7 Key Takeaways From FBI Director’s Hearing on Clinton Email Use

/0 Comments/in , /by

FBI Director James Comey appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Thursday to further detail the FBI’s yearlong investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and handling of classified information while she was secretary of state.

Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, hastily scheduled the hearing just two days after Comey announced the findings of his agency’s investigation into Clinton and recommended that no criminal charges be filed against her.

Although the FBI ultimately concluded Clinton’s handling of classified information did not warrant criminal charges, Comey criticized her Tuesday for being “extremely careless” in setting up a server in the basement of her New York home and using a private email address.

A spokesman for Clinton said that she was happy the investigation is over.

“We are pleased that the career officials handling this case have determined that no further action by the [Justice] Department is appropriate,” Brian Fallon said in a statement to Politico. “As the secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again. We are glad that this matter is now resolved.”

The FBI’s findings contradicted some of what Clinton has said publicly and to members of Congress regarding her private server and handling of classified information.

Those conclusions left many Republican lawmakers wondering how Comey and the FBI ultimately came to the decision not to recommend criminal charges and ultimately prompted Thursday’s hearing.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said Comey was given a “thankless” task in investigating Clinton.

“No matter what recommendation you made, you were sure to be criticized,” Cummings said. “In a sense, Mr. Director, you are on trial.”

Here are seven of the key takeaways from Comey’s appearance before the Oversight Committee:

1) Comey says there is no basis that Clinton lied to the FBI.

Nearly one year ago, on July 25, Clinton told reporters at a press conference that she was “confident” she “never sent or received any information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.”

However, during its investigation, the FBI concluded that 110 emails in 52 email chains Clinton returned to the State Department contained classified information when they were sent or received. Eight of those communications contained “top secret” information, 37 received “secret information,” and the rest contained “confidential information,” the FBI said.

Of those emails, a “very small number” had markings identifying them as classified.

During the hearing, Chaffetz questioned whether Clinton lied to the FBI during a three-hour interview that took place Saturday. Though Clinton told the public she never sent or received classified information, Comey said she didn’t lie to the FBI.

“We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI,” Comey said Thursday.

2) Chaffetz plans to file a referral to the FBI to look into whether she lied to Congress under oath.

While questioning Comey on Clinton’s statements regarding her handling of classified information, Chaffetz asked Comey if the FBI looked into whether the former secretary of state lied under oath about receiving and sending classified information.

During an October hearing before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked Clinton about classified information sent in emails stored on her server.

“There was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received,” Clinton told Jordan during the hearing.

Comey told Chaffetz that, although he was aware of Clinton’s exchange with Jordan, the FBI hadn’t investigated whether she lied under oath because the agency never received a referral to do so from Congress.

Chaffetz confirmed the committee would send a referral to the FBI to probe Clinton’s testimony.

3) Comey says Clinton’s case is very different from that involving David Petraeus.

Since the FBI’s announcement, many have been pointing to an investigation into former CIA Director David Petraeus’s handling of classified information in comparison with the FBI’s handling of the Clinton matter. Petraeus pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge after disclosing classified information to his biographer Paula Broadwell.

Cummings, the committee’s ranking member, urged Comey to point out the similarities or differences between Petraeus’s and Clinton’s cases.

“He was caught on audio tape telling [Broadwell], and I quote, ‘I mean, they are highly classified,’” Cummings said.

Comey, though, said the case involving Petraeus “illustrates perfectly the kinds of cases the Department of Justice is willing to prosecute.”

“Clearly intentional conduct. Knew what he was doing was violation of the law,” Comey said of the former CIA director. “Huge amounts of information. If you couldn’t prove he knew it, raises the inference [that] he did it and effort to obstruct justice. That combination of things makes it worthy of a prosecution. A misdemeanor prosecution, but a prosecution nonetheless.”

4) There is no transcript or recording of Clinton’s meeting with the FBI on Saturday, and she wasn’t placed under oath.

Clinton met with the FBI for a three-hour interview Saturday, which Comey said was the agency’s last step before concluding its investigation.

During his testimony before the Oversight Committee today, Comey said he wasn’t involved in Clinton’s interview and admitted there was no transcript or recording of the meeting. Furthermore, Comey said Clinton was not put under oath during her interview with the FBI.

