The Face of Tyranny
This business of the FBI allegedly conducting an unauthorized and independent investigation against the President of the United States simply because he fired James Comey, smacks of high treason. The operative word here is “unauthorized.” Investigations by federal investigative agencies with authority to make arrests, must be authorized by some higher authority empowered, by statute, to requests such an investigation. It’s called “Predication.” Who authorized the investigation into Donald Trump? It was McCabe, a Trump hater. Upon what criminal or CI issue was it predicated? It was an attempted coup against the President.
In the military, a commanding officer, of any level of command, can request an investigation on so and so, or such and such to gather facts incidental to a crime or issues deemed prejudicial to good order and discipline. Depending on the nature of the suspected crime or person to be investigated, such requests, if on major incidents, like felonies, counter-intelligence issues and etc., most often will rise to higher authority for ‘predication.’ An investigation request by a ship’s captain, if serious enough will nearly always rise to a squadron, flotilla or fleet command level before any investigation is officially opened, let alone conducted.
For any federal policing agency, with the powers of arrest, to independently initiate an investigation against any individual without authorization from higher authority, marks that agency as ‘rogue’ and therefore criminal, and would render any evidence collected, any arrest made and any prosecution desired, absolutely untenable. Agents involved could be fired, prosecuted themselves and open for personal damage law suites.
These are the practices of totalitarian states. It is not how America has done its policing. The former East Germany’s Stazi, the Soviets KGB and whatever the Chinese call their secret police, are prime examples of police states. Their authority to protect the state is omnipotent and their tactics authorized. Their very existence strikes fear and terror into the populace, like the Gestapo of Nazi Germany did. They are never challenged and it is from these quarters where citizens are visited by arrests in the dark of night, brutal interrogations in hidden prison cells often ending with a midnight “affronter a mort” with a bullet.
So, how did this Gestapo mentality infect America’s FBI? The disease of police tyranny appears to be limited only to the highest levels of the FBI. Street level agents will investigate as they are told and that could include raids ending in violence. That is the face of tyranny! Attorneys should never run a police agency. The Director of the FBI must be one who has risen through the FBI’s ranks. At the federal level, career DoJ attorneys with agendas, are easily corruptible.
Is this our America now? Have the Clinton’s and the Obama’s so polluted the government politically that the “deep state,’ long embedded in the hierarchy of the FBI, DoJ and the IRS, no longer fear the wrath of the American people? Who’s going to call them out? Who’s going to get the ball of justice rolling? The Clinton’s remain free, Loretta Lynch remains free, Lois Learner remains free, John Brennan remains free, the former DNI remains free, James Comey remains free, Strzok and Page both remain free. When will the hand of justice pick this ripe fruit?
What the NYT did, believing they were exposing a hot scoop against Trump, was to rip the scab off the wound and further reveal the depth of political tyranny in the FBI. I’m growing tired of this criminal unaccountability by the Left. We’ll soon have a new Attorney General. Let’s hope he gets the ball rolling. Let’s expect to see justice done. The alternative is also unacceptable.
Remember, freedom is the goal, the Constitution is the way. Now, go get ‘em!
ICYMI: A Second Special Counsel Would Boost the DOJ’s Credibility
WASHINGTON—This op ed by Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) first appeared in RealClearPolicy on December 5, 2017.
Recently, the House Judiciary Committee conducted an oversight hearing of the Department of Justice (DOJ) that allowed representatives from both parties to question Attorney General Jeff Sessions. In response, some have asserted that appointing a second special counsel to investigate decisions made by the DOJ in 2016 would be a partisan maneuver, damaging the independence of the Department.
I too am concerned about preserving the independence of the Justice Department — which is precisely why Judiciary Committee Republicans have called for a special counsel to investigate matters outside the scope of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
The Judiciary Committee’s letters have been belittled as “a laundry list of Republican grievances about Clinton and former FBI director James B. Comey.” But they document persistent and unanswered questions about the independence of the DOJ, and specifically whether it may have been compromised under the Obama administration. These letters are themselves tools of oversight to be used on behalf of the millions of Americans whose democratic government owes them answers.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s independent e-mail server warranted a DOJ investigation, even if former Attorney General Loretta Lynch provided one in name only. (Actually, she failed to deliver even that, instructing former FBI Director James Comey to call the investigation a “matter.”) Americans are well-stocked with outstanding questions about how the DOJ handled these issues, and the specter of favoritism still looms over the Obama DOJ. The possibility that the department made decisions to aid a political candidate is a potential threat to democracy — one that deserves a DOJ investigation today just as it did in 2016.
At the same time, I recognize that some of my friends across the aisle lack confidence that a Republican-appointed DOJ would conduct such an investigation impartially. Hearing those concerns, I submit that a second special counsel offers Americans the opportunity to pursue answers to these questions without even the appearance of partisan impropriety. After all, independent counsels are like dentists: They scare everyone who hasn’t flossed.
Concerns about DOJ investigations and appointing special counsels too often come to us frosted in hyper-partisan language. This obscures the crux of the liberal argument against the move: Neither the DOJ under Attorney General Jeff Sessions nor an independent special counsel is capable of investigating Clinton. According to this logic, there exists no credible path for investigating potential favoritism on the part of America’s chief law enforcement officials. It would follow that the world’s strongest democracy is impotent when it comes to pursuing objective, unfettered, non-partisan accountability of its own federal agencies.
As a member of the committee charged with exercising oversight of the entire Department of Justice and the representative of approximately 700,000 Georgian voices, I have a bit more faith in the checks and balances that undergird our justice system — including the utility of the special counsel position.
Party loyalty aside, the DOJ made many decisions last year that have led to a host of unresolved questions, and the American people deserve answers. For example, why did former Attorney General Lynch direct former FBI Director Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation? Why did Mr. Comey prepare a statement ending the investigation into former Secretary Clinton before interviewing 17 key witnesses, including the former secretary herself?
These and other questions about the independence of the DOJ continue to cast a shadow on our nation’s justice system. By addressing them directly, a second special counsel could strengthen the DOJ’s credibility, reestablishing its reputation as a non-partisan agent of justice.
Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) is Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference and a member of the House Judiciary Committee.