;
Stella, top row 4th from left, graduates kindergarten.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
https://www.youtube.com/watch_ popup?v=OURy5WFp0zk&feature= youtu.be
++++++++++++++++++++++
My cousin, The Israeli Consul General in Los Angeles, produced a bash to celebrate Israel's 70th birthday. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Government, according to Victor Davis Hanson, cannot stand the truth. (See 2 and 2a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The ACLU has dropped its mask of neutrality. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When does the winning begin? Henninger makes a valid argument.
Trump has certainly moved the ball towards the goal post in many unorthodox ways and is due a degree of credit. That said, the jury is still out as to when any pay offs accrue.
Will tariffs actually be lowered in meaningful ways? Will N Korea actually de-denuclearize and in a timely manner and destroy their delivery capabilities? Will Iran follow suit? Finally, will China and Russia modify their trade and diplomatic initiatives that remain outside the band of acceptability?
Until and unless they do we should remain hopeful and realistic observers. (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stating there was no political bias is a conclusion I find challengingly difficult to reach considering The FBI's Peter Strzok and his girl friend stated how concerned they were that Trump might become president, Obama and Lynch were up to their eyeballs in involvement in protecting Hillary, Hillary's computer was penetrated and Comey knew it, the FBI leaked like a sinking ship and the list mounts.
It is pretty evident the FBI and Justice Department top leadership needs a sweeping house cleaning. (See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump has a Middle East Doctrine. (See 6 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Off to Atlanta wedding. Have a nice weekend.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Stars come out in Hollywood to celebrate Israel's 70th anniversary
If you’re the Consul General of Israel in Los Angeles and you want to celebrate Israel’s 70th anniversary with a big Hollywood-style bash and call it “Hollywood Salutes Israel,” then you’re going to have to pull out all the stops and reel in some big names.
On June 10, that’s exactly what Consul General Sam Grundwerg did – at a private VIP reception for 700 guests at Universal Studios in Hollywood.
Along with congratulatory video messages from Barbra Streisand, Robert de Niro, Michael Douglas, Bill Maher, Gal Gadot, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, there was also some serious Hollywood wattage on stage, including Kelsey Grammar, Mayim Bialik, Metta World Peace and Billy Crystal.
The event also managed to corral some heavyweight Israeli stars, including Yael Groblas (Jane the Virgin), Noa Tishby, Lior Raz, Avi Issacharoff, and singer Ninet Tayeb.
The evening was an interactive, immersive experience, with the celebrities walking attendees through a visual and oral history of seven decades of Israeli history. As they spoke, video montages flashed on a giant overhead screen.
Kelsey Grammer introduced the 1940s and the dream of the nascent state, accompanied by video footage of David Ben-Gurion declaring the establishment of the State of Israel. “With this declaration,” Grammer said, “the dreams of a hundred generations of Jews were realized: The modern State of Israel was established.”
The video portion of the 50s highlighted Golda Meir’s initiative, Mashav, the Israeli Agency For International Development Cooperation.
The greatest cheers were reserved for Fauda creators Avi Issacharoff and Lior Raz (who also stars). Raz spoke of the 60s being a time of change; of Shai Agnon receiving a Nobel prize; Israel television launching its first broadcast; the opening of the Israel Museum; and the establishment of the Batsheva Dance Company. Issacharoff received resounding applause when he spoke of Israel’s victory in the Six Day War and the reunification of Jerusalem. He also noted that in the 60s, “Israel emerged as a leader in water technology.” He then invited Mayim Bialik onto the stage.
On a more serious note, Bialik spoke about how much of Israel’s history has focused on water, “how to find it, how to conserve it, how to clean it and distribute it.” She noted that Israel’s drip-irrigation company Netafim has transformed the world.
Maccabi Tel Aviv star David Blu and NBA star Metta World Peace introduced the 1970s. Billed the era of “Resilience in the Face of Adversity,” the two touched on the massacre of the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, the Yom Kippur War and the peace treaty with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
In a moving tribute, actress Noa Tishby and actor Guri Weinberg, whose father Moshe was among the athletes killed at the 1972 Olympics, read Sadat’s address to the Knesset in 1977 and selections from Prime Minister Begin’s address. The readings took place against a video backdrop of the actual readings in the Knesset.