However, Comey stressed that it is still a crime to lie to federal agents.

5) Comey said Clinton isn’t sophisticated in her knowledge of classification systems.

Many of the Republicans questioning Comey wondered how Clinton, whose résumé includes first lady, U.S. senator from New York, and secretary of state, would not understand the government’s classification requirements.

“Is it your statement, then, before this committee that Secretary Clinton should have known not to send classified information and yet she did?” Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., asked Comey.

“Certainly she should have known not to send classified information,” Comey said. “As I said, that’s the definition of negligent. I think she was extremely careless. I have to think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can’t establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”

Included in three of the emails found on Clinton’s server were paragraphs marked with a “(c),” indicating that the information referenced was to be treated as classified.

Much of that classified information originated from Clinton’s aides, but was included in emails the former secretary of state sent and received.

Comey said he would have assumed that any “reasonable” person would have known the importance of those markings. However, Comey later concluded he wasn’t sure “whether she was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a ‘c’ in parentheses means.”

“One of the things I’ve learned is that the secretary may not be as sophisticated as people would assume,” Comey said.

He further noted that Clinton didn’t have a computer in her office at the State Department.

6) Clinton gave people without security clearances access to classified information.

Comey told lawmakers Thursday that Clinton’s personal server set-up exposed people without security clearances to classified information.

“Did Hillary Clinton give non-cleared people access to classified information?” Chaffetz asked.

“Yes,” Comey replied.

Though the FBI director could not say exactly how many “non-cleared” people had access to that classified information, Comey did estimate it was between two and 10.

Both Chaffetz and Jordan questioned whether Clinton’s lawyers had security clearances and were exposed to that classified information when they were sorting through the emails that would later be turned over to the State Department.

Though Comey said Clinton’s lawyers were among those who were “non-cleared” and accessed classified information, Fallon, spokesman for Clinton, tweeted that the lawyers who sifted through the former secretary of state’s emails had Top Secret-level clearance.

7) Comey contradicted a number of statements Clinton made to reporters and Congress regarding the use of her private email server.

During his line of questioning, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., asked Comey to respond to a number of comments Clinton made over the course of the past year regarding her handling of classified information, some of which he said were found to be untrue throughout the course of the FBI’s investigation.

Comey first confirmed there was information marked classified found on Clinton’s server, despite her reassurances she neither sent nor received any information marked classified.

The FBI director then said that Clinton did, indeed, email classified material, though she in the past said she never did.

Gowdy then asked Comey if Clinton only used one device, as she said she did, to which Comey said she used multiple devices during her tenure as secretary of state.

Gowdy also questioned whether Clinton returned all work-related emails to the State Department. Thousands, Comey said, were not returned and were later recovered by the FBI.

Others were deleted, and traces of work-related emails were found “on devices or in slack space,” Comey said.

“Whether they were deleted or whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is no doubt that the work-related emails were removed electronically from the email system,” he said. (For more from the author of “7 Key Takeaways From FBI Director’s Hearing on Clinton Email Use” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

If Benghazi Doesn’t Matter, What Does?

/0 Comments/in , /by

For me, these names matter: Christopher Stevens, US Ambassador to Libya, Sean Smith, career diplomat, Glen Doherty, former Navy SEAL, and Tyrone Woods, former Navy SEAL. All died in the service of the United States. They left behind loved ones who are owed the truth, and the sincere support of a grateful nation. But are we grateful?

In the last few days much of what I have heard has been disgusting. Comments like “it’s over” or “it is merely a partisan ploy to keep Hillary from the White House” or “mistakes happen in war, let’s move on.”

I’m not sure what makes me sicker; the notion that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama allowed a US ambassador and the brave Americans protecting him to die. Or the notion that both of them, Hillary especially, tried to cover up the mistakes, and activities that allowed Americans to be slaughtered, just to protect their campaigns, and legacy. Or the recognition my fellow citizens and much of the media are willingly providing political cover, excuses and support for Hillary Clinton – just so their candidate can win the presidency.

