The Great Smoky Mountain Journal
Staff Reports
Posted: Monday, January 01, 2018 12:43 PM
OUR VIEW: As An Obama Judge Seeks To Jail An 85-Year Old Sheriff Doing His Job, Clinton, Lynch, And Comey Are The Ones Who Really Belong Behind Bars
Let's take former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who garnered nationwide attention for his crackdown on illegal immigration for many years while enforcing the law along the southern border in his southern Arizona town. Arpaio was convicted earlier this week of criminal contempt by a federal judge in Arizona. The ruling carries a possible maximum sentence of six months in jail and a monetary fine for the 85-year-old hero of the right who stood up both publicly and privately to the Obama Administration over its lax immigration policies.
During his 24 years as sheriff of Maricopa County, which contains the Phoenix metro area, the self-styled "America's Toughest Sheriff" found plaudits in many conservative circles for his severe enforcement policies — and deep criticism from the liberal left who claimed his practices amounted to racial profiling.
The misdemeanor criminal conviction handed down Monday by District Judge Susan Bolton, an Obama appointee, found that Arpaio knowingly violated another federal judge's order in 2011 that prohibited Arpaio and his sheriff's office from detaining immigrants simply because they lacked legal status. Yet, for 18 months, his deputies carried on with the practice.
The 2011 ruling came from U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow, another Obama winner, who issued the preliminary injunction ordering Arpaio and his deputies to stop targeting Latino drivers.
In May 2013, Snow went further with his attempts to stop Arpaio's office, agreeing with the narrative of the left in this nation saying Arpaio had engaged in "racial profiling." So, for basically upholding the law and keeping illegal immigrants out of the country, Arpaio was found to have committed civil contempt.
Only in America when one sworn to uphold and enforce the laws, that are written on the law books of our nation, does just that and then that individual gets accused of racial profiling. Lovely.
Arpaio's defense was he did not discriminate against anyone - at least not intentionally — and so is innocent of criminal contempt — because the judge's orders in 2011 and 2013 were unclear.
Bolton rejected Arpaio's argument, and in many ways as an arm of former President Obama’s policy makers, stuck her middle finger in the face of every law abiding citizen in this nation who are here LEGALLY and not sneaking across the border in boats, cars, and trunks.
According to Bolton, Arpaio, "willfully violated the order by failing to do anything to ensure his subordinates' compliance and by directing them to continue to detain persons for whom no criminal charges could be filed," Bolton wrote in her decision.
Let me reword what Ms. Bolton’s decision really said: "Joe Arpaio stood up to Barrack Obama and his minions and because of his willful rejection of people being in our country illegally, we're going to show him who is boss."
So, as a result of what this judge saw as Sheriff Arpaio breaking the law, there is a possibility the legal justice system in America may jail an 85-year old sheriff for what I see as him merely doing his job in trying to keep dangerous people out of his county. As Clint Eastwood used to say many times in his “Dirty Harry” movies – “swell.”
In contrast, you have the way the Justice Department of the United States has handled the case of former first lady and U.S. Secretary of State, the illustrious, Hillary Clinton. I’d offer another title to her name – the head of the Clinton Crime Cartel. Bill is too stupid to think he’s in charge of this syndicate crime family and if he does think that – he’s stupider than he looks and sounds sometime out on the $25.00 campaign speech trail now. Amazing how the price goes down for your speeches when your criminal foundation no longer exists.
It's interesting to note that there was a time, not so long ago, when candidate Donald Trump vowed, if elected, to have his attorney general appoint a special counsel to reopen the Hillary Clinton email and Clinton Foundation investigation and, if warranted, bring criminal charges against her.
It never happened, of course. And the president has only himself to blame. He also has himself to blame for the fact the swamp has not been drained in D.C., especially among his inner circle. There needed to be a house cleaning of ALL Obama holdovers when he took the oath of office on January 20 and it hasn’t happened. As a result, the President’s enemies have been emboldened on both sides of the aisle and it’s been a pathetic display of leaks and rumors that have nearly sunk his administration.
As I heard Wilford Brimley say in the movie “Absence of Malice,” “the last time there was this many leaks, Noah built an ark.”
In what appeared to be an act of graciousness, President-Elect Trump felt bygones should be bygones and decided not to go after the Clintons, and in doing so basically said the law be damned. Trump should have been reminded of the proverb that no good deed will be left unpunished. All Clinton has done since Trump offered that olive branch is betray him in public and crucify his family and policies at every turn. So much for graciousness.
So now, the president has experienced another change of heart. Under siege by a special counsel who seems to have gone rogue in investigating him and possible Russia collusion with his campaign, Trump is reversing himself and wants the Clinton investigation reexamined.
If prosecuted and convicted, the campaign chants of “lock her up” may become reality – and they should!
As Greg Jarrett, a Fox News host, and former attorney quipped recently, "There is something fundamentally unfair when a special counsel is appointed to investigate the winner of a presidential contest, but not the loser."
Perhaps the president is guilty of a shameless subterfuge. Or, more likely, he genuinely feels he is innocent of any wrongdoing, yet Clinton is not. It’s that fairness thing. But the law cares not a whit about Trump’s desires and motives. It is not fickle, as politicians are prone to be. If you commit a crime, you should be brought to the dock. Period.
The same media applauding the actions of the judge in Arpaio's case believes Clinton is entitled to a “get out of jail free” card. Politics, as it intersects the law, is nothing more than a game like “Monopoly”. In the media’s messed-up mind, Clinton failed in her bid to become president, so she is somehow exempt from abiding by the law. Some even think even mentioning the fact she broke the law several times and committed numerous felonies in the destruction of her emails by Bleach Biting her server and smashing hard drives with hammers is sexist.
