By DR. LARRY MOSES
No one asked me but… I only watched a small portion of the Peter Strzok testimony before the Joint House Committee. While I find it much to do about nothing, it was interesting to see a man stand in defiance of a committee that was made up of biased members criticizing him for being biased.
When Republicans questioned Mr. Strzok about his role in the Mueller investigation (another investigation that is much to do about nothing) their biases were open and obvious. When the Democrats had their turn interviewing him, they showed their biases merely demanding a halt to the hearing.
Did Mr. Strzok e-mail his mistress messages disparaging the then-candidate Trump? He readily admitted it. The e-mails spoke for themselves. He further explained it was a dumb thing to do. However, he denied that there was any deep dark inter-FBI organization designed to stop Donald Trump’s election. He had firmly believed that there was no way Donald Trump would be elected. He explained that in no uncertain terms and in unflattering language directed at the President.
What would really worry me is if there really was a movement deep in the FBI to stop a presidential candidate and they were no more successful than this was. If they exist, they apparently are more Inspector Clouseau than J. Edgar Hoover.
Did Peter Strzok tell his mistress she need not worry: Mr. Trump would not be President? Yes, he did. In fact, he stated that “we” will stop him. Republicans have decided that it is necessary to define what “we” means. They would like to prove “we” is some sinister organization within the FBI.
Throughout his testimony, Peter Strzok did not hesitate to repeat most of the degrading words he used in describing the pre-election candidate to describe the present President Trump. But before the Republicans get too upset about what Strzok said, they should review what fellow Republicans have written about Mr. Trump.
One also finds it hard to feel bad about someone calling President Trump names when you recall President Trump’s penchant for name calling. Watching a Presidential press conference makes one think of a grade school playground argument.
Let me make some suggestions. Republicans: drop the Peter Strzok issue. Democrats: drop the Mueller investigation. The election of 2016 is over. Democrats, you ran an inept candidate who ran a flawed campaign. Get over it. Everybody grow up and stop your name calling.
Democrats seem not to like the financial prosperity the country is enjoying under the Trump administration. Democrat leaders see crumbs being thrown to those they call the “deplorables” (anyone who supported Donald Trump). They are upset that the President of the United States has taken an aggressive stance with our allies in forcing them to pay a “fair share” for their defense. The Democrats are appalled with a President who tours the world from a position of strength rather than a bowed head in apology for the fact that all the free nations of the world are free because of American military might.
If the Democrats really want open borders and socialist welfare programs, they should pick a candidate that can win in 2020. If at that time the American citizens, in a Constitutionally-run election decide it is time to give up the republic and turn to socialism, so be it. As a recent president continually reminded us, as he used his “pen and phone” to make imperial law, elections have consequences.
No one asked me but… President Donald Trump’s pardon of Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond has righted a wrong of an over-zealous judge who was in the pocket of the BLM.
There is no dispute that 139 acres of BLM land were burned by a fire set by the Hammonds. The Hammonds claimed the fire was set on their property to fight an invasive weed species. This is a common practice among ranchers and the BLM itself. They contend that the fire got out of hand and, therefore, 139 acres of BLM was burned. No structures, no destruction of buildings, and no loss of life was involved.
The BLM contends that the fire was set to cover up a poaching incident and somehow equated that with a terrorist act. This was during the Obama administration when a Muslim army officer marched through a Texas military base shooting as many of his fellow American solders as he could while shouting “Allah Akbar” and was not deemed to be a terrorist. Rather it was merely an incident of “work place violence.” However, since the Hammond fire was deemed a terrorist act, there is a required punishment of a minimum of five years.
The original federal judge noted the fact that the Hammonds were respected in the community. Surely they were not terrorists, and imposing a five-year sentence would be “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime” and a “shock to the conscience.” Therefore the father, Dwight, was sentenced to three months in prison. Steven, the son, received one year and a day.
The two men accepted the ruling and served their time. However, BLM officials appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court, which they have termed “their court”, and after the appeal hearing, the Ninth Circuit judge ruled the men must be returned to jail for five years.
One must wonder if this is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment which states: “…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy…”
We in Nevada know that the BLM does not give a hoot about the federal law or the Constitution. I have in numerous columns pointed out where the BLM violated the Constitutional and legal rights of Nevadans in general and Rancher Cliven Bundy’s family specifically.
The only redeeming grace was the actions of the BLM became so egregious that even their hand-picked federal judge became disgusted when it was revealed that the BLM had destroyed thousands of e-mails that were evidence of their misconduct and she threw out the case with prejudice. It is now time to pardon all those in prison for their involvement in the Bunkerville and Oregon standoffs.
Thought of the week…True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.
– Clarence Darrow