To be sure, there were lots of mistakes made – from the Arab Spring to the disastrous efforts at nation building in Libya. But at the end of the day, leaders must always be mindful these immortal words of the late, great, Harry Truman, “the buck stops here” For better or worse, whether complicit, or buffoonery, knowing, or not, the captain of the ship, or leader of the enterprise is always responsible, and in this case, it was President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Watching CNN broadcast Congressmen presenting the final Benghazi report, you would think the investigation concluded without key revelations or damaging evidence how badly our leaders failed those they swore to protect – fellow Americans. The ticker tape message floating across the bottom of the CNN screen seemed designed to mislead; it conveyed all was well for Hillary and no new discoveries found against her. Beyond dishonest and biased reporting – shameful is a good word – is the callous disregard for their fellow citizens who were murdered, and their families.

It is more clear than ever that the media are so “in the tank” for Hillary that they will abandon any semblance of journalistic ethics to twist, obfuscate, refuse to report or spin whatever it takes to help her win. And hell be damned to the families of those who died in Benghazi; they are inconvenient truths, mere stepping stones to be kicked aside on the campaign trail. CNN isn’t alone. The major newspapers and other broadcast media, as well as social media, are all doing the same thing. The democrat message machine is in full production trying to taint the Congressional Report as partisan, unfair, untrue, while providing all loyal party members brooms to sweep the entire affair under the rug.

As sickening and unpatriotic, and despicable as these behaviors are from DNC party members, politicians, and the media, what is by far the worse insult of all is reading some of the partisan, hateful, toxic online comments people – potentially our coworkers and neighbors – have written in response to the Benghazi Report; one especially stabs the heart – “Perhaps Ambassador Stevens got reckless.” Even Hillary on her most ruthless day would not utter such a comment, yet one of her devotees felt no such inhibition of conscience, morality, or soul.

The sad reality is quite simple – many Americans just don’t give a damn that 4 of their fellow citizens died in an environment our leaders helped create, representing us, our nation, our culture, and were abandoned at the altar of political expedience, left to die at in the fires and bullets sent by savage radical Islamists. As long as these Hillary and democrat partisans get to cheer on their candidate, enjoy whatever entitlements, bragging rights, largess, or patronage such loyalty earns, nothing else matters. Don’t get in their way with details like fellow countrymen getting assassinated.

Which begs the question – who are we as a society? If a significant proportion of our fellow citizens readily, unapologetically, dare I suggest happily will ignore, overlook or dismiss such a disastrous example of poor US leadership, resulting in the completely unnecessary death of people just trying to serve their country, what does it say about us? Is there anything redeemable about us? Is there anything salvageable in our social compact? That there are in our midst a large number of people and their enterprises who would sacrifice their neighbors, their human decency, their morality, their humanity, and their patriotism, to ensure their candidate wins an election, it is a stunning indictment of our nation, and a bad omen for our future. What rewards await such base behaviors? A bigger welfare check? Bragging rights? Political influence?

If Benghazi doesn’t matter, what does? (For more from the author of “If Benghazi Doesn’t Matter, What Does?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama’s DOJ Flushes Gender Sanity Down the Toilet

/0 Comments/in , /by

Our country is filled with young Muslims attempting to join foreign terror networks. Our communities are full of criminal aliens and are also experiencing an uptick in violent crime. One would think the Department of Justice would be stretched thin and fully consumed by the endless criminal cases related to national security and public safety. Yet, in May the Justice Department focused its attention against the sovereign state of North Carolina and sued them for recognizing only those with male plumbing parts as males. Now, in their alacrity to get this issue settled, they have filed a motion for an injunction against HB2, the law that prevents local governments from allowing men into private female dressing rooms and bathrooms.

The day after Independence Day, DOJ Civil Rights attorneys filed a motion for an injunction with the Middle District of North Carolina. First, it’s worth noting that this motion is full of inaccuracies about HB2, as noted at length by local activist A.P. Dillon on her blog, such as its claim that the law requires someone to produce a birth certificate in order to use a public restroom. More importantly, this motion is built upon a legal theory that should raise the hair on anyone’s neck. The motion asserts that HB2’s dictates that only someone with a penis use the men’s room and one with lady parts use the lady’s room “impermissibly discriminates against transgender individuals based on sex stereotypes.”

