider corruption

Right Here in Corruption City

Former FBI assistant general counsel Kevin Clinesmith pled guilty earlier this week to making a false statement to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) — often called the FISA court after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that created it.

“According to the court documents, Clinesmith inserted the words ‘and not a source’ into an email from a CIA liaison that described the relationship between Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page and the CIA,” reported The Epoch Times. “As a result, an FBI special agent relied on the altered email to submit a warrant application to the FISC, which described Page as a Russian asset without disclosing that he was an approved operational contact for the CIA who reported on his interactions with Russian intelligence officers.”

While one intelligence agency, the FBI, was declaring to a FISA judge that Carter Page was not a source for the intelligence community and, instead, was a likely Putin stooge, Page was briefing another intelligence agency, the CIA.

A big fib told to surveil him.

And by extension the Trump campaign.

“At the time, I believed that the information I was providing in the email was accurate,” Clinesmith told the court, “but I am agreeing that the information I entered into the email was not originally there and that I have inserted that information.”

Had the forgery been accurate, of course, it is still clearly wrong to surreptitiously alter documents being presented to a judge. 

Whatever one thinks of President Trump — innocent victim of a 22-​month special counsel witch hunt or Putin asset still at large — we can all agree that this is Trouble with a capital T and that … doesn’t stand for Trump.

It rhymes with D and that stands for Deep State.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment media and media people Popular

What’s Up With Hate?

Reported hate crimes are up.

Last year, you may remember, major media outlets noted an alarming pattern, quoting the work of a “nonpartisan researcher” who seemed more intent on linking Donald Trump to the perceived trend than anything else.

This year’s increase?

Well, the most recent FBI report shows hate crimes for 2017 up a whopping 17 percent!

Sounds alarming.

But is it? I mean, really?

Maybe. CNN offers a fascinating investigation of several rather big-​story hate crimes that did not make it into the statistics. Yes, disturbing.

But what did CNN not report?

YouTuber Matt Christiansen drilled down, focusing on several aspects of the FBI report that are missing from accounts brought to us by major news outlets.

The uptick in sheer numbers of hate crimes may be mostly the result of the increased number of law enforcement agencies that have been brought into the data-​collecting project. How many new agencies? One thousand.*

And consider the demographics changes year-​to-​year as well. Religious-​based crimes saw a small increase in the number of anti-​Jewish events and a similar decrease in anti-​Muslim ones. All in all, notes Christiansen, there has been little change in the proportions of the statistical categories — which would not be what one would expect if Trump were the Malign Influence.

Also bad for that narrative? The biggest detectable change in the distribution of race-​based crimes — more than twice the increase in numbers of crimes against Hispanics — was against (get ready for it) whites.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 


* That is from the FBI press release; oddly, I did not find that statement when looking directly at the report.

PDF for printing

 


» See popular posts from Common Sense with Paul Jacob HERE.

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly government transparency ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

Defiance?

“Once the party of law and order,” screamed the Washington Post’s top-​of-​the-​front-​page Sunday headline, “Republicans are now challenging it.”

The story’s lede: “Republican leaders’ open defiance last week of the FBI over the release of a hotly disputed memo revealed how the GOP, which has long positioned itself as the party of law and order, has become an adversary of federal law enforcement as the party continues its quest to protect President Trump from the Russia investigation.”

Huh?

Defiance,* by definition, is “bold disobedience.” But the Constitution tasks Congress with control (by oversight and purse string) of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice. Because subservient, it is the FBI and DoJ that can disobey. Not Congress.

While some Republicans seemingly switched sides on the appropriateness of criticizing the FBI over the Nunes memo release — congratulations are in order! — the same point, reversed, can be made (even humorously) about some on the Left now condemning such criticism. 

Criticizing the government — including law enforcement agencies — has always been as American as apple pie.

The Post supports an ever-​increasing role for the federal government, favoring Democrats. But now, Trump Derangement Syndrome has apparently pushed the company-​town paper over the edge … to Media Madness (the title of Howard Kurtz’s new book, which the paper sophomorically savaged).

How ridiculous to characterize Republicans as enemies of “federal law enforcement” because they believe some within the FBI acted improperly, perhaps unlawfully.**

The Post should remember that its journalistic street cred didn’t come from reporting partisan spin as fact, but from what some saw as “defying” the president and publishing “national secrets” in search of the truth 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* The Post wasn’t alone. Politico echoed the message in its story, “GOP defies FBI, releases secret Russia memo to partisan fury,” and so did other media outlets.