For the 1980s – “Striving for Peace” – Yael Groblas spoke of the revolution of Israel’s wine and tourism industries, the country’s problems with inflation and the economic recovery plan of 1985. The 80s segment was amplified by Ninet singing a moving rendition of Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah in both English and Hebrew.
Heading into the 1990s – “An Innovation Nation” – Sherri Shepherd spoke of how nearly a million Soviet Jews came to Israel following the fall of the Iron Curtain and the daring Operation Solomon airlift rescue of 14,000 Ethiopian Jews in 36 hours. She also spoke of the peace treaty with Jordan and how “the whole world mourned with Israel over the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.” Nonetheless, Israel moved forward, and Shepherd spoke of Israel being named the “Startup Nation” with its visionary innovation in everything from instant messaging to firewalls.
Comedian Elon Gold expounded on Israel’s hi-tech innovations in the 90s with some well-timed jokes. “They tried to get the other Elon (Musk),” Gold said. “But he was busy trying to get the only place in the solar system less habitable than the Negev.”
He also said it was understandable why Israelis were willing to take the risk with startups. “This is what happens when you give every Israeli three-year-old a dreidel and a pile of gelt.” He added, “Who needs Bitcoin? The Maccabees were doing initial chocolate-coin offerings 2,000 years ago. I knew I should have invested in chocolate coins.”
The 2000s focused on Israel’s humanitarian aid in disasters from Nepal, Mexico and Haiti, to helping Syrian refugees, presented by LA Rams running back and NFL Hall of Famer Eric Dickerson.
The 2010s – dubbed “A Hub For Culture” – was presented by actor Mike Burstyn, who spoke of Neta Barzilai’s Eurovision song-contest win, top Israeli chefs receiving recognition and Israeli television shows like Homeland, Fauda and In Treatment garnering huge success. Of course, a great deal of praise was also heaped on Israel’s very own “Wonder Woman,” Gal Gadot.
Going off script briefly, Burstyn noted that he had been monitoring the Tony Awards, which were happening in New York, where the Israeli adapted movie The Band’s Visit had already won nine awards and was poised to take home the biggest prize for Best Musical – which it did in fact win.
Just as it appeared the evening was wrapping up, Grundwerg introduced Billy Crystal.
“I’m so glad to be with my fellow Jews – Metta World Peace,” Crystal said to raucous laughter. “We were in bar mitzva class together.”
Crystal touted many amazing Israeli innovations, including the Iron Dome, which, he said, “was Dick Cheney’s Secret Service code name.”
He summed up the evening by saying “I have a lot in common with Israel. We both turned 70 this year, and we’re both a little cranky at this point in our lives. But we also have something important in common and that is hope. Hatikvah. Hope for a brighter future and a better world. If a nation can be built out of desert sand, if a homeland can be created out of the worst tragedy of human history, if a democracy can thrive in a region that has none, then anything and everything is possible. And that is Israel. Happy Birthday, Izzy!”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) The Silencing of the Inspectors General
Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, an Obama administration appointee, is scheduled to deliver a report this week on DOJ and FBI abuses during the 2016 campaign cycle. Remember: His last investigation of FBI misconduct advised a criminal referral for fired former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who allegedly lied to federal investigators.
McCabe and at least a half-dozen other FBI employees quit, retired, were fired or were reassigned as a result of fallout from the politicization of the FBI. Yet, as Barack Obama left office, his chief of staff, Denis McDonough, strangely boasted that the Obama administration "has been historically free of scandal." Obama himself recently concluded of his eight-year tenure, "I didn't have scandals."
Those were puzzling assertions, given nearly nonstop scandals during Obama's eight years in office involving the IRS; General Services Administration; Peace Corps; Secret Service; Veterans Administration; and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, not to mention the Clinton email server scandal, the Benghazi scandal and the 2016 Democratic National Committee email scandal.
For nearly eight years, the Obama administration sought to cover up serial wrongdoing by waging a veritable war against the watchdog inspectors general of various federal agencies.
In 2014, 47 of the nation's 73 inspectors general signed a letter alleging that Obama had stonewalled their "ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner."