Folks, pinch yourself for a minute and realize that this is not an Onion article or April Fool’s joke. Typically, I like to use absurd analogies to illustrate absurdities taking place in our government, but I can’t quite conjure up a metaphor that is more radical and absurd than the reality of our Justice Department codifying the most grotesque contortion of natural law and biology into law. One might offer the analogy of a white person claiming to be black for the purpose of obtaining affirmative action benefits (in itself unconstitutional), but trans-racism is not nearly as absurd as transgenderism. A white male has a lot more in common biologically with a black man than he does with a white female.

Taking this line of thought to its logical conclusion, why can’t any male say they feel like a woman for the purpose of obtaining a spot on a girls’ sports team? Or taking this to other areas of law, why can’t a non-lawyer say they feel like a lawyer today and be eligible to run for Attorney General or a judge in a given state? Why can’t I tell the cops in Maryland that I feel like I have a concealed carriers’ license and carry a gun in the [not so] Free State? Remember, as absurd as these suggestions sound, nothing is as immutable as sexuality.

Several former DOJ attorneys, including a former supervisor, also pointed out another disturbing observation. One of the attorneys who signed onto this lawsuit is Sean Keveney, who, from what I was told, was one of the few conservatives left at DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. One source told me that Keveney “wouldn’t have ever attached his name to something so despicable and contrary to his values as a transgender case built on a frivolous legal theory, but when you are around these people long enough, it looks like you lose your moral compass.” There was no reason for Keveney to lend his name to this lawsuit if he hadn’t begun drinking the Kool-Aid. This is the frog in the boiling water theory. No matter how extreme and destructive the legal profession becomes, even conservatives will acclimate themselves to the new “climate” and shred natural law, federalism, and bedrock values of civilization, much less a modicum of jurisprudence.

There are also a couple of other important observations worth mentioning:

DOJ purposely shopped this lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, which has two Obama appointees. The original issue began in Charlotte, which is in the Western District and the capital is in the Eastern District. The Eastern District is also home to North Carolina State University, but they deliberately chose to go after the University of North Carolina, which is in the Middle District. What this shows is that there are enough lower courts that will agree to the most extreme legal theories of the Left that they always have a venue to enjoin every single common sense conservative law in every state. In this case, once they get a liberal district judge, it’s smooth sailing to the insufferable Fourth Circuit, which has already codified transgenderism. If you think merely adding one more conservative to the Supreme Court will solve our judicial problems, you are not paying attention.

The DOJ is going after a state for defining the most immutable nature of biology, but refuses to prosecute local officials who flagrantly violate immigration law, the one area of policy that was designed to be under federal control. Yesterday, all but two Democrats (who merely came along for the ride) voted to punish sanctuary cities.

Senate Republicans just debated the Justice Department funding bill on the Senate floor. Although they offered an entire week of debate over Democrat gun proposals, they found no time to vote on an amendment barring DOJ funds for any lawsuit against North Carolina.

When the colonial states agreed to declare independence from King George, could they ever have envisioned joining a federal union that would impose gender-bending tyranny on them, which violates the most literal sense of natural law of nature’s God? The ongoing social transformation without representation makes taxation without representation appear trivial. (For more from the author of “Obama’s DOJ Flushes Gender Sanity Down the Toilet” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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.

The Most Breathtaking and Frightening Fix in American History

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Yesterday we witnessed a most frightening manifestation of the corruption of our political system. Doubly frightening because of what it augurs for all our futures if Hillary Clinton should prevail in the November elections. At the center of this corruption – but hardly alone – are the criminal Clintons – the Bonnie and Clyde of American politics – and their Democratic Party allies; but we should not fail to mention also the Republican enablers who would rather fight each other and appease their adversaries than win the political wars.

We knew they could fix the Department of Justice; we suspected they could fix the FBI. What we didn’t know was that the fixes would be this transparent: the secret meeting with a chief culprit and the DOJ head; the next day announcement by Justice that the Clinton bribery investigations would be postponed until well after the election; the suspiciously brief FBI interrogation of the former Secretary of State who during her entire tenure had recklessly breached national security protocols, deleted 30,000 emails; burned her government schedules; put top secret information onto a hackable server in violation of federal law; and topping it all the failure of the FBI director after enumerating her reckless acts to recommend a prosecution – all within a single week, and just in time for the Democrats’ nominating convention. It was, all in all, the most breathtaking fix in American history.

