Gowdy Says Lies Show Sufficient Intent to Prosecute Clinton in Email Scandal

With the FBI investigation into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server having revealed careless conduct, flouting of the rules for handling sensitive documents, and attempts to cover up the scandal, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., wanted to know on Wednesday what — exactly — the FBI’s standard would have been to have prosecuted Clinton for breaking the law.

“What would she have had to do to warrant your recommendation for prosecution?” Gowdy asked FBI Director James Comey during a House Oversight Committee hearing Wednesday.

Comey, as he has before, said that he would have to be able to prove intent. On Wednesday, he replied to Gowdy that he would have had to be able to prove Clinton knew what she did was wrong when she did it.

“But the way to prove that is whether or not someone took steps to conceal or destroy what they’ve done,” Gowdy said. “That is the best evidence you have that they knew it was wrong, that they lied about it.”

The congressman made it clear he believed intent had been demonstrated.

” … you have to prove it by circumstantial evidence such as whether or not the person intended to set up an e-mail system outside the State Department, such as whether or not the person knew or should have known that his or her job involved handling classified information, whether or not the person was truthful about the use of multiple devices, whether or not the person knew that a frequent e-mailer to her had been hacked, and whether she took any remedial steps after being put on notice that your e-mail or someone who’s been e-mailing with you prolifically had been hacked, and whether or not — and I think you would agree with this, Director — false exculpatory statements are gold in a courtroom. I would rather have a false exculpatory statement than a confession. I would rather have someone lie about something and it be provable that that is a lie, such as that I neither sent nor received classified information. Such as that I turned over all of my work related e-mails. All of that to me goes to the issue of intent,” Gowdy said.

He told Comey he was “real careful not to criticize you” but was highly unhappy with the results of the FBI’s work.

“That is not the FBI that I used to work with,” Gowdy said.

Gowdy had also expressed his frustration during Fox and Friends when he noted that rules seemed to have been bent severely in the investigation, as typified by the multiple roles played by Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, who was given immunity by the FBI.

“Cheryl Mills, one day she’s a target, one day she’s a witness, and then the next day, she’s sitting in Secretary Clinton’s interview as a lawyer. And I’ll just tell you, as somebody that did this for a living, that is unprecedented,” Gowdy said.

Gowdy was not alone in being skeptical.

“It seems clear that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies involving the passing of classified information through her private email server,” said Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va.. “The FBI, however, declined to refer the case for prosecution on some very questionable bases.”

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, said he was certain the decision not to prosecute Clinton was made before she was interviewed. Comey denied that assertion. (For more from the author of “Gowdy Says Lies Show Sufficient Intent to Prosecute Clinton in Email Scandal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Hillary Movie to Show Your “Undecided” Friends

There’s a fascinating new documentary, Clinton, Inc., which every voter in America really ought to see. Media are full of news stories, most of them hyped and some of them false, that highlight objections which conservative or moderate voters might have to Donald Trump. The same reporters and editors who fawned over Trump in the primaries and granted him billions in free coverage seem to have turned on him the day he clinched the GOP nomination.

Now some of them have abandoned even the frayed mask of objectivity and openly taken up the cause of trying to throw the election the Democrats’ way. Amiable Jimmy Fallon was subject to a public shaming because he gave Trump the same kind of friendly, softball interview he gives every other guest on his light-hearted late night show.

Conversely, major media have been virtually complicit in smoothing over Hillary Clinton’s scandals, particularly since she defeated Bernie Sanders for the nomination. Little coverage goes to Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, who embraces Sanders’ agenda. It’s as if a quiet memo had been issued across the media, instructing reporters and editors: “Lay off until the election.”

The makers of Clinton, Inc. didn’t get the memo. The film’s producer is Doug Sain, who also produced 2016: Obama’s America, which was a huge hit among conservatives. Clinton, Inc. is based on the book of that title by Weekly Standard editor Daniel Halper. But this film doesn’t focus on ideology. In fact, it’s a movie you can take your liberal friends and family members to see. They’ll emerge from it deeply troubled about Hillary Clinton’s character and her fitness to be president.

