Political I didn't Do It Cartoons

Gregg Jarrett: Lynch, the Clintons and a series of fantastic coincidences

I don’t believe in coincidences. Not when it comes to crimes. Especially when they involve political corruption.  

No such thing as a coincidence.  Doesn’t exist.  

Yet, we are led to believe it was merely a coincidence that Bill Clinton just happened to be on the tarmac of an Arizona airport at the same time as then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.  We are supposed to accept that their private meeting on board Lynch’s plane had nothing whatsoever to do with the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton which the A-G was overseeing at the time. 

Right.  They just “schmoozed” about grandkids and what-not.
I guess it was also just a coincidence that a few days after the furtive tarmac meeting the decision was announced that criminal charges against Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president, would not be filed, notwithstanding compelling evidence that she repeatedly violated the Espionage Act by storing highly classified documents on her private, unauthorized and unsecured email server in the basement of her home.
Sure. Makes perfect sense. To a naïve, gullible fool.
Maybe it was purely a coincidence that there was another FBI investigation going on involving Russia’s corruption-fueled purchase of U.S uranium assets and which also happened to implicate the Clintons, but was kept hidden from Congress and the American people by Lynch and her predecessor, Eric Holder. Hmm…
And perhaps it was simply an odd coincidence that the investigation of this uranium bribery, extortion, money laundering and kickback case was supervised by then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, his successor James Comey, and then-U.S Attorney Rod Rosenstein, all of whom appear to have covered it up but are now directly involved in the Trump-Russia probe.
Strange confluence of people and events, eh?
I don’t buy any of it. Not for one minute. And not entirely because I don’t believe in coincidences. It is because all the above-mentioned people are known to trifle with the law or ignore disqualifying conflicts of interest. They seem to be without principles --devoid of the kind of scruples that should guide people in service of our government.
Mueller is serving as special counsel in the Trump-Russia case.  He reports to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who appointed him.
Yet both Rosenstein and fired FBI Director James Comey are witnesses in the case, since Rosenstein recommended to President Trump that Comey be fired.
It is well established that Comey and Mueller are long-time friends, allies and former partners. How can Mueller be fair and impartial given these glaring conflicts of interest? He cannot. And he should recuse himself. Rosenstein should also step aside in overseeing the case. He cannot be prosecutor and witness simultaneously. 
Their conflicts are compounded by recent reports that all three men were involved in the Russian uranium case which was kept hidden from Congress. How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia case if they engaged in a cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case? 
Which brings us to Hillary and Bill. The Clinton name is synonymous with scandal. The sleazy Whitewater land deals, an illicit affair with a young White House intern that led to impeachment, deceptions following the Benghazi murders, Travelgate, cattle futures, suspected slush funds, evidence of perjury, the list is seemingly endless.
Through it all, the ability of the Clintons to evade indictments would make Houdini proud. They are escape artists of the highest order.
Loretta Lynch should never have presided over the Hillary Clinton email case. She owed her career to none other than Bill Clinton who nominated her to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York which nicely positioned her for elevation to Attorney General a few years later.
She should have recused herself from the Hillary probe from the outset, but did not. Only when the ethically-challenged tarmac meeting took place did she step aside. Belatedly. Supposedly. I have my doubts.
On Friday, Lynch met behind closed doors with the House Intelligence Committee. Too bad the public was deprived of witnessing an attempt to elicit the truth. But secrecy is endemic in Washington, which is precisely why it is so easy to obscure the truth when power corrupts.
Lynch was likely asked to explain the full content of the infamous tarmac conversation with Bill Clinton that lasted approximately 30 minutes. Did Clinton remind Lynch of how much she owed him?  Are we to believe that he never broached the potential indictment of his wife with the very person who could decide her fate?
It is likely Lynch was asked by the Intel Committee if she ever directed Comey to mischaracterize the Clinton email case as a “matter” instead of what it truly was, a criminal investigation. Was Lynch downplaying the case because she planned to scuttle any criminal charges? Did she assure anyone in the Clinton orbit that prosecution would never happen, incriminating evidence be damned?
Finally, why did Lynch allow Comey to usurp the power of the Attorney General in announcing that no criminal charges would be forthcoming against Clinton? It was bad enough that Comey misinterpreted the law on “intent” and “gross negligence,” but Lynch appears to have allowed her office to acquiesce in Comey’s decision. Why?
Since Friday’s hearing was secretive, we may never learn the answers to serious questions that appear to involve lawlessness and rampant corruption.
Instead, we are left to wonder whether it was all just a confluence of fantastic coincidences. 