The frustrated nonpartisan auditors cited systematic Obama administration refusals to turn over incriminating documents that were central to their investigations.
The administration had purportedly tried to sidetrack an IG investigation into possible misconduct by then-Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson. In addition, the Obama administration reportedly thwarted IG investigations of Amtrak, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the Office of Management and Budget.
Despite the campaign against these independent federal auditors, a number of inspectors general still managed to issue damning indictments of unethical behavior.
In 2012, Horowitz recommended that 14 Justice Department and ATF officials be disciplined for their conduct in the "Fast and Furious" gun-walking scandal.
A 2013 IG audit found that the IRS had targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny prior to the 2012 Obama re-election effort.
In 2014, an internal audit revealed that CIA officials had hacked the Senate Intelligence Committee's computers while compiling a report on enhanced interrogation techniques. CIA Director John Brennan had claimed that his agents were not improperly monitoring Senate staff computer files. He was forced to retract his denials and apologize for his prevarication.
In 2016, the State Department's inspector general found that Hillary Clinton had never sought approval for her reckless and illegal use of an unsecured private email server. The IG also found that staffers who were worried about national security being compromised by the unsecured server were silenced by other Clinton aides.
Still, Obama was right in a way: A scandal does not become a scandal if no one acts on findings of improper behavior.
Under former attorneys general Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, the findings of dozens of IGs were snubbed. That raises the question: What good are inspectors general if a president ignores any illegality and impropriety that they have uncovered?
Answer: not much good at all -- unless an incoming administration is of a different political party than the outgoing administration. Once that happens in our politicized system, there is a rare interest in not covering up or ignoring a damning IG report, but in acting on it.
We may now be experiencing one of those unusual occasions.
Soon, various inspector general reports may appear concerning FISA court abuse and improper behavior at the Department of Justice, FBI, CIA and National Security Council during the 2016 campaign cycle. The investigators are, for the most part, Obama appointees, not Trump appointees.
At some point, the idea of toothless inspectors general needs to be revisited. Something is terribly wrong when dozens of IGs found wrongdoing, only to object that their efforts were being thwarted by an Obama administration that had appointed most of them -- and claimed to be scandal-free.
Finding government abuse and doing nothing about it is worse than not finding any at all.
2a) The FBI’s Document Blackouts
The bureau is redacting documents without credible justification.
By The Editorial Board
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray want Congress to trust them about the FBI’s actions in 2016. That would be easier if not for daily proof that they continue to play games when redacting documents.
Senate oversight Chairman Ron Johnson exposed the latest unjustified blackouts in a June 8 letter to Mr. Wray. The Wisconsin Republican is one of several Chairmen objecting to the FBI’s excessive redactions and its refusal to even supply the standard “log” with justifications for each redaction. Under pressure, Justice grudgingly invited Johnson staffers to review some documents in late May.
Those sessions revealed that the bureau is redacting in a way that stymies Congress’s ability to run down leads in its oversight of the Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump investigations. Notably, Justice and the FBI have been redacting names or initials of employees involved in handling those cases. This frustrates Congress’s ability to seek more information or interviews with those individuals.
One initial batch of documents contained an Oct. 11, 2016 text message from FBI official Peter Strzok to his FBI paramour Lisa Page. It read: “Currently fighting with”—while the rest was redacted. The unredacted version reads: “Currently fighting with Stu for this FISA,” which may be a reference to the warrant the FBI obtained to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Who is Stu and what was that fight? Congress has a right to know.
The initials “BO” are also redacted from several messages. An unredacted version shows a Strzok text on Oct. 7, 2016: “Jesus. More BO leaks in the NYT.” Another from Oct. 25, 2016 reads: “Just cranky at them for bad choices about BO.” Investigators aren’t certain who BO is, but one possibility is Bruce Ohr, the DOJ employee who was demoted after it emerged that he’d held undisclosed meetings with anti-Trump dossier author Christopher Steele, and whose wife worked for Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Mr. Steele.
Another less-redacted text shows someone blacked out a Strzok explanation for why the FBI didn’t pursue some Clinton leads. “Clinton, Mills, and Abedin all said they felt the server was permitted and did not receive information that it was not. To the extent there was objection down the line in IRM, we did not pursue that as State OIG did, because it was not a key question behind our investigation.”