Clinton, Inc. is a cool, objective look at the rise of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. It consults biographers, former advisers such as Dick Morris, psychologists, marital therapists, FBI agents, and progressive activists, to analyze the characters of both candidates and the changes they’ve undergone over the decades. The film asks (and goes far toward answering) critical questions such as:

Why did such a highly intelligent, ambitious politician as Bill Clinton get himself into a long series of squalid, potentially embarrassing sexual affairs with poorer, less powerful women while joined in a very public, political marriage to Hillary? Why couldn’t he control himself?

Why did a strong-willed, overtly feminist woman such as Hillary accept Bill’s humiliating infidelities, and step in to save him from political bankruptcy again and again — even targeting and demonizing the women who truthfully admitted their part in these affairs?

How was Hillary’s political acumen crucial to Bill’s political career?

Why did Bill Clinton back the trade deal NAFTA against the fierce objections of his labor union voting base? How did that decision open the door to massive fundraising from international corporations, which far outweighed the anger of disgruntled Teamsters and auto-workers?

What behind-the-scenes bargain existed between Bill and Hillary, rewarding her for her silence about his compulsive infidelities?

How have two politicians who left the White House deep in debt accumulated a private fortune of more than $100 million, while running what is supposedly a non-profit charity, the Clinton Foundation? Why has the foundation never been properly audited?

What favors did they trade, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, to foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, in return for multi-million dollar donations?

Why did Hillary Clinton flout the law to use an insecure private email server to send hundreds, or even thousands, of classified emails while she was Secretary of State? What might have been on the 30,000 emails which Congress had requested, which she deleted instead?

It’s Not About Sex. It’s About Perjury.

Sex scandals, while unsavory, are a key part of the Clintons’ story. Those of us who lived through the late 1990s will well remember the sordid spectacle of Bill Clinton’s exploitative affair with intern Monica Lewinsky — a White House intern who was only eight years older than Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea. What we might have forgotten, and what younger voters won’t even know, is the reason that such private conduct became an issue of public debate. It wasn’t prurient interest on the part of Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, though that’s how most media choose to retell the story.

No, the question of Bill Clinton’s sexual activities while in public office became relevant because he was being sued for sexual harassment by a former Arkansas state employee, Paula Jones, an accusation which he denied under oath. Perjury is a crime, which Starr was obliged to investigate. That was what forced Starr to look into the news of Bill’s affair with Lewinsky. It established a pattern of conduct.

What most of America wondered, as that sordid story unfolded and Hillary backed Bill in public lie after lie, was why such a strong-willed, steely woman stood by her cheating husband from the beginning to end of the scandal. What did she get in return for enduring that gross humiliation?

Clinton, Inc. gives the answer: Bill Clinton essentially appointed her the Democratic nominee for Senate in New York State. She received that party nomination without even facing a primary — a staggering coup d’etat in a state full of ambitious Democratic candidates.

The Clintons had never lived, worked, or paid taxes in New York. The one time Hillary appeared in a Yankees baseball cap reporters burst out laughing. But the New York State Democratic Party is an old-style political machine, one that a sitting Democratic president could work to his advantage. And as Clinton, Inc. makes clear, the price that Hillary demanded for backing up Bill’s lies all through those sexual scandals was that Bill jump-start her own career by short-circuiting democracy for New York Democratic voters.

As this film makes clear, that nasty back-room trade-off epitomizes the Clintons. Their governing motive isn’t even ideology. It is naked ambition — a ravenous hunger for power and wealth that trumps political issues. So fixated are the Clintons on building a political dynasty, that they are more than willing to get in bed with the crony capitalists at Goldman Sachs, or Saudi princes whose government executes homosexuals.