Apparently, that is how the Washington Post envisions it. In a recent story, the newspaper justified it this way:
“Trump’s suggestion that his top law enforcement official investigate a former political rival is astounding, and even his allies have said in the past that such a move would be unheard of in the United States.” By this reasoning, any of us could rob a bank, run for president but be excused from investigation and/or prosecution upon losing. This is how stupid the modern day main stream media has become. It gets worse.
Since when do you receive a “get out of jail free” card simply because you are a defeated political rival? Could all manner of crimes be committed by a candidate without fear of legal consequences because of a paucity of votes on election day? Where is that statute written? No legal expert in the world can seem to locate it.
It should be neither “astounding” nor “unheard of” for people to be held accountable for their actions, regardless of their exalted position. If Arpaio broke the law, then he should face consequences. HILLARY NEEDS TO FACE HERS TOO!
Theodore Roosevelt popularized the long-held principle in democracy that “no one is above the law”. Yet, there now appears to be an exception to the rule of law as it applies to Clinton and other cronies such as former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former FBI Director James Comey, all three which make up what I’ll term the “Clinton Collusion Team.”
Fortunately, the House Judiciary Committee does not believe such immunity can be found anywhere on the books. It recently voted to reexamine evidence that Clinton may have broken the law, perhaps with the help of Comey and Lynch.
At the same time, twenty members of the Committee sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking for the appointment of a second special counsel. They identify more than a dozen instances of suspected illegality based on fairly compelling evidence.
There is much to investigate. Did Comey usurp the authority of the Attorney General in terminating the Clinton email investigation? How could downloading more than a hundred classified documents onto Clinton’s private and unsecured email server not constitute crimes under the Espionage Act? Why were five people given immunity while others invoked the Fifth Amendment, yet no grand jury was empanelled?
The Committee is also interested in the extent to which Clinton Foundation donors seemed to have gained special access to the Secretary of State. Did she use her government office to enrich herself, her husband and their foundation? It is a crime to use a public office to confer a benefit to a foreign government in exchange for money. Clinton’s role in approving the “Uranium One” transaction and the timing of Russian donations appear to be of special concern.
Lynch’s role, in particular, should be scrutinized by a special counsel. The Committee cites her private meeting with former President Bill Clinton and actions she allegedly took to mislead the public: “Mr. Comey’s testimony has provided new evidence that Ms. Lynch may have used her position of authority to undermine the Clinton investigation.”
The call for a new special counsel is not limited to investigating Clinton, Comey, and Lynch. It would also be empowered to determine who may have illegally unmasked the names of U.S. citizens, including those in the Trump campaign, incidentally collected by various intelligence agencies.
The Committee identifies former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and ex-United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power as potential suspects. It is a crime to lie in an unmasking request or to use a government office for a political purpose or to leak an unmasked individual. Word came out this week that former National Security Adviser James Clapper eased rules on unmasking procedures as early as 2013.
Finally, the Committee urges a special counsel to determine why the FBI relied on the infamous anti-Trump dossier engineered by Fusion GPS, reportedly at the behest of a Clinton supporter. That dossier is as fake as two-dollar bill but has been used by major news outlets as their “proof” there was Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. That’s bad enough. What’s worse is Senator John McCain was the one given the dossier and he turned it over to the FBI claiming it was proof as well.
Was Russia involved, as evidence suggests? Did the FBI, under Comey, agree to pay a substantial sum of money to someone connected to the dossier?
There is something fundamentally unfair when a special counsel is appointed to investigate the winner of a presidential contest, but not the loser. The imbalance is especially acute when the motives of the current special counsel, Robert Mueller, are inherently suspect.
There is something fundamentally unfair also when a rogue judicial system of Obama judges targets a law-enforcing 85-year old sheriff and then allows real crooks like Hillary Clinton to write her memoirs in normal clothing and not an orange jump suit.
Mueller’s close relationship to the key witness, James Comey, creates a disqualifying conflict of interest forbidden by the special counsel law (28 CFR 600.7 and 45.2). Yet Mueller has made no move to recuse himself from the case.
And neither has his boss, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who finds himself presiding over the investigation as both prosecutor and witness since he authored the memo advising President Trump to fire Comey. Rosenstein and Mueller both need to go and I hope new FBI Director Christopher Wray cleans house when he starts the job!
To put this in historical perspective, Richard Nixon won re-election in 1972, but became an unindicted co-conspirator in the cover-up of the Watergate burglary. He would surely have been indicted upon leaving office had he not been the beneficiary of a pardon. The late Gerald Ford granted Nixon a "get out of jail free" card because he felt it was the in the best interest of the nation at the time for healing and reconciliation.
We submit that bringing this criminal family called the Clintons to justice will do the same. She does not deserve a "get out of jail free" card because not only is she crooked, she's suspected of being behind the deaths of many who have opposed her. That is a claim no one has every truly proven through the years but it's time the same law that is prosecuting Joe Arpaio is applied and used to prosecute the real colluders in the 2016 election.
I will make a small wager. Should a second special counsel be appointed, the same Democrats who screamed for one to investigate President Trump, will decry the second one to investigate Hillary Clinton as a sexist "witch hunt." Any takers? I didn’t think so.
There NEEDS to be a second special counsel and one NOW. We applaud the House Judiciary Committee for its recommendation and we hope Attorney General Jeff Sessions does his job and follows through!
Amazing what happens when liberals come under the same scrutiny of justice compared to that given conservatives. As the old proverb, what’s good for the goose. In this case what’s good for former Sheriff Joe Arpaio is certainly going to be good and just for crooked Hillary.
.jpg)
Christopher McDonald, Publisher, Editor in Charge
Great Smoky Mountain Journal
Subscribe To The Great Smoky
Mountain News Network Tube Channel