Why not? An important issue regarding Mrs. Clinton’s private email server was whether she and aides Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin intentionally violated State Department rules in setting it up, and if this increased her mishandling of classified information.
Redactions are supposed to be limited to guarding national security, attorney-client privilege, individual privacy or criminal investigations. These blackouts appear motivated to withhold pertinent information from Congress or spare the FBI political embarrassment.
Meanwhile, the FBI is refusing to answer a May 11 letter from Sen. Johnson seeking the names of employees who are doing the redacting. Mr. Johnson is concerned that some of the employees involved in this investigation might also be overseeing the redacting.
As retired FBI special agent Thomas Baker wrote on these pages last month (“The FBI’s Shocking Disrespect for Congress,” May 11), the FBI has damaged its credibility by flouting subpoenas and slow-rolling or hiding information. This behavior is why Congress must continue to pry out the truth.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)The Final Nail in the ACLU's Coffin
By Alan Dershowitz
The Director of the American Civil Liberties Union has now acknowledged what should have been obvious to everybody over the past several years: that the A.C.L.U. is no longer a neutral defender of everyone’s civil liberties; it has morphed into a hyper-partisan, hard-left political advocacy group. The final nail in its coffin was the announcement that for the first time in its history the ACLU would become involved in partisan electoral politics, supporting candidates, referenda, and other agenda-driven political goals.
The headline in the June 8, 2018, edition of the New Yorker tells it all: “The ACLU is getting involved in elections – and reinventing itself for the Trump Era.”
The article continues:
In this midterm year, however, as progressive groups have mushroomed and grown more active, and as liberal billionaires such as Howard Schultz and Tom Steyer have begun to imagine themselves as political heroes and eye Presidential runs, the A.C.L.U., itself newly flush, has begun to move in step with the times. For the first time in its history, the A.C.L.U. is taking an active role in elections. The group has plans to spend more than twenty-five million dollars on races and ballot initiatives by Election Day, in November.
Since its establishment nearly 100 years ago, the ACLU has been, in the words of The New Yorker, “Fastidiously nonpartisan, so prudish about any alliance with any political power that its leadership, in the 1980’s and 90’s, declined even to give awards to likeminded legislators for fear that it might give the wrong impression.” I know, because I served on its National Board in the early days of my own career. In those days, the Board consisted of individuals who were deeply committed to core civil liberties, especially freedom of speech, opposition to prosecutorial overreach, and political equality. Its Board members included Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, right wingers and left wingers — all of whom supported neutral civil liberties. The key test in those days was what I have come to call “The shoe on the other foot test”: would you vote the same way if the shoe were on the other foot, that is if the party labels were switched? Today the ACLU wears only one shoe and it is on its left foot. Its color is blue. And the only dispute is whether it supports the progressive wing of the Democratic Party or its more centrist wing. There is little doubt that most Board members today support the progressive wing, though some think that even that wing is not sufficiently left. There is no longer any room in the ACLU for true conservatives who are deeply committed to neutral civil liberties. The litmus test is support for hard-left policies.
To be sure, the ACLU will still occasionally take a high profile case involving a Nazi or Klan member who has been denied freedom of speech, though there are now some on the board who would oppose supporting such right wing extremists. But the core mission of the ACLU — and its financial priority — is now to promote its left-wing agenda in litigation, in public commentary, and now in elections.
If you want to know the reason for this shift, just follow the money. ACLU contributors, including some of its most generous contributors, are strong anti-Trump zealots who believe that the end (getting rid of Trump) justifies any means (including denying Trump and his associates core civil liberties and due process).
Anthony Romero, the current radical leftist who directs the ACLU, refers to those of us who favor the ACLU traditional mission as “the old guard.” The leading critic of the ACLU’s newfound partisan mission is Romero’s predecessor, Ira Glasser, who was the executive Director of the ACLU from 1978 until 2001. Glasser believes that this transformation in the way the ACLU has operated since 1920 “has the capacity to destroy the organization as it has always existed.” Glasser points out that some of the greatest violations of civil liberties throughout history have come from “progressive politicians, such as President Franklin D. Roosevelt who interned 110,000 Japanese-American citizens. He worries, and I worry, that when the ACLU supports candidate’s parties and partisan agendas, it will become less willing to criticize those who it has supported when they violate civil liberties.
