Tag Archives: FBI

legal news, national news, political news

AG to let the FBI do its job … great!

loretta-lynch

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch was party to one of the more, um, awkward political moments in recent memory.

She’s now seeking to remove whatever stain remains from that moment by declaring she intends to let the career legal eagles at the FBI do their job — without interference from her — in their probe of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail controversy.

Lynch ought to perhaps take it a step further and recuse herself completely from the investigation.

She met recently on an airport tarmac with former President Bill Clinton. They reportedly talked about “social” matters: grandkids, golf, the weather and whatever else. Lynch said the former president didn’t mention the investigation into whether his wife — the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee — did anything wrong while using her private e-mail account while serving as secretary of state.

Still, the encounter was awkward in the extreme. It never should have happened.

President Clinton shouldn’t have gone near the AG while they were in the airport in Phoenix and Lynch never should have allowed the conversation to occur, no matter how innocent it was.

It has fed an ongoing narrative about the former president and Mrs. Clinton, that they are tone-deaf to how their actions appear and that they play by their own set of rules.

It’s good that Lynch has declared her intention to let the FBI pursue the e-mail probe without any interference from her.

As for the former president … stay as far away from the principals in this matter as possible.

national news, political news

Bill Clinton chats up AG Loretta Lynch … oops

email-marketing

Many of us always have thought that former President Bill Clinton’s political instincts were second to none.

He knows the importance of “optics,” and of timing, and of  perception. Isn’t that right?

Apparently not.

President Clinton and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch happened to be at an airport in Phoenix. What, then, did the former president do? He boarded the AG’s airplane to just, oh, chat her up.

They reportedly exchanged small talk. Clinton wanted to talk about his grandchildren. Lynch and her husband just talked about small stuff.

What’s wrong with that?

Everything!

You see, the FBI — which is an arm of the Attorney General’s Office — is investigating whether Hillary Clinton violated federal law when she used her private e-mail account while she was serving as secretary of state.

Why is it so wrong for Bill Clinton to meet privately with Loretta Lynch? Because it sends out a message that Bill and Hillary Clinton don’t play by the same rules as everyone else. It feeds a longtime narrative that the Clintons’ critics have been saying since Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992.

Lynch said she and Clinton did not discuss the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton’s e-mail matter. She said the former president never brought it up and neither did she.

Hillary Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign, though, has yet to speak about the meeting.

There had better be some explanation offered … and soon.

national news, political news, State news

Abbott makes simple statement of solidarity

3 Comments

gov mansion

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott flew the flag at the Governor’s Mansion.

It was the Florida state flag, which he unfurled to honor the victims of the Orlando nightclub massacre, the worst such event in U.S. history.

He offered a statement calling on Texans to pray for the victims of the shooting. I applaud the governor’s simple statement of support for those who were killed and injured and for the loved ones who are grieving or praying for the victims’ complete recovery.

Then he lost me … almost.

Abbott used the occasion to make a statement that we need to do more to stamp out radical Islamic terrorism.

The gunman, an American, swore fealty to the Islamic State before opening fire at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, which caters to the city’s gay community. FBI director James Comey, though, has suggested that his agency cannot find any indication that the shooter was acting as part of an ISIS master plot; he was a lone wolf, a guy acting on his own.

My question tonight is this: How does the federal government stop a lone madman?

It’s a no-brainer to suggest that the government needs to do more to combat terrorism. Any act taken committed against us — whether it’s on a 9/11-type scale or anything less audacious — always means we need to “do more.”

Before we get too worked up about this latest attack, let’s remember what every expert the media could corral after 9/11 told us: There should be no doubt that we’ll get hit again by terrorists.

As for the latest incident, the best law enforcement minds on Earth are trying to ascertain whether the shooter was acting out of hatred for gay people or whether he was acting as a radical Islamic terrorist.

I’m glad the governor flew the Florida flag at Governor’s Mansion. The politicization? It seems a bit premature.

national news

Yes, call it an ‘act of terror’

terror

It doesn’t matter to me in the least — in this moment of profound grief and shock — what precisely motivated Omar Mateen to do what he did early this morning in Orlando, Fla.

He committed a terrorist act.

Was he motivated by some perversion of Islam? Was he motivated by hatred of the LGBT community? Was he just pissed off at the world in general?

Mateen was a 29-year-old American who decided to open fire with an AR-15 at a gay night club in Orlando. Fifty people are dead — so far; several of the injured are in critical condition. This madman committed the worst such mass murder in American history.