They will lie for each other, lie to Americans, lie under oath, and punish old friends and allies who happen to stand in their way. If you wondered how on earth someone as offbeat as Bernie Sanders became a major threat to Clinton, this film will help you understand why so many well-meaning Democrats refused to back Mrs. Clinton. She offended their sense of smell. (For more from the author of “The Hillary Movie to Show Your “Undecided” Friends” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Trump Hammers Clinton Over Racial Comments

Shifting the focus of the first presidential debate toward law enforcement, race relations and Second Amendment gun rights, Republican nominee Donald Trump took a moment Monday night to discuss an element of Democrat Hillary Clinton’s past she likely wish could have stayed buried.

“I do want to bring up the fact that you were the one that brought up the word ‘super-predator’ about young black youth,” Trump stated.

“That’s a term that I think … it’s been horribly met — as you know — I think you’ve apologized for it, but I think it was a terrible thing to say,” he continued.

The comment Trump was referring to dates back to 1996, when then first lady Hillary Clinton expressed her perceptions of young black men and their role in burgeoning crime statistics.

“They’re not just gangs of kids anymore,” she began. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called super-predators. No conscience, no empathy.”

Clinton’s remarks were made all the worse when she offered her solution to dealing with these “super-predators.”

“We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel,” she stated emphatically.

As part of her agenda to bring young black men in line, Clinton proposed harsher sentencing laws, which resulted in mass incarcerations, including severe sentencing for children as young as 13.

Although Clinton has apologized for these comments since beginning her political career, the racial overtones and the imagery evoked of bringing young black men “to heel” has stuck with many in the African-American community.

For this reason and others, enthusiasm for Clinton among black voters has been lower than many expected.

Although she still maintains a healthy lead over Trump, his support has continued to grow. A tracking poll earlier this month showed Trump with a 16.5 percent increase in support from black voters. (For more from the author of “Trump Hammers Clinton Over Racial Comments” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


How One Police Department Is Trying to Prevent Violence Between Officers and Citizens

Last week, tensions between police and citizens again rose to the surface after fatal officer-involved shootings in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Charlotte, North Carolina.

The shootings, like others before them in the past few years, raised questions over how officers decide to use force during interactions with people they encounter, and seek to arrest.

In the video above, The Daily Signal profiles the Fairfax County Police Department, which serves Virginia’s largest county, to see how officers there try to prevent violent encounters with citizens.

In 2016, a Fairfax County police officer was sentenced to prison for fatally shooting an unarmed man. The incident helped spark the department to reform its training, and become more transparent about the circumstances in which officers use force. (For more from the author of “How One Police Department Is Trying to Prevent Violence Between Officers and Citizens” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Charlotte Releases Police Video of Fatal Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott

The city of Charlotte has released some video of Tuesday’s fatal shooting of Keith Scott by a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer.

“What we are releasing are the objective facts,” Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney said Saturday, calling the shooting “a complex case.” He said the videos to be released will show Smith had a gun with him when he was shot.

As of Saturday evening, one video had been released.

“The footage itself will not create in anyone’s mind as to what this case represents… the footage only supports the other information” including forensic evidence and witness statements, Putney said.

Putney said that Scott was “absolutely in possession of a handgun.” He said that officers spotted marijuana in Scott’s car, which is what caused them to confront Scott.

Release of the videos had been a point of contention between police and Scott’s family, each of which have offered a differing version of events surrounding Tuesday’s fatal shooting of the 43-year-old father of seven.

In a Facebook post, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory supported the decision.

“I have been assured by the State Bureau of Investigation that the release will have no material impact on the independent investigation since most of the known witnesses have been interviewed,” he wrote.

Release of the video followed another day of protests in which demonstrators gathered in Charlotte’s Marshall Park to demand release of the video.

North Carolina’s State Bureau of Investigation said Friday the city was free to release the video whenever it chose to do so.

On Friday, Scott’s wife released a cell phone video in which she is heard both trying to dissuade her husband from taking an unspecified action while also pleading with police not to shoot her husband.

Two different narratives of the incident have emerged.

Scott’s family has said that he was sitting in a parked car when confronted by police and that he had been reading a book. The family insists he was obeying police commands and was not acting in an aggressive manner when he was shot and killed by a black police officer.

