FBI Director Comey Called to Answer for Hillary Decision

FBI Director James Comey will appear before Congress on Thursday to explain his bombshell decision not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton over her handling of classified information on her private, unsecured email server.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told Fox News on Wednesday that Comey will answer questions before his committee regarding the decision.

“The FBI’s recommendation is surprising and confusing,” Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said. “The fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated the law. Individuals who intentionally skirt the law must be held accountable. Congress and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI’s investigation.”

Comey, in making his announcement not to recommend indictment on Tuesday, described the former secretary of state’s actions as “extremely careless,” which would seem to meet the legal standard of “gross negligence” laid out in the applicable statute.

The FBI director stated 110 emails were “determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.” Of those, eight contained Top Secret information.

These findings contradict statements made by Clinton about her email server. First the former secretary claimed her server contained no classified information, but then over 2,000 emails were found that did contain such information. Clinton then changed her defense claiming none was classified at the time, which was also found not to be true.

Clinton altered her story yet again saying nothing was “marked” classified at the time, which was also false.

“Comey’s decision was seen in many quarters as a punt. By branding Clinton’s use of unauthorized servers to send and receive sensitive — and in some cases top secret — information as ‘extremely careless,’ Comey gave Clinton’s critics plenty of ammunition,” Fox News reported.

“By stopping short of referring the results of his bureau’s year-long probe to the Attorney General to pursue an indictment, Comey may have removed the biggest obstacle in Clinton’s path to the White House,” the news outlet added.

Comey took no questions in making his Tuesday announcement, so his appearance on Thursday will potentially give the public the first opportunity for further explanation behind his decision. (For more from the author of “FBI Director Comey Called to Answer for Hillary Decision” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

U.S. Imposes First Sanctions on North Korea’s Kim Jong Un for Human Rights Abuses

The Obama administration imposed sanctions for the first time Wednesday on North Korean leader Kim Jong Un for his alleged role in perpetuating widespread human rights abuses.

The U.S. also blacklisted 10 other regime officials for allegedly helping Kim run prison camps, torture citizens, hunt down defectors, and maintain a nationwide system of propaganda and censorship.

The new Treasury Department sanctions freeze any of the individuals’ assets in the U.S. and prevent Americans from doing business with the blacklisted officials.

“Human rights abuses in the [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] are among the worst in the world,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement announcing the sanctions Wednesday.

“The government continues to commit extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced labor, and torture. Many of these abuses are committed in the political prison camps, where an estimated 80,000 to 120,000 individuals are detained, including children and family members of the accused,” he added. (Read more from “U.S. Imposes First Sanctions on North Korea’s Kim Jong Un for Human Rights Abuses” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senate Dems Block Votes on Immigration Issues, Including Sanctuary Cities

The Republican-controlled Senate failed Wednesday to advance efforts to change federal immigration law — including one to cut funding to so-called sanctuary cities.

The vote was 53-44, failing to get the minimum 60 votes to begin debate on the issue.

The measure attempted to block congressional funding for sanctuary cities — municipalities that ban police from cooperating with immigration officials to potentially deport illegal immigrants.

Senate Republicans also failed to get enough votes to advance their proposed Kate’s Law – named after Kate Steinle, who was fatally shot in July 2015, allegedly by an illegal immigrant who had multiple felony convictions and was deported several times prior to the incident.

“How many times does this have to happen?” Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Pat Toomey asked just before the 55-42 vote that failed along party lines. “At some point, a person needs to go to jail. That’s what Kate’s Law does.” (Read more from “Senate Dems Block Votes on Immigration Issues, Including Sanctuary Cities” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sanders Considering Endorsing Clinton

The Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders campaigns are discussing a potential event next week in New Hampshire, during which the Vermont senator would endorse Clinton’s White House bid.

A Democrat familiar with the plans said Wednesday if the two sides continue to make progress, Clinton and Sanders would appear at the joint event Tuesday in New Hampshire. The Democrat spoke on condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to discuss the plans . . .

Sanders has withheld his endorsement of Clinton since the end of the Democratic primaries in mid-June, pressing for policy commitments from the campaign and party leaders developing the platform that will be considered at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. But he has shown signs of coming around. (Read more from “Sanders Considering Endorsing Clinton” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top Economist Makes Case for Why New Laws Are Destroying Jobs

A former top federal economist warned in an opinion piece Wednesday government policies are often counterproductive to the jobs they’re meant to save.

Industries phase out employment opportunities naturally due to factors like robotics and automation. Lawmakers have proposed policies to preserve and improve jobs, but often, those ideas backfire. International Trade Commission Former Chief Economist Peter Morici said a better approach is to prepare people for the jobs not easily replaced.