The Presidency of Donald Trump has introduced a new dynamic. Trump himself has denied fundamental civil liberties by his immigration policies, his attitude and actions regarding the press, and his calls for criminal investigations of his political enemies. The ACLU will criticize those actions as it should. But the Trump presidency has also pushed the ACLU further to the left and into partisan politics. President Trump is so despised by contributors to the ACLU that they have increased their contributions, but also demanded that the ACLU be on the forefront of ending the Trump presidency, either through impeachment, criminal prosecution, or electoral defeat.
The move of the ACLU to the hard-left reflects an even more dangerous and more general trend in the United States: the right is moving further right; the left is moving father left; and the center is shrinking. The center left is losing its influence in organizations like the ALCU, and the center right is losing its influence in conservative organizations. America has always thrived at the center and has always suffered when extremes gain power. The ACLU’s move from the neutral protector of civil liberties to a partisan advocate of hard-left politics is both a symptom and consequence of this change. If America is to remain strong, its major institutions must move closer to the center and reject the extremes of both sides. If the ACLU does not return to its core values, a new organization must be created to champion those values.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Trump Breaks Rules, but When Do We Start Winning?
He is in nonstop motion on North Korea, Iran and trade. What comes next?
By
In a press conference after his summit with Kim Jong Un, President Trump said: “Honestly, I think he’s going to do these things. I may be wrong. I mean, I may stand before you in six months and say, ‘Hey, I was wrong.’ I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that, but I’ll find some kind of an excuse.”
Can Donald Trump break every rule in the book and still win? With the North Korean nuclear threat, we are about to find out.
Mr. Trump successfully broke the rules of presidential campaigning. His defeat of Hillary Clinton was “unthinkable.” He has turned virtually the entire Washington press corps into a determined opposition and routinely calls on his own attorney general to resign.
No U.S. president has ever done these things. What has this approach produced?
Politically, it has provided his supporters the constant reassurance that he will fight for them in the most public way with anyone.
Mr. Trump’s most substantive legislative achievement is the 2017 tax cut. If he announced his retirement next week, history would record that his presidency gave the nation one of the most beneficial economies on record. In the U.S. today, there is work for virtually everyone.
The tax cut, however, was negotiated with Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and Kevin Brady, who should not be mistaken for Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un.
This week in Singapore, President Trump greeted Mr. Kim in front of American and North Korean flags arrayed as equals, extended his hand in friendship four times before their private conversation, and when the summit was over said, “I do trust him.”
There are at least three arguments for Mr. Trump’s convivial approach to Kim Jong Un.
One is that his predecessors’ old-school diplomatic strategies toward North Korea manifestly failed. A second is that unlike Ronald Reagan’s nuclear negotiating partners in the Soviet Union, which was malign but rational, Kim Jong Un’s rule is solitary and whimsically homicidal. In early 2017, Mr. Kim executed five senior North Korean officials with an antiaircraft gun. There is arguably no alternative to Mr. Trump’s fake flattery of a nut case who possesses up to 60 nuclear bombs.
A last argument for Mr. Trump’s break-all-the-rules approach is that the clock is ticking. Mike Pompeo said in early 2017, when he was CIA director, that Mr. Kim’s scientists were probably within “a handful of months” of being able to produce a nuclear-armed ballistic missile that could survive re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere. The best guess previously was that North Korea was years from this capability.
There is indeed a case for disruption and breaking the rules of international engagement. But to put it bluntly: When do we start winning?
Motion isn’t winning. It’s just motion. Mr. Trump’s unconstrained self-confidence is something to behold, such as his tweeting Wednesday, “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.” But self-belief cannot make the decades-old complexities of a North Korea simply go away.
After the summit, Mr. Trump made a major announcement about pulling back the U.S. troop presence in South Korea. Was there any planning behind that surprise?
It would be nice to believe that Secretary of State Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton have been working the back channels and that significant breakthroughs will emerge now. There is no evidence of that. Mr. Pompeo on Wednesday described a time-frame for disarmament of 21/2 years. It sounds as if we are back in the familiar foothills of the North Korean nuclear mountain.