** Moreover, Republican leaders have been clear that the memo does not impact Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.


PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment government transparency ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies too much government

Smoke But No Gun

The Republican memo soaking up so much attention paints an ugly picture of a republic gone off the rails — but it should not be mistaken for The Facts.

We have smoke, sure. And the smoke can be seen, not unreasonably, as a sign of … a vast insider conspiracy.

But we have only second-​hand information; the “smoking gun” has yet to be presented.

The House Intelligence Committee Report memo relates to the behavior of the FBI and its use of a dossier prepared by a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. This operative was hired by Fusion GPS, a political research firm, which was under contract first with a conservative website, The Washington Free Beacon, and then with the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton for President campaign. His assignment was to research an alleged connection between Trump and the Russian government.

Steele dug up some interesting stuff, which would have been more persuasive had not some of it been obviously fabricated (I’m thinking of the infamous Russian prostitution story). The dossier got into the hands of the FBI by a circuitous route* and was used, says the memo, to get FISA warrants to electronically surveil a Trump campaign operative, Carter Page. Tellingly, the FBI never told the FISA court the specific origin of the dossier.

To get to the truth, we need more — the FISA warrants themselves, at the very least. 

There may be a proverbial smoking gun somewhere in this mess. The missing-​then-​discovered text messages of two partisan FBI agents do suggest a conspiratorial mindset.

That being said, let’s not jump to conclusions. Alan Dershowitz is right: a non-​partisan investigation is necessary.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Including Sen. John McCain!


PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment government transparency incumbents term limits

The Smoking Russian Donut

“Politicians in prison garb,” headlined a recent Sun Sentinel editorial, “shake trust in government.”

It was not a fashion statement.

“What is it about a long career that makes some politicians — not all, let’s be clear about that — feel the rules don’t apply to them?” asked the paper, which serves Florida’s Broward and Palm Beach counties.

This week, after spending the last 24 years in Congress, former Rep. Corrine Brown (D‑Fla.) began serving a five-​year term in federal prison. Brown was convicted of 18 separate fraud and corruption counts stemming from her use of a public charity to benefit herself. 

Not to be outdone, last week the FBI arrested Hallandale Beach Mayor Joy Cooper on various corruption charges following a six-​year undercover sting operation. “From what is now known,” the editorial board judged “the case against Cooper” to be “devastating.”

There are taped conversations, reportedly, between FBI agents posing as “wealthy land owners [seeking] political favors” and the mayor, discussing pay (her) to play (with the city). At one point, undercover agents say a bribe was delivered to the mayor in “a Dunkin’ Donuts bag stuffed with $8,000 in cash and checks from people with a ‘bunch of Russian names.’”

Russians?

“If not so tragic,” the paper wrote of the corruption, “it would be laughable to imagine Russians colluding to control the Hallandale Beach city election.”

Humor is needed, truly. Yet, the Sun Sentinel concluded instead that “term limits are needed in Hallandale Beach.”

Of course.

And needed for Congress. 

Now more than ever.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment government transparency national politics & policies

The Servers of the Self-Serving

Feel like Charlie Brown? That football … yanked away again.

Yesterday, FBI Director James Comey announced he’s not recommending prosecution of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate.

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” Comey stated, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” He saw the evidence as not strong enough, “especially regarding intent.”

It doesn’t appear that Mrs. Clinton purposely divulged classified material, though her “intent” in setting up a private server for State Department work was self-​centered, and purposely not transparent. She was clearly more concerned with shielding her communications from the U.S. Government and the public, than shielding classified information from the Russians, Chinese, Iranians or ISIS.

While the FBI noted that Clinton and her aides lacked any apparent intent “to violate laws governing the handling of classified information,” the investigation discovered ample “evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Not a sterling report card for someone seeking to be the commander-in-chief.

Donald Trump’s negative standing with voters, 70 percent disapproval in a recent survey, may save Mrs. Clinton. Still, standing in her way remains the fact that a majority of voters just don’t trust her.

That won’t change with yesterday’s news.

“Key assertions by Hillary Clinton in defense of her email practices have collapsed under FBI scrutiny,” read the lead of an Associated Press story, detailing six public statements made by her that the investigation found to be false.

Let’s split the difference: neither prosecute Hillary nor elect her president.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


Printable PDF

Hillary Clinton, investigation, FBI, crime, server, email

 


Photo credit: Toms Norde /​ Valsts kanceleja on Flickr