And it wasn’t ordinary criminal corruption. It was corruption affecting the nation’s security by individuals and a regime that have turned the Middle East over to the Islamic terrorists; that have enabled America’s chief enemy in the region, Iran, to become its dominant power; that allowed the Saudis, deeply implicated in the attacks of 9/11, to cover their crimes and spread Islamic hate doctrines into the United States; it was about selling our foreign policy to the high bidders at home and abroad, and about making America vulnerable to our enemies.

What can be done? First of all it’s a matter of deciding who you believe – the political elites who are telling you everything is normal, or your lying eyes? The political system is corrupt and cannot clean its own house. What is needed is an outside political force that will begin the job by putting the interests of our country first again. Call it what you will – nationalism or common sense – it is the most pressing need for the country now. Such a force would have to find its support outside Washington. Call that what you will – populism or democracy – no reforming leader can be elected without it. No political leader can begin to accomplish this task, without the support of ordinary Americans registered at the ballot box. (For more from the author of “The Most Breathtaking and Frightening Fix in American History.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Clinton Already Thinks She’s President

/0 Comments/in , /by

[Yesterday], Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama shared a moment in the campaign spotlight in North Carolina. Obama’s active support of Clinton is not what has stirred controversy. Rather, the controversy is the in which Obama and Clinton traveled to North Carolina together.

Clinton and Obama flew on one of the most magnificent aircrafts on earth – Air Force One. The plane is 4,000 square feet and has three floors. It has a medical suite that can function as an operating room, walk in freezer and enough space to feed 100 people at a time. It comes with a private bedroom, kitchen and office that is surrounded by the most sophisticated military equipment on earth.

This flying wonderland, however, costs the American taxpayers nearly $200,000 per hour. Clinton’s luxurious travel conditions seem almost hypocritical for a candidate who argues that her greatest strength is her passionate “commitment to helping people.” Yet, she travels to campaign stops at a cost per hour that is four times the median household income in the United States.

By law, Clinton will have to reimburse the government for “her” share of the travels. Still, those will be only a few thousand dollars, a fraction of the actual costs. This is perfect fodder for the liberal media; we would expect them deplore such extravagance from the candidate of the people. Instead, they defend the use of the jet by defending Obama.

The Washington Post acknowledges that the president is on call “24 hours a day and seven days a week, and he has to fly on Air Force One.” The article, like many in the liberal press, have long argued that all recent presidents have used Air Force One to campaign.

The Post even highlights a quote from former President Ronald Reagan, who supposedly turned a campaign event into an official event (presidential candidates must reimburse part of the cost of Air Force One for campaign events) on a trip to Ohio, “[T]his is a bipartisan meeting, so I’m not going to tell you how proud I am of Congressman Bud Brown and what an invaluable all he’s been in the fight against big government in Washington.”

With a parting shot, the Post speculates that Trump may have reacted very differently to Reagan’s use of Air Force One. But the liberal media is comparing apples and oranges. Reagan was a sitting president, Clinton is not. While taxpayers should question the use of a taxpayer funds for a flying mansion during campaigns, a president does require protection. On the other hand, Clinton is not the President.

Perhaps traveling with the President to a similar location made sense. But where does it end?

It may not be unethical for Clinton to campaign on taxpayer dollars that are designated to the current president, but it certainly seems to violate the spirit of government ethics. The nominee for president should not already have access to funds made available to the executive office.

Who knows, maybe I’m just being ridiculous for assuming the word “ethics” and “Clinton” can coexist in the same article. I suppose we all know the answer to that. (For more from the author of “Clinton Already Thinks She’s President” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Confused Who Has the Majority in Congress? You’re Not Alone.

/0 Comments/in , /by

In 2014, Republicans won a majority in Senate. However, if you’ve been watching the Senate lately, you’d be forgiven for wondering who is actually in charge.

Democrats demand—and receive—amendment votes, while Republican amendments are stifled. Appropriations bills, ostensibly written by Republicans, come to the floor lacking any GOP priorities, while conservative efforts to amend the bill are set up to fail.

Even more troubling are the policies coming out of this Republican-led Senate. Appropriations bills are passed, but at higher spending levels than even President Barack Obama requested. Just this week, the Senate voted to bail out the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico—without considering any of the economic reforms supported by conservatives.

Things really took a turn last week, however, when the Senate Appropriations Committee advanced its 2017 foreign aid bill.