Liz Peek: John Kelly showed us what incredible dignity, honor and truthfulness look like

On Thursday, John Kelly reminded the country what dignity looks like. In a hushed White House briefing room, President Trump’s chief of staff recounted that most painful of human experiences, the loss of a child. The former general spoke of the circumstances under which the bodies of fallen soldiers are returned to their families, how their loved ones are told of their heartbreaking loss, what it is like to deliver the most devastating news imaginable.

He solemnly described how Marine General Joseph Dunford had delivered the news that his own son had been killed in Afghanistan. And how he had recently visited Arlington Cemetery to visit the graves of Marines who died under his own watch. He said these things with grace and dignity.

It was impossible to watch the retired four-star general without feeling at once inspired but also discouraged that so much of what consumes the public these days is petty and inconsequential. Even somber personal tragedies like the death of a soldier can be hijacked by those looking to score political points. The constant back-and-forth of “gotcha” journalism – the kind of story that, in fact, inspired John Kelly’s address to the press corps – drives headlines and delivers “clicks” but also helps create today’s toxic discourse. And yes, it comes from both sides and I do not absolve myself.
It also comes from our leaders. President Trump has been derided endlessly for his lack of decorum, his inability to resist tweet-storming critics and telling whoppers about topics important and unimportant. But President Obama taking selfies at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service or jumping into a golf cart minutes after declaring himself “heartbroken” over ISIS’ savage beheading of James Foley isn’t dignified either.
Nor is Hillary Clinton yelling “At this point what difference does it make?” at the committee investigating the lies told about the deaths in Benghazi.

It was impossible to watch the retired four-star general without feeling at once inspired but also discouraged that so much of what consumes the public these days is petty and inconsequential.

Don’t even get me started linking Bill, Monica Lewinsky and the Resolute desk in the Oval Office. This piece is supposed to be about dignity.
How do we turn this around? President George W. Bush lamented the “casual cruelty” of today’s public discourse, in a recent speech widely interpreted as a rebuke to President Trump. At the same forum, President Obama piled on, saying “What we can’t have is the same old politics of division that we have seen so many times before that dates back centuries.”
It might be helpful if both those gentlemen acknowledged that they bear some responsibility for those widening political fault lines. Donald Trump was not elected by accident; Americans were angry over Obama’s aggressive identity politics and progressive agenda of the past eight years, and by the financial crisis overseen by Bush.
They were angry that their prospects had stagnated for over a decade. For years, America’s workers have been slighted as our leaders pursued global ambitions and forgot to tend the home fires. Bush can bemoan the “fading confidence in the value of free markets and international trade” but that value seems slight to an out-of-work steel maker in Pennsylvania. As Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross recently wrote in an oped published in the Wall Street Journal, “China’s tariffs are higher than those of the U.S. in 20 of the 22 major categories of goods. Europe imposes higher tariffs than the U.S. in 17 of 22 categories…” Our leaders have not been paying attention. It would help if Chuck Schumer, Rand Paul and so many others could stop posturing long enough to place the good of their countrymen about political one-upmanship.
There are important issues facing the country, but these folks have no sense of urgency, other than appeasing their funders and scoring political points. The battle over health care is dire for millions of Americans, but rather than work together to fix ObamaCare, which every sane person can acknowledge is deeply flawed, our politicians spend their time making sure they are not blamed for soaring premiums and ever-narrower choices.
These troubles are not new, and did not begin with President Trump. Those of us who follow current events intently do not often look up and survey a wide landscape. When we do, the horizon can appear dark.
John Kelly reminded us what dignity, honor and truthfulness looks like, and how they can illuminate that darkness. He put us in touch with what Abraham Lincoln called the “better angels of our nature,” however briefly. For that the country should thank him.

The Left has gun-toting militias of its own, Charlottesville lawsuit reveals

With a name like Redneck Revolt, one “paramilitary” group named in a lawsuit filed in the wake of the deadly Charlottesville protests sounds like the classic alt-right, gun-toting militia many blame for the August incident that sparked a national debate on race and guns.

But Redneck Revolt is a sometimes-armed militia that left-wing protesters have apparently started calling on for security, and critics say it represents a growing group of heat-packing, far-left social justice warriors who are “willing to take on personal risk to defend those in our community,” according to the group’s website.