“The robotics and artificial intelligence revolution is all around us,” Morici wrote in a piece for Fox News. “Tasks requiring complex manual dexterity have proven tougher to replace but automated checkouts are spreading, and robots are at the cusp of not just taking orders at McDonald’s but also grasping and handing you hamburgers, fries and soft drinks.”

Morici notes economic innovation has been a part of human development since man first discovered the wheel. Industries advance and find ways to complete tasks without humans. He said with the new wave of automation, policymakers should be weary of the unintended consequences of preserving easily automated jobs.

“The Obama administration promised thousands of new jobs from the 2012 Korean-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, but it boosted the trade deficit by $16 billion and unemployment by 130,000,” Morici continued. “The Affordable Care Act, mandatory overtime and higher minimum wages imposed by many states and cities raise the cost of employing Americans, compelling businesses to purchase labor saving devices more quickly or close.”

Democrats and unions have made raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour a popular political issue. The policy is designed to improve the working situation for low-wage employees, but it could increase the rate employers turn to automation. Morici said the solution is to completely readdress how we approach education, so people know more complex skills.

“Our high schools and colleges are better at preaching social justice than producing enough graduates who can do the complex cognitive work that machines still leave to human beings,” Morici explained. “Skilled technicians with a year or two training and graduate engineers and systems analysts remain too scarce.”

Other economists have also concluded automation is a natural course of action as the economy evolves. The White House Council of Economic Advisers said in a report Feb. 22 that technological innovations like automation are on the rise. The question is whether increases in the minimum wage and other policies will actually cause automation to occur at a faster rate. (For more from the author of “Top Economist Makes Case for Why New Laws Are Destroying Jobs” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Attorney General Lynch to Be Questioned by Congress

After FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that no criminal charges will be recommended against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while secretary of state, many are calling for further investigation into the matter.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc), told Megyn Kelly Tuesday that House Republicans plan to question Comey concerning how he reached his conclusion not to recommend charges against Clinton.

Now, in an announcement by Congressional Republicans Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch has also been called to answer questions about the Clinton investigation. Lynch has been in the public eye for her role in the Clinton investigation as the head of the Department of Justice, as well as for her widely criticized private meeting with Bill Clinton just days before the decision was announced.

Lynch faced heavy criticism from Republicans and even some Democrats for the meeting on the tarmac at Phoenix airport. Only days later, Lynch announced she would instead accept the recommendation of the FBI.

Presumed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump was outspoken against the secret meeting, writing on his Twitter page to express his frustration:

On Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), said the FBI’s announcement in the Clinton email case, “raises serious questions” and is “uniquely troubling in light of Attorney General Lynch’s secret meeting with former President Bill Clinton.”

“No one is above the law and the American people need to know that federal law enforcement is taking this misconduct seriously,” Goodlatte said in a statement.

He continued, “I look forward to hearing from Attorney General Lynch and learning more about how she and the Justice Department are addressing these important issues.” (For more from the author of “Attorney General Lynch to Be Questioned by Congress” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

DENNINGER: “America Died at 11:00 ET 7/5/2016”

There is no longer the Rule of Law in this nation.

The law is clear. Knowingly removing classified documents is a criminal offense.

The very setting up of such a server and transmission or reception of classified material violates the statute since it is not possible to accidentally cross the SIPRNet boundary. It can only occur through intentional conduct.

Further, there has been zero mention of the Clinton Foundation and what facially appears to have been the selling of favors by the Clintons during and after Hillary’s time in office.

Here is the section of US law that Comey admitted and stated that the FBI found Hillary violated:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
and:

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

Which in turn implicates Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton and every one of the people who worked on said server or in Hillary’s entourage and knew what Hillary was doing.

In short:

The Rule of Law was officially burned and buried on live television Tuesday by the Director of the FBI.

You therefore no longer have any moral requirement to adhere to same; your entire analysis must now rest on whether you are sufficiently afraid of being shot — and nothing more.

America, as envisioned and fought for by the founders, died at 11:00 AM ET, 7/5/2016.

240 years and one day from birth to death. (For more from the author of “DENNINGER: “America Died at 11:00 ET 7/5/2016” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Say What? The House Just Passed a Bi-Partisan Bill With No Spending Increase

The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved mental health reform legislation Wednesday afternoon. The Washington Examiner reports that a bill to reform mental illness programs sponsored by Rep. Tim Murphy, R-PA (F,49%) was approved 422 to 2.

Instead of a sweeping overhaul, the measure makes incremental changes to how 112 government agencies coordinate with each other, compensate providers and make care available to those suffering from depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety and other illnesses.

Its provisions include making some changes to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration – requiring its director to have a clinical background and changing the way it reviews grants — and calling for studies and reviews that could lead to future reforms in the way mental healthcare is delivered and patients are treated.

Murphy, a clinical psychologist, applauded the passage of this bill, which he introduced in its original form in 2013.

“We’re here finally to speak up for the last, the lost, the least and the lonely — that is, those who suffer from mental illness that is untreated,” he said.