In a sign that principles were about to be shelved, all 16 Republicans and 14 Democrats on the committee unanimously supported an amendment by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., to provide $500 million to the U.N. sponsored Green Climate Fund—the principle funding mechanism for Obama’s international climate change treaty.

For the record, this is the same treaty that the Obama administration imposed upon taxpayers without the advice and consent of the Senate, and the same funding mechanism that GOP Senators previously swore up and down that they would fight tooth and nail to oppose.

But the committee action got even worse with the passage of an amendment offered by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., to add $37.5 million to the United Nations Population Fund, which provides services for “international family planning and reproductive health”—that is, taxpayer funded abortion performed overseas.

In a Republican controlled committee, this amendment supporting abortion passed 17-13, thanks to the votes of Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Mark Kirk, R-Ill.

Most disturbing, however, was that the entire bill—containing language to fund abortion, and to fund the president’s climate change treaty—passed the committee 30-0.

Some will argue that this is just a committee process, and that the real consideration of the bill will be on the Senate floor, where all senators will have the opportunity to weigh in. Perhaps—but only if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., allows senators to participate in an open process (which he has lately been loath to do).

If and when this bill hits the floor, we should expect that Republicans will stand up for what they’ve said they believe in, and vote to strike provisions of this bill that violate their principles.

Republicans may be in charge of the Senate, and Democrats may be in the minority. But it is getting increasingly difficult to tell the difference. (For more from “Confused Who Has the Majority in Congress? You’re Not Alone.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is Hillary Too Big to Jail?

/0 Comments/in , /by

…Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “voluntarily” attended a meeting with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to go over her use of a private email server while Secretary of State. She was accompanied by five lawyers according to The New York Times.

The interview with Clinton is reportedly the last step in the FBI’s investigation. On Friday Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that she would accept the FBI’s recommendations in the case.

Here is how the Times summarized the meeting:

The interview, which lasted about three and a half hours at F.B.I. Headquarters in Washington, largely focused on the Justice Department’s central question of whether Mrs. Clinton’s actions met the legal standard for handling classified information. Shortly after the meeting, two black S.U.V.s were seen returning to Mrs. Clinton’s house in the capital. The appointment had been weeks in the making as both law enforcement and Mrs. Clinton’s team coordinated their schedules.

Accompanying Mrs. Clinton were her lawyer David E. Kendall; Cheryl D. Mills and Heather Samuelson, longtime aides who are also lawyers; and two lawyers from Mr. Kendall’s firm, Williams & Connolly, Katherine Turner and Amy Saharia.

Eight officials from the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice conducted the interview, according to a person who was familiar with the substance of the session but who declined to be named because the meeting was private. This person characterized the meeting as “civil” and “businesslike.” Neither the campaign nor the F.B.I. would elaborate on it.

Earlier in the week Attorney General Lynch came under heavy scrutiny, and rightfully so, for meeting privately on her plane with former President Bill Clinton. This meeting was widely seen as being improper at the least and led many to ask if the fix was in. Is Hillary too big to jail?

Clinton herself, in a debate, said earlier this year that there should be “no individual too powerful to jail.” Was she also talking about herself?

Is Hillary too powerful or too big to jail? If ABC News reporting is correct, we’ll know before the Republican National Convention, as the FBI is planning on announcing their recommendations before it begins. (For more from the author of “Is Hillary Too Big to Jail?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

On Freedom and a Fourth of July Abroad; Why You Should Still Be Proud to Be an American

/0 Comments/in , /by

This will be my second consecutive Fourth of July spent outside the United States.

Last year, I celebrated our nation’s birthday in Mariupol, Ukraine. It’s a city only a few miles from the front lines of the still-simmering war in Ukraine.

I had burgers and beer with an eclectic group that evening—a Swedish sniper, two former French Foreign Legion soldiers, two former U.S. Army Rangers, and war correspondents from Australia, Belgium, and the United States.

The war was still there, only a few miles away. We could get to it in a 20-minute car ride.

The occasional thud of a mortar or artillery round from nearby Shyrokyne filled in for the fireworks. Audible reminders that Ukrainian soldiers were (and are) still fighting to achieve the things we celebrate every Fourth of July—freedom, democracy, and a chance to pursue happiness.