The lawsuit, brought by The Georgetown Law Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP), could shine a light on groups like Redneck Revolt by lumping them in with not only admitted fascist groups like Vanguard America, but also the conservative militias whose leaders say they came to safeguard participants in the Aug. 11 Unite the Right rally that exploded into violence.

"All it takes is one jumpy person pulling a trigger."

- Left-wing protester

Many fear the bitter climate surrounding race, free speech and politics, combined with the presence of guns, is creating a combustible situation – and the potential for deadly violence to break out at events featuring protesters, counter-protesters and self-appointed amateur armed guards.
"If you get into an arms race with a bunch of scared people who have little or no experience of gun violence—I’m talking about antifascists as well as the alt fascists, we’re scared too—you’re creating an extremely volatile situation," a counter-protester who claimed to have been at Charlottesville told the website CrimethInc. "All it takes is one jumpy person pulling a trigger."
The more prominent defendants targeted in the suit include Unite the Right organizer Jason Kessler and a handful of fascist groups that attended. But ICAP is also taking aim at left-leaning paramilitary organizations that turned out that day, militias that claim their members were only on scene to keep the peace.
"Private armies" caused "irreparable and incalculable injuries" to the city as well as various local businesses and neighborhood groups, the lawsuit claims. Damages include loss of revenue and a general negative association with businesses in the city, the plaintiffs argue. The suit suggests these “unauthorized” militias undercut the local government's "authority to protect public safety,”  and aims to "prevent defendants from returning to Virginia organized as military units and engaging in paramilitary activity."
Redneck Revolt and other armed militias that were present say they were keeping the peace – regardless of who they were defending. Christian Yingling, a defendant and commanding officer of an organization called Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia, argued in a lengthy Facebook post that his group, which he said was there to provide security for Unite the Right protesters, coordinated with the Charlottesville Police Department prior to the event.

"I don't think it's ludicrous that if white supremacists are carrying guns that anti-fascists might want to carry guns, too," Mark Bray, a visiting Dartmouth professor  (Associated Press)

Not only did police know they were coming with weapons to defend participants, Yingling wrote, police “escorted us personally to the park... the Charlottesville police told us it was perfectly fine for us to be there, and perfectly legal for us to be armed." The Charlottesville Police Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
New York Light Foot militia commander George Curbelo, also named in the suit, posted a photo to Facebook that he said proves his militia was escorted by members of law enforcement, and that his group was “in Charlottesville as a neutral, non-violent group.” No one seems to be disputing that members of groups like The Light Foot militias, the Virginia Minutemen and Redneck Revolt were legally carrying firearms. The dispute is whether they made things safer, or more dangerous.
Members of Redneck Revolt have said they were sought by counter-demonstrators to provide safety. Yet, the group’s relationship to the left-wing protesters appears to be absent from ICAP’s suit.
"Just as they had anticipated and indeed desired, these [white-nationalist] groups encountered significant resistance from counter-protestors within the so-called Antifa and other movements," the lawsuit states. It goes on to suggest that those counter-protesters "fought back with comparable intensity, though without the hallmarks of private armies that characterized the Alt-Right Defendants’ contributions to the day’s violence."
While there is no evidence of any Redneck Revolt members being involved in violence, the lawsuit’s suggestion that the left was without a private army of its own - especially since Redneck Revolt is named as a defendant – seems a glaring omission.
Redneck Revolt's website describes it as "a pro-worker, anti-racist organization that focuses on working-class liberation from the oppressive systems which dominate our lives,” inspired in part by violent abolitionist John Brown.
The mission statement goes on to say, “In states where it is legal to practice armed community defense, many branches choose to become John Brown Gun Clubs, training ourselves and our communities in defense and mutual aid."
Redneck Revolt boasts more than 40 chapters nationwide, and various branches have reported membership increases since the Charlottesville incident. Attempts to reach the group’s communication arm were unsuccessful.
One member of Redneck Revolt, who was not in Charlottesville and asked not to be identified, told Fox News "we're not Antifa... we're not going to be hitting people." Yet at rallies including one in Phoenix earlier this year, members have threatened the property of people who merely attempt to video or photograph them.
Like some of their conservative counterparts, Redneck Revolt has apparently captured the attention of the FBI. According to one law enforcement source, warnings have been distributed to agencies across the country regarding their group and others.