The bill does not increase federal spending and actually reduces net Medicaid spending by $5 million over the next ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The bill heads to the Senate next. (For more from the author of “Say What? The House Just Passed a Bi-Partisan Bill With No Spending Increase” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Facebook Users OBLITERATE the FBI’s Ratings Following Hillary Decision

Negative ratings of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have surged on Facebook as American’s look for ways to register their displeasure after the Bureau let Hillary Clinton get away with endangering national security.

Mike Gay of FTR Radio was the first to notice the surge in Facebook negative ratings of the FBI.

Gay told Conservative Review that when he first checked yesterday, there were about 10,000 one star ratings of the bureau. When he posted on Facebook there were 46,000. Four hours after his post, at the time of this publication the one star ratings had jumped by another 2,000 to 48,000.

You can see the current count by visiting the Bureau’s Facebook page.

Here are some of the most recent reviews:

A lot of people just left the definition of 18 U.S.C. Section 793(h):

It’s evident the decision to place Hillary Clinton above the law has not gone over well. Is the FBI the latest institution of government to lose the trust of the American people? If Facebook ratings are any indication, it seems so. (For more from the author of “Facebook Users OBLITERATE the FBI’s Ratings Following Hillary Decision” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Experts Doubt Obama’s Final Troop Cut in Afghanistan Helps His Successor

President Barack Obama said he won’t withdraw nearly half the remaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan, much less completely withdraw as he originally intended, so the next president will have a stronger hand in a country where American forces have battled the Taliban and al-Qaeda for nearly 15 years.

“Today’s decision best positions my successor to make future decisions about our presence in Afghanistan,” Obama said Wednesday at the White House, announcing he will withdraw 1,400 troops rather than 4,300 troops.

In January, the next U.S. president will assume the most solemn responsibility of the commander-in-chief, the security of the United States, and the safety of the American people. The decision I’m making today ensures that my successor has a solid foundation for continued progress in Afghanistan as well as the flexibility to address the threat of terrorism as it evolves.

Obama announced that at the end of his presidency, on Jan. 20, the U.S. will have 8,400 troops in Afghanistan, down from the current 9,800.

He previously planned to cut troop levels to 5,500 before leaving office. And earlier, he said he would withdraw nearly all U.S. troops.

In June, four former U.S. ambassadors asked Obama in a letter to leave the count at 9,800 troops, arguing 5,500 was insufficient.

The Heritage Foundation previously called for Obama to maintain the troop levels and announce those plans before the NATO Summit, to be held this weekend in Warsaw, as a way to encourage allied countries to maintain a presence.

Obama’s decision could have been worse, but this reduction doesn’t exactly strengthen the next president, James Carafano, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, said.

“There are already too few forces to defend the ones they have, but I’m more comfortable with 8,000 [troops] than I am 5,000. We need 10,000 to 15,000,” Carafano told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “This will at least provide room for the next president to make decisions on Afghanistan. This is not a strategy, but it allows him to leave office without another complete and utter failure.”

Afghanistan is still a mess, said Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and editor of The Long War Journal.

“If the next president is interested in improving the situation, this could put more options on the table, but nothing in Afghanistan is sufficient at this point,” Roggio told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. He said:

The Taliban is still going toe-to-toe with Afghan forces. So, for the next president, this prolongs an Afghan policy that is already on life support. But 5,000 [troops] would have left the next president with almost no options.

What the Obama administration calls major combat operations in Afghanistan ended in 2014, but the U.S.-led coalition has remained to train and advise Afghan forces to combat the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Obama noted the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack is approaching, and that 2,200 Americans soldiers have died in Afghanistan.

“As president and commander-in-chief, I’ve made it clear that I will not allow Afghanistan to be used as safe haven for terrorists,” Obama said during his remarks.

Obama initially proposed to withdraw nearly all troops from Afghanistan by the end of his second term. However, last September, Taliban forces captured Kunduz, the first time the terror group had captured a major city since 2001.

After Kunduz, Obama decided to keep 5,500 U.S. troops in the country when he departs office. But, Obama said Wednesday, after consulting with generals and Defense Secretary Ash Carter, he instead will maintain a larger military presence.

The decision makes little sense and might have been guided by politics, said Thomas Donnelly, resident fellow in security studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

“To go from 9,800 to 8,400 is a cut that makes no sense politically, strategically, or militarily,” Donnelly told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “He may be trying to split the difference between those in his [political] base who want us out entirely and those saying we don’t have enough.”

Donnelly said he doesn’t believe Obama did any favors for the next president.

“It is better than it might have been otherwise, but even 9,800 is barely adequate,” Donnelly said. “This is still a mess for the next president, but it could have been a bigger mess otherwise.” (For more from the author of “Experts Doubt Obama’s Final Troop Cut in Afghanistan Helps His Successor” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.