It’s almost ritual to express gratitude for the American way of life, or to thank a veteran or a soldier on holidays like Independence Day. The rehearsed nature of it all isn’t the result of insincerity; it’s just that many of us living in the United States have never tasted the alternative.

We’ve never actually lived in a place that isn’t free—a place like eastern Ukraine where families still die in the night from Russian artillery. Seeing such things makes you want to kiss the ground when you finally come back home.

Celebrations in war always seem more passionate. There’s a little bit of that end-of-days feeling like it’s officially time to eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow isn’t a given. It was like that in Mariupol last year.

One year later, the war hasn’t ended. Ukraine is still waiting for that tomorrow. Artillery and small arms are still fired in anger every day along the hundreds of miles of trenches and fortified checkpoints spread throughout the Donbas. Soldiers in opposing camps still peer at each other across no man’s land. It’s still a war. People are still dying.

Yet, I retain hope Ukraine will one day celebrate its Independence Day like we do. One day the explosions will be from fireworks and not weapons of war.

Common Thread

This past year I visited Tibetan freedom fighters living in exile in India and Nepal, veterans of a secret CIA-backed guerrilla campaign against China during the Cold War.

In eastern Ukraine I visited Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines against Russian aggression. And in Iraq I embedded with Kurdish peshmerga soldiers on the front lines against ISIS outside Mosul.

A common thread united these disparate bands of soldiers divided by culture, history, and geography. For all of them, the United States symbolized what they were fighting for.

Some of the Ukrainian soldiers I met on the front lines wore American flags on their uniforms. For Ukrainians, the U.S. flag long had been a symbolic pushback against the Soviet Union and the Kremlin’s authoritarian rule.

And now, 25 years after the fall of the USSR, as Ukraine again finds itself on the receiving end of Russian aggression, some have turned to symbols of America once more as a way to represent their independence and annoy their enemies.

I met one Ukrainian soldier at a machine gun nest in the trenches who wore a Ronald Reagan Presidential Library T-shirt. I asked why he was wearing that shirt in combat. He told me: “Because Reagan won the Cold War, and it would piss Putin off.”

The Tibetan freedom fighters I met, now old men living in solitude in lonely Himalayan villages, told me U.S. military support inspired them to fight back against China’s invasion and genocide.

These soldiers, many of whom were former Buddhist monks, fought the mechanized might of China’s People’s Liberation Army while on horseback and with World War I rifles.

“I have a deep appreciation and a great respect for America,” Sonam Dorjee, an 81-year-old former Tibetan resistance fighter told me during an interview last year in McLeod Ganj, India.

‘Friends Forever’

This May, I embedded with Kurdish peshmerga soldiers on the front lines outside Mosul. I saw smiles creep over the Kurds’ faces as U.S. warplanes pummeled Islamic State fighters a couple miles away across no man’s land.

For the older peshmerga soldiers, the sound of U.S. jets held special significance. They remember how Saddam Hussein’s warplanes used to inspire terror.

Before a U.S.-led coalition deposed him, the Iraqi dictator killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds from the air with chemical weapons and conventional bombs in operations such as the genocidal al-Anfal campaign.

Now, the peshmerga rejoice at the sound of jet engines, knowing the crackling roar symbolizes their American ally punishing the enemy.

“We will be friends with America forever for the help they’ve given us,” peshmerga Gen. Omar Hama Ali Farag told me on the front lines outside Mosul. He went on:

We had the Anfal genocide and many sufferings, but the peshmerga have always seen America as our friend. We could have never gotten rid of Saddam without George W. Bush. And we can never have our independence without America’s help.

North Star

Our country’s flag and the men and women who wear it on their uniforms are still seen as a force for good in many places around the world.

That was evident in February as I traveled with a U.S. Army Stryker convoy across the Baltics. The convoy, called Dragoon Ride, was meant to show U.S. resolve to defend NATO’s Baltic members from Russia.

Along the way, thousands of Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians lined the roads waving American flags to welcome our troops.

Fathers had children on their shoulders. Young women blew kisses to the troops. At each stop, in each little village, hundreds of local people gathered to take selfies with the American soldiers and shake their hands.

I wish you could have seen it; it would have made you proud to be an American.