He has terrorized an entire city. Orlando has been shaken to its core. Mateen died in the melee, which of course deprives authorities of the chance to question the perp about why he committed this dastardly act.

Mateen has completed successfully a singular mission, which was to frighten a community. That, by itself, is the definition of a terrorist.

We’ll get to the truth eventually as to what motivated this monster. He reportedly proclaimed some allegiance the Islamic State; he might have been an ISIS agent, or he might have what’s been called a “lone wolf.”

Perhaps the biggest puzzle to solve will be this: How did this guy, who was on an FBI/Homeland Security “watch list” manage to continue to move about freely — and arm himself with an AR-15?

We’ll get these answers in due course.

Meantime, let’s all say it together: An American community has been struck by an act of terrorism.

International news

Was it a terror attack … or something else?

egypt air

I’m puzzled.

Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting Donald J. Trump bellowed that he is absolutely certain it was a terrorist attack.

Democratic nominee-to-be Hillary Rodham Clinton said in more restrained tones that it appears to be an act of terror.

Greek aviation officials said mechanical failure likely wasn’t the cause.

FBI director James Comey has dispatched the finest investigators in the world to the scene of the tragedy.

Everyone seems to think the downing of EgyptAir 804 was the act of the Islamic State, or al-Qaeda, or some other nefarious, evil group.

Where, though, are the claims of responsibility?

History tells us that ISIS is quick to take “credit” for these evil acts. Al-Qaeda is a little slower to do so, but not this slow.

Indeed, terrorist groups want the world to know they have succeeded in committing these terrible deeds. In the case of this tragedy, 66 people have died. The jetliner was en route from Paris to Cairo when it veered 90 degrees and then spun in a circle before apparently plummeting into the Mediterranean Sea near the Greek island of Karpathos.

So, the question must be asked: Was it an act of terror?

The latest news is that sensors reportedly detected smoke inside the plane moments before it plunged into the sea.

Was it mechanical or electrical failure after all?

Let’s turn for just a moment to the politics of it all.

Perhaps you heard Trump say immediately that terrorists did this, that anything less than an all-out retaliatory strike against ISIS would be a sign of weakness.

Clinton didn’t want to be left on the sidelines, as she, too, sought to lay blame, although not with the bellicosity that Trump exhibited.

There remains a good chance that search teams will find the flight data recorders on the sea bottom. Absent any declaration of responsibility from terrorists, it would be wise in the extreme to see what’s contained in those recorders.

 

 

International news, military news

ISIS leader becomes new No. 1 target

AAfl1uw

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has become a marked man.

Who is this guy? He is the leader of the Islamic State. He heads the world’s most formidable terrorist organization.

What if we get him? Will it mean the end of the organization. Probably not by itself, but it would cripple the Islamic State in a way that all the bombs and missiles we’re dropping on the terrorists.

This is a big deal at many levels.

According to Bloomberg News Service: “Eliminating Baghdadi is seen as a particularly important goal, the official said, because he holds a unique role in being able to inspire and organize extremists beyond the territory held by the group. While declining to compare the effort to the operation that led to the killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in 2011, the official said the U.S. has a proven track record of finding a top target once it sets its sights.”

President Obama and Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced recently the deployment of a special operations team that is set up to help Kurdish and Iraqi forces fighting ISIS units. The team is expected to deploy teams acting on intelligence gathered by CIA operatives, the National Security Agency, the FBI, Navy SEALs and Army Delta Force commandos.

These folks all are quite good at what we ask them to do.

Which is to hunt down and eliminate bad guys.

 

national news

What harm do background checks bring?

3 Comments

gun-control

I am a law-abiding, taxpaying, loyal American patriot, who once wore my country’s uniform and went to war to protect it.

I also own a couple of rifles. They’re hidden away. I don’t take them out very often.

But as the nation today ponders the impact of the latest mass shooting by a maniac, this time at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., I am compelled to ponder: What would happen if I went to a gun store to purchase a firearm and was forced to wait a few days while the government performed a background check?

President Obama has called yet again for more stringent laws that might help prevent future maniacs from getting their hands on a gun.

Gun-rights groups — chiefly the National Rifle Association — will argue against any such action, contending it would violate the Second Amendment guarantee that Americans have the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Suppose we had mandatory background checks.

I’d go into the gun store. I’d select my weapon of choice. I would pay for the firearm. But I couldn’t take it home. Why? The business owner would submit my name to, say, the FBI or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for that mandatory federal background check.

I would wait a number of days. Let’s say it’s a week.

The check comes back. I’m clean. I can then pick up my firearm, take it home … and perhaps store it along with the two rifles I already own.