In 2017, after Mr. Kim exploded the largest of his nuclear bombs so far, the Trump administration obtained U.N. sanctions that were squeezing North Korea. I think one of the main reasons Mr. Kim agreed to the summit was to get relief from those sanctions. Within hours of the summit, a statement by China made it clear the sanctions regime is going to erode during negotiations. Restoring that leverage will be impossible. It is a big loss.
The Iran nuclear-deal withdrawal was a good step, but what has become of it? State Department officials are attempting to gain Europe’s support for this decision at the same time that Mr. Trump is fighting the G-7 over trade.
Mr. Trump’s public trade battle with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Europeans is entertaining, and this week’s news that the U.S. is about to impose tariffs of tens of billions of dollars on China is provocative. But when should we expect a recognizable economic benefit for the U.S. to appear?
In dealing with foreign powers—North Korea, Iran, China, Europe, Mexico, Canada, Russia—we have been watching the attention-getting half of Mr. Trump’s improvisational negotiating model. Where’s the rest of it? When do we get the payoff for all this activity?
It isn’t just our show, either. America’s traditional Asian allies in Japan, India, Taiwan and elsewhere are calculating, with every U.S. statement or presidential tweet, whether to lean toward the U.S., China or even Russia.
Feeling good again about America matters. But in an unsentimental world, that isn’t the same as winning.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5)
DOJ Clinton Report Blasts Comey, Agents, but Finds No Bias in Conclusion
Then-director deviated from policies and separate texts cast cloud over entire FBI investigations
By
Del Quentin Wilber,
Aruna Viswanatha and
Sadie Gurman
Updated June 14, 2018 2:20 p.m. ET
The report by the Justice Department’s inspector general found that former FBI Director James Comey deviated from policies in speaking publicly about the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server at a news conference in July 2016. Photo: michael reynolds/european pressphoto agency
A long-awaited watchdog report sharply criticized top officials at the Justice Department and FBI, particularly former FBI Director James Comey, over how they handled the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, but found no evidence that the probe’s conclusions were affected by bias or other political considerations.
The report by the Justice Department’s inspector general found that Mr. Comey deviated from policies in speaking publicly about the investigation at a news conference in July 2016 in which he said the Federal Bureau of Investigation was recommending no charges be filed against Mrs. Clinton.
“We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to do so, and we found none of his reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from well-established Department policies,” the report said.
Mr. Comey was also chastised for engaging in “ad hoc” decision making when sending a letter to Congress just days before the 2016 election that the FBI had reopened the matter.
“Departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and Department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the Department as fair administrators of justice,” the report concluded.
Mr. Comey defended his decisions in his book, “A Higher Loyalty,” saying he feared withholding information from the public could have made Mrs. Clinton an “illegitimate president.” Mr. Comey said his decision to notify Congress 11 days before the election that his investigative team had begun examining fresh material in the Clinton investigation was justified by his concern about preserving the integrity of the FBI.
The report also faulted former Attorney General Loretta Lynch for creating “considerable public confusion” about her status in the Clinton investigation just before Mr. Comey’s July 5, 2016 announcement, and making an “error in judgment,” by failing to recognize how bad it looked that she met with former President Bill Clinton, Mrs. Clinton’s husband, on an airport tarmac in Phoenix. Ms. Lynch confused things further by saying she wouldn’t recuse herself from the investigation, but that she would accept recommendations provided to her by career agents and prosecutors, the report said.
The report said Ms. Lynch sought an ethics opinion from Justice Department officials about her tarmac meeting, which said she wasn’t required to recuse herself from the Clinton investigation. The report said Ms. Lynch told the inspector general’s office she decided not to voluntarily do so to avoid creating a “misimpressions that she and former President Clinton had discussed inappropriate topics.”
Inspector general Michael Horowitz writes in the report that Ms. Lynch “should have instructed Comey” to tell her what he planned to say at his July 5 press conference, and that Mr. Comey “usurped” her authority.
The inspector general also blasted FBI personnel who exchanged text messages that were critical of President Donald Trump during his campaign, saying the missives “cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigations and sowed doubt about the FBI’s” handling of the probe.
Cast of Characters
What the inspector general's report said about some key players
FBI Agent Peter Strzok
Exchanged text messages, some critical of Trump, that 'cast a cloud' over probe's credibility, IG said.