Police have said Scott was in possession of a gun, and that he was acting in a manner that was threatening to the officers. Police said no book was recovered from the scene. A gun that was recovered reportedly has Scott’s fingerprints and DNA upon it.

Putney, who has said the video supported the police version of events but is not definitive on its own, has said the video “when taken in the totality of all the other evidence … supports what we’ve heard and the version of the truth that we gave about the circumstances that happened that led to the death of Mr. Scott.”

Putney emphasized that although the video was “compelling,” police cannot make their case based solely upon it.

Putney said the officers heard in the videos gave Scott “loud, clear, verbal commands.”

“Mr. Scott exited his vehicle armed with a handgun as the officers continued to yell at him to drop it,” Putney has said (For more from the author of “Charlotte Releases Police Video of Fatal Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Congress Has Little to Show for Its Work This Year

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are in a hurry to get out of town so they can hit the campaign trail and convince voters to send them back to Washington. But, considering they’ve pushed off most of the big decisions until after the election, their list of accomplishments this year is a very short one. Maybe they think voters won’t notice.

(For more from the author of “Congress Has Little to Show for Its Work This Year” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Hillary Clinton Not Doing Much Laughing After Appearing on Comedy Show

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton may be second-guessing her decision to appear on the popular online comedy show Funny or Die.

In an effort to increase her support among milennial voters, Clinton was interviewed by actor and comedian Zach Galifianakis in a segment called, “Between Two Ferns.”

Galifianakis began the interview by saying, “Critics have questioned some of your decision making recently and by you doing this show I hope it finally lays that to rest.”

Clinton responded, “Oh, I think it absolutely proves their case. Don’t you?”

The comedian went on to ask if she was excited to be the first “girl” president.

“Well, I mean being president would be such an extraordinary honor, and responsibility, but being the first woman elected president… That’s pretty special.”

At one point the discussion turned to Clinton’s opponent Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Galifianakis asked if she ever looked at how well racism worked for Trump and thought, “Oh, maybe I should be more racist.”

Clinton responds by shaking her head.

When asked if she would leave the country if Trump becomes president, Clinton remarked she would remain in the U.S. and try to prevent him from destroying the country.

The host asked if she would lead the “civil war,” to which Clinton replied, “No, I wouldn’t take up arms. I think that might be a little extreme.”

“Oh right, because you were saying before we were rolling that you wanted to take away everyone’s guns,” remarked Galifianakis.

That was when Clinton said, “I really regret doing this.”

He also poked fun at Clinton’s wardrobe by saying, “I’d love to meet the person who makes your pantsuits because for Halloween I want to go as a librarian from outer space.”

Galifianakis stopped the interview for a word from a sponsor, which turned out to be a Trump campaign ad.

After asking a few more questions, Galifianakis said, “Well, this has been a lot of fun Mrs. Clinton. We should stay in touch. What’s the best way to reach you? Email?” (For more from the author of “Hillary Clinton Not Doing Much Laughing After Appearing on Comedy Show” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Trump Condemns Charlotte Riots, Says They Hurt Black Communities Most of All

Speaking in Pittsburgh Thursday, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump delivered remarks focused on law and order amidst the violent riots that have swept Charlotte, N.C..

“Many Americans are watching the unrest in Charlotte unfolding right before their eyes,” Trump said at Shale Insight, a convention of natural gas industry officials. “Our country looks bad to the world, especially when we are supposed to be the world’s leader.”

Trump said that violence and rioting has no place in our communities:

“We honor and recognize the right of all Americans to peacefully assemble, protest, and demonstrate. But there is no right to engage in violent disruption or to threaten the public safety and peace of others.”

He pledged to bring such violence and crime to a “very rapid end” should he be elected president:

“The people who will suffer the most as a result of these riots are law abiding African-American residents who live in these communities where the crime is so rampant. It’s their jobs, housing market, schools, and economic conditions that will suffer. And the first duty of government is to protect their well-being and safety.”

“Crime and violence is an attack on the poor and will never be excepted in a Trump administration, never ever,” said Trump.