Maintaining a dominant military with a global presence is not just about quantifiable metrics of national defense or international stability. Our military is also the torchbearer for our country’s values and a beacon of hope for people in times of peril.

On the Fourth of July we celebrate the achievement of a dream that, whether we know it or not, still serves as a North Star to people around the world brave enough to fight for a better life. (For more from the author of “On Freedom and a Fourth of July Abroad” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What My Grandfather Taught Me About America

/0 Comments/in , /by

My appreciation for the greatness of America’s founding was first instilled in me by my grandfather, Antonio Gimenez. Born in Puerto Rico in the early 1920s, he and seven of his brothers are combat veterans from WWII, along with two more brothers who (to their dismay) were ineligible for combat but served the Army in in non-combat roles, and two sisters who served in the Women’s Army Corps (WAC). Twelve in all! My grandfather landed at Normandy on D-Day, fought in many of the major battles in Europe, and even met my grandmother in Belgium during the Battle of the Bulge. He never likes to talk about the war, but his patriotism is irrepressible.

He never forgot what he was fighting for, and revered the founders for their vision of a society dedicated to liberty. His favorite anecdote about America’s greatness was how anyone, any single individual, who had been wronged by the government had the right – guaranteed by law – to stand up for himself and challenge the government. This is the complete polar opposite of the fascism he fought against, a system where the individual is nothing and completely expendable to the interests of the state.

This is the true spirit of the American Revolution. What made the colonists revolt against the British crown was not so much the taxes but the fact that laws were being imposed without the consent of the governed, and that peaceful attempts to redress grievances were met with military occupation.

In 1780, with the war still ongoing, the people of Massachusetts were asked to ratify a state constitution. They refused every draft until one was constructed that recognized the sovereignty of the individual and derived authority from the consent of the governed. It was there that the term “We the people” originated. And the best method of securing and ensuring individual liberty was the central issue in the ratification debates of the constitution. (For more, see Ratification: The people debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 by Pauline Maier)

This individuality and the way it pervades everyday life was the central, shocking discovery of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.

The other key to our founding is the principals of Judeo-Christian values, and – unless you are a leftist intent on distorting the words of Thomas Jefferson’s Danbury Letter – it is impossible to miss this:

Benjamin Rush: “I proceed…to enquire what mode of education we shall adopt so as to secure to the state all the advantages that are to be derived from the proper instruction of youth; and here I beg leave to remark, that the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.”

George Washington: “Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

James Madison: “The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it.”

The best recent summation of the ideals of America comes from Norman Podhoretz in the October 2012 issue of Hillsdale College’s Imprimis, in a speech titled “Is America Exceptional?”:

First of all, unlike all other nations past or present, this one accepted as a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. What this meant was that its Founders aimed to create a society in which, for the first time in the history of the world, the individual’s fate would be determined not by who his father was, but by his own freely chosen pursuit of his own ambitions. In other words, America was to be something new under the sun: a society in which hereditary status and class distinctions would be erased, leaving individuals free to act and to be judged on their merits alone. There remained, of course, the two atavistic contradictions of slavery and the position of women; but so intolerable did these contradictions ultimately prove that they had to be resolved—even if, as in the case of the former, it took the bloodiest war the nation has ever fought.

Secondly, in all other countries membership or citizenship was a matter of birth, of blood, of lineage, of rootedness in the soil. Thus, foreigners who were admitted for one reason or another could never become full-fledged members of the society. But America was the incarnation of an idea, and therefore no such factors came into play. To become a full-fledged American, it was only necessary to pledge allegiance to the new Republic and to the principles for which it stood.

Thirdly, in all other nations, the rights, if any, enjoyed by their citizens were conferred by human agencies: kings and princes and occasionally parliaments. As such, these rights amounted to privileges that could be revoked at will by the same human agencies. In America, by contrast, the citizen’s rights were declared from the beginning to have come from God and to be “inalienable”—that is, immune to legitimate revocation.

This July 4th, many of us will have the sad shadow of this election hanging over it – where the leading candidates are so far removed from our founding ideals that both agree on government control of healthcare. If our damn politicians cannot restore our republic – then we should give the Article 5 convention of states strong consideration. If our former rivals – now dear friends – in England can have a democratic uprising to bypass their political elites and restore their rights, then so can we. (For more from the author of “What My Grandfather Taught Me About America” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.