Members of the John Brown Gun Club and Redneck Revolt protest outside the Phoenix Convention Center, Tuesday, Aug. 22, 2017, in Phoenix. Protests were held against President Trump as he hosted a rally inside the convention center. (AP Photo/Matt York)  (Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

In an e-mail to Fox, a spokesperson for the FBI’s national press office suggested they couldn’t comment on the existence of such a bulletin, before adding that the bureau “does not track membership in domestic extremist groups as membership in a group is not illegal… The FBI may only initiate an investigation based upon information or allegations that an activity constitutes a federal crime or a threat to national security.”
A self-described Redneck Revolt member who said he was in Charlottesville for the protests told the "Feminist Killjoys, PhD" podcast that while there may be historical parallels with organizations like the Black Panthers, the presence of “armed leftists on the streets of an American city [preserving and protecting] human life... was kind of a historical shift."
In a podcast on Redneck Revolt’s website, another alleged member who was on the ground in Charlottesville admits that the use of firearms was a point of serious debate, but that “when we came up to the day, the extremity of the situation was realized by all involved.”

"I don't think it's ludicrous that if white supremacists are carrying guns that anti-fascists might want to carry guns, too."

- Mark Bray, Dartmouth professor

“Folks realized that there needed to be armed security because the fascists were absolutely coming in swinging,” he said, adding that members were showered with gratitude by the protesters they came to defend.
Left-wing groups carrying legal guns at demonstrations have is a notion that’s seeing some support in academia.
"I don't think it's ludicrous that if white supremacists are carrying guns that anti-fascists might want to carry guns, too," Mark Bray, a visiting Dartmouth professor and author of "ANTIFA: The Anti-Fascist Handbook," told a New York gathering in September.
Dwayne Dixon, who is listed as a faculty member on the UNC Chapel Hill Asian Studies Department, is allegedly a member of Redneck Revolt, and was arrested in August for bringing a gun to a public place in anticipation of a white supremacist rally in Durham – an event that never wound up happening.
Dixon did not respond to Fox News requests for comment. But in an interview with a local newspaper, he said he acted out of "real concern” about “a kind of tone that I had never heard by citizens of this city." He added that he was not trying to "play Rambo."

Dwayne Dixon stands for a portrait at the skate park on Monday, Sept. 4, 2017, in Durham, N.C. He is a UNC-Chapel Hill anthropology lecture and a member of the Silver Valley Redneck Revolt, an organization promoting community armed self defense. Dixon joined in 2016 and was recently charged with two misdemeanors in connection with having a semi-automatic rifle as people took to the streets in Durham to protest a rumored KKK march on Friday, Aug. 18. (Casey Toth/The Herald-Sun via AP)

ICAP’s lawsuit doesn’t attempt to separate militia groups by their alliances, saying all of the armed groups “terrified local residents and caused attendees to mistake them for authorized military personnel.”
Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group often derided for harboring a bias for left-wing groups, reportedly also disagrees with the tactics of armed militias.
“We just don’t need volunteers with guns coming to public rallies,” Cohen said in an interview. “It’s a recipe for disaster."

Melania Trump cuts bloated first lady payroll from Michelle Obama days

Melania Trump has significantly reduced the number of aides on government payroll in the first lady’s office compared to former first lady Michelle Obama.  (Reuters)

Melania Trump is embracing a more active and public schedule as first lady – but she still runs one of the leanest East Wing operations in recent history.

According to a Fox News analysis of White House personnel reports, Melania Trump has significantly reduced the number of aides on the first lady's office payroll in comparison to her predecessor, Michelle Obama.

During then-President Barack Obama’s first year in office, 16 people were listed working for Michelle Obama, earning a combined $1.24 million a year.
This year, just four people were listed working for Melania Trump as of June. Their salaries totaled $486,700.

Melania Trump staff salaries

• Lindsay B. Reynolds -- $179,700.00 -- assistant to the president and chief of staff to the first lady
• Stephanie A. Grisham -- $115,000.00 – special assistant to the president and director of communications for the first lady
• Timothy G. Tripepi -- $115,000.00 – special assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff of operations for the first lady
• Mary‐Kathryn Fisher -- $77,000.00 – deputy director of advance for the first lady

• Source: June 2017 report to Congress on White House personnel

The details are contained in an annual report the White House sends to Congress showing the names, positions and salaries of all its personnel. Both the Obama and Trump administrations acknowledged several additional staffers beyond those listed in the report with the term “first lady” in their titles. But even counting all those employees -- 24 for Michelle Obama and nine for the current first lady -- Melania Trump's office is relatively small.
It's an approach her spokeswoman says is intentional.
“As with all things that she does, she is being very deliberate in her hiring, focusing on quality over quantity,” communications director Stephanie Grisham said in an email. “It is important to her that the team is a good fit for what she wants to accomplish as first lady, and that everyone works well together. She also wants to be mindful and responsible when it comes to taxpayer money.”