Ultimately, Donald Trump called for “more law enforcement, more community engagement, more effective policing,” citing former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani’s controversial crime-fighting efforts as a good example. (For more from the author of “Trump Condemns Charlotte Riots, Says They Hurt Black Communities Most of All” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Charges Filed Against Officer Involved in Deadly Tulsa Shooting

The police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black man Sept. 16 has been formally charged with first-degree manslaughter in connection with the shooting.

Officer Betty Shelby fired one shot at 40-year-old Terence Crutcher during a traffic stop in Tulsa, Okla. Dashcam footage from Shelby’s car and aerial footage from a police helicopter showed Crutcher walking away from Shelby with his arms in the air prior to the shooting, although the footage does not offer a clear image of when the shot was fired.

Scott Wood, Shelby’s attorney, said Crutcher did not follow more than two dozen commands and that the officer fired when the man began to reach into the window of his SUV.

Wood said Shelby suspected Crutcher was attempting to retrieve a weapon when he reached into the car. In her interview with homicide detectives, she reportedly said, “I was never so scared in my life as in that moment right then,” according to Wood.

Tulsa police say Crutcher did not have a gun on him, nor was a gun found in his vehicle.

Crutcher’s family maintains the windows to his SUV were closed, saying blood spatters on the glass are proof the windows were up at the time of the shooting.

The Department of Justice is also investigating the incident.

According to Tulsa Police Chief Chuck Jordan, dispatchers received a 911 call Friday evening about an abandoned SUV in the middle of the street, with the engine running and the driver’s door open.

Wood said that when Shelby arrived on the scene, the doors were closed and windows were open. At one point, Crutcher was walking toward her, and he began to put his left hand into his pocket.

Shelby told him to keep his hands out of his pockets. She tried to get Crutcher to talk to her about the vehicle, but she said Crutcher mumbled something unintelligible. He reached into his pocket again, and she again ordered him to keep his hands visible.

She pulled out her gun and another officer pulled out a Taser and ordered Crutcher to the ground. Instead, Shelby said, Crutcher ignored the command and walked toward the SUV with his hands up.

The orders can not be heard in the audio from the dashcam video, which is from another patrol car that arrives on the scene and begins with Crutcher walking toward his SUV.

Shelby said she thought Crutcher was acting like he might be under the influence of PCP, and police said they found the drug in his vehicle after he was shot.

Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett said he was appreciative of the investigative work done so far on the case.

“Our Tulsa Police Department worked quickly to provide all the information to the District Attorney. I appreciate their efforts as well as the District Attorney’s usual thorough evaluation of the rules of law for which we are all accountable,” Bartlett said. “These are important steps to ensure that justice and accountability prevails.” (For more from the author of “Charges Filed Against Officer Involved in Deadly Tulsa Shooting” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Why Is Hollywood Blowing up DC?

Are you ready for the fall season of prime-time television? Great! All we have to do is bomb the United States Capitol first.

That’s the premise of ABC’s new drama Designated Survivor starring Keifer Sutherland.

The description reads as follows:

As a lower-level cabinet member, Tom Kirkman never imagined something would happen that would catapult him to the oval office. When a devastating attack on the night of the State of the Union address claims the lives of the president and most of the Cabinet, the Housing and Urban Development secretary — who was named the designated survivor in case of such an event — finds himself promoted to leader of the free world. Suddenly thrust into his new position of power, Kirkman struggles to keep the country from dissolving into chaos and must adjust to his new normal, unaware of what fresh horrors may await the United States.

Cue the apocalyptic images of Washington.

The trailer full of dread and suspense:

Are you excited yet?

To be sure, Sutherland is a huge draw. Some have described Designated Survivor as “24 all grown up.”

But, considering Designated Survivor follows other DC-based dark thrillers such as Homeland, House of Cards, and Scandal that frequently combine politics with gruesome murders it seems like Hollywood is trying to tell us something.

The fact that a major broadcast network is launching a TV-series with the destruction of most our nation’s elected officials is not… subtle. (For more from the author of “Why Is Hollywood Blowing up DC?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.