Have my Second Amendment rights been “infringed”? Have I been denied the right to “keep and bear arms”? Is the government going to disarm me?

No to all three things.

Why on God’s Earth can’t we enact a law that might prevent someone else from committing the kind of dastardly act that took place today in Roseburg?

 

medical news, military news, national news

Shooter was a drugged-up nut case?

The man who killed those five U.S. servicemen in Chattanooga, Tenn., now appears to have been a disturbed fellow who might have had a drug problem.

Police killed Mohammad Abdulazeez after he gunned down four Marines and a sailor.

CHATTANOOGA SHOOTER: ON ANTIDEPRESSANTS, SLEEPING PILLS, MUSCLE RELAXANTS

He was a Muslim, which of course brought out the usual calls for doing such things as banning all Muslims from entering the United States.

However, the FBI has not yet found a single terrorist link to the young man. What’s been learned instead is that he was a deeply troubled fellow with a history of emotional trauma and drug abuse.

Indeed, his medical condition sounded like it could be anyone capable of doing what he did.

It’s depressing enough that someone would kill five American servicemen in cold blood. It’s made even worse when we start jumping to conclusions that seek to intensify an already-intense worldwide situation involving international terrorists.

Abdulazeez likely wasn’t a terrorist. Yes, he committed a despicable act. However, until we find evidence that he was involved with terrorist organizations, we ought to stop the demagoguery until we collect all the facts.

national news, religious news

Free speech does have its limits

3 Comments

Garland police officers responded as they should have when two gunmen opened fire at a “contest” to draw the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

They shot the men dead.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/05/be-thankful-innocent-people-didnt-die-but-dont-tell-me-the-garland-conference-was-about-free-speech.html/

Now the debate has ensued. Were the provocateurs — the folks who sponsored a contest they knew would provoke that kind of response from Muslims — merely exercising their rights of “free speech”?

My answer? No.

They knew that illustrating the prophet is offensive to Muslims. Indeed, the group that sponsored the “contest,” an outfit called the American Freedom Defense Initiative, has been identified as an extremist anti-Muslim group.

So, do you think these folks knew what to expect when they staged this event? My guess is that they knew.

The shooters were described as Islamists. One of them, Elton Simpson, allegedly wrote a good-bye note to his friends and family before he started shooting. He knew he’d meet his end in Garland.

As Jim Mitchell of the Dallas Morning News writes in his blog: “Islamic extremism is a global curse. Cartoon contests in Garland aren’t going make a bit of difference in combating it. But insensitive contests like the one yesterday will provoke lone wolves and insult an entire religion. And I ask, to what purpose? This wasn’t discourse; it was a opportunity to draw offensive cartoons for the sake of drawing offensive cartoons. My idea of defensible free expression has a higher and more noble purpose.”

It’s widely established and known around the world that Muslims don’t react well when Muhammad is depicted in cartoons or illustrated simply for the sake of producing a worldly image. Do non-Muslims agree with this religious tenet? No. But it’s not non-Muslims’ place to judge how those who worship a certain religion are supposed to believe.

We should be grateful that the FBI had tipped off the Garland Police Department.

Its officers responded correctly.

State news

Group stains secessionists' name

Texas secessionists have enough of a negative reputation that they don’t need another stain on their soiled reputation.

But by golly, here comes a group that takes the argument a nonsensical step farther.

The “Republic of Texas” says the state, which joined the Union in 1845 after being independent for nine years, never really became part of the United States of America. This group meets monthly in what it calls a joint session of congress. It manufactures its own money.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/secede-%e2%80%98republic%e2%80%99-claims-texas-never-joined-us/ar-AA9yzL9

These yahoos even claim some type of diplomatic immunity by presenting ID cards to police officers who stop them for committing infractions of various natures.

The Republic of Texas went too far, according to the FBI, in ordering a judge in Kerrville to appear in a “court hearing” involving his foreclosure order on a Republic member’s home. The FBI broke into a meeting the group was conducting, didn’t arrest anyone but made it known that the federal agency took a dim view of the stunts the group is trying to pull.

Interestingly, the disruption of the meeting apparently ginned up some support for this fringiest of fringe groups. Amazing, indeed.

Man, I don’t know how to process all of this. We live in crazy times, I suppose. Any group can do just about anything, short of advocating for the violent overthrow of the government — which always has been the case, given our First Amendment rights written into the U.S. Constitution.

However … why this group? And why in Texas, for crying out loud?

Our state has enough public relations issues with which to deal without having to answer for the shenanigans of these loons.