This year, just four people were listed working for Melania Trump as of June. Their salaries totaled $486,700.  (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst)

While the 2009 annual report listed 16 staffers for Michelle Obama, her press secretary said at the time the staff actually included 24 people. A 2009 FactCheck.org story said Obama’s 24 aides might have broken records.
“That may indeed be the largest of any first lady, but Hillary Clinton, with 19 staffers, and Laura Bush with at least 18 and perhaps more, weren’t far behind,” FactCheck.org said.

Michelle Obama staff salaries

• Susan S. Sher -- $172,200.00 -- assistant to the president and chief of staff to the first lady
• Jocelyn C. Frye -- $140,000.00 -- deputy assistant to the president and director of policy and projects for the first lady
• Camille Y. Johnston -- $102,000.00 – special assistant to the president and director of communications for the first lady
• Melissa E. Winter -- $102,000.00 – special assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff to the first lady
• David S. Medina -- $90,000.00 – deputy chief of staff to the first lady
• Catherine M. Lelyveld -- $84,000.00 director and press secretary to the first lady
• Frances M. Starkey -- $75,000.00 – director of scheduling and advance for the first lady
• Trooper Sanders -- $70,000.00 -- deputy director of policy and projects for the first lady
• Jennifer R. Goodman -- $62,000.00 – deputy director of scheduling and events coordinator for the first lady
• Alan Fitts -- $60,000.00 – deputy director of advance and trip director for the first lady
• Dana M. Lewis -- $60,000.00 – special assistant and personal aide to the first lady
• Semonti M. Mustaphi -- $52,500.00 – associate director and deputy press secretary to the first lady
• Kristen E. Jarvis -- $50,000.00 – special assistant for scheduling and traveling aide to the first lady
• Tyler A. Lechtenberg -- $45,000.00 – associate director of correspondence for the first lady
• Joseph J. Boswell -- $40,000.00 – executive assistant to the chief of staff to the first lady
• Deilia A. Jackson -- $36,000.00 – deputy associate director of correspondence for the first lady 

• Source: July 2009 report to Congress on White House personnel

Grisham told Fox News this week there are nine people working in the East Wing under Melania Trump, a few more than listed in the annual report.
According to those personnel reports, Melania Trump’s staffers include a chief of staff, a communications director, a deputy chief of staff and a deputy director of advance.
Michelle Obama’s staff included those same positions and a slew of others: additional press aides, a director of policy and projects, a personal aide, a traveling aide and a director of correspondence.
Michelle Obama’s office did not return a request for comment.
But the larger staff is likely due in part to Michelle Obama entering the East Wing with a more aggressive agenda and embracing initiatives like her Let's Move! child obesity campaign.
During the first few months of the Trump presidency, Melania Trump and son, Barron, remained in New York as he finished the school year.
But she has noticeably ramped up public activity in recent weeks, including hosting a roundtable discussion on the opioid crisis and traveling with her husband to tour the destruction of hurricanes and meet with the victims of the Las Vegas massacre.
“She is more like a Pat Nixon or a Bess Truman than a Hillary Clinton or a Michelle Obama,” Andrew Och, a first lady historian who was a producer for the C-SPAN's “First Ladies: Influence and Image” series, said of Melania Trump.

During then-President Barack Obama’s first year in office, 16 people were listed working for Michelle Obama, earning a combined $1.24 million a year.  (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)

Och noted that there is no formal job description for a first lady and each one defines their role. Melania Trump, he said, does not come from the world of politics and “clearly does not feel the need for the larger staffs that her predecessors have had.”
The first lady’s office isn’t the only place in the White House where the Trump administration has trimmed staff positions. When the White House personnel report was released in June, Forbes reported 110 fewer employees under Donald Trump than Barack Obama and said the projected four-year savings resulting from the cuts could be more than $22 million.