Former FBI Director James Comey
Deviated from policies in publicly discussing the investigation, IG said, an action it called 'extraordinary and insubordinate.'
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch
Failed to recognize 'the appearance problem' created by a visit with Bill Clinton, IG said.
Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe
Wasn't required to recuse himself over contributions to his wife's campaign, IG said, but it recommended policy changes.
FBI Agent Peter Strzok
Exchanged text messages, some critical of Trump, that 'cast a cloud' over probe's credibility, IG said.
Former FBI Director James Comey
Deviated from policies in publicly discussing the investigation, IG said, an action it called 'extraordinary and insubordinate.'
Getty Images; Associated Press; Zuma Press; EPA
Nevertheless, the inspector general concluded in its 500-page report, that it found no evidence that the FBI or Justice Department allowed political bias to influence the investigative steps the watchdog examined as part of its wide-ranging inquiry.
A recently discovered text exchange, however, between FBI agent Peter Strzok, who led the Clinton investigation, and an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, raised concerns about how the FBI handled the discovery of Clinton-related emails on a laptop once used by one of her aides, Huma Abedin.
The laptop belonged to Ms. Abedin’s husband, Anthony Weiner, and the emails were discovered by the FBI in an unrelated investigation into the former congressman having sent obscene messages to a teenage girl. Mr. Strzok and FBI officials learned about the emails in late September 2016 but took no official action for nearly a month, the inspector general concluded.
At the time, Mr. Strzok was helping lead the probe into whether Mr. Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia to help influence the 2016 election.
In a text Mr. Strzok sent to Ms. Page two months earlier, which was recently unearthed by the inspector general, the agent said he would “stop” Mr. Trump from being elected. The FBI employees repeatedly disparaged Mr. Trump, even calling him a “douche,” in text messages spanning 2015 through 2017 that were obtained by the inspector general.
“Under these circumstances, we did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead on the Weiner laptop was free from bias,” the report concluded.
The inspector general’s report looked at actions taken by Justice Department and FBI officials during the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state. Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press
The report is sure to provide new fodder for Mr. Trump’s verbal and Twitter assaults on Mr. Comey and other Justice Department officials, including Ms. Lynch and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Meanwhile, Democrats say Mr. Comey’s actions, especially his unusual public comments on the Clinton probe, helped Mr. Trump and may even have led to his election victory.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the Russia probe and has also drawn the president’s ire, briefed Mr. Trump in the hours before the report is published. The report also was made available to members of Congress in a classified setting late Thursday morning, according to people familiar with the matter.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Thursday that the report “reaffirmed the president’s suspicions about Comey’s conduct and about the political bias of some members of the FBI.”
Responding to a question about the texts between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page, Ms. Sanders said the report “causes a great deal of concern and points out the political bias that the president’s been talking about.”
The release, and a hearing on the report by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, adds fuel to the political battle over how the FBI and Justice Department have handled sensitive investigations.
Mr. Trump and his supporters regularly complain that investigators were easy on Mrs. Clinton and tough on him; Democrats, and some Republicans, say these allegations are baseless attempts to derail the Russia probe.
The probe, now led by special counsel Robert Mueller, is also looking into whether the president sought to obstruct justice by, among other actions, firing Mr. Comey. Mr. Trump has repeatedly denied any collusion and denies obstructing the probe; Moscow has denied interfering in the election.
From the Archives
Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Wednesday defended his role in the firing of former FBI Director James Comey. Mr. Sessions cited the "significance of the error" Mr. Comey made in handling the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email use for his recommendation that Mr. Comey be fired. Photo: Getty (Originally Published October 18, 2017)
The inspector general’s report delves into the Clinton investigation from its launch through Mr. Comey’s July 2016 news conference, in which he said Mrs. Clinton had been “extremely careless” with national secrets but that he was recommending against charging her, the people said. It also examines the FBI’s decision to reopen the Clinton inquiry days before the 2016 election. Mrs. Clinton and Democrats have argued that Mr. Comey’s July briefing was inappropriate and that his October disclosure likely cost her the election.
Mr. Horowitz announced in January 2017 that his office would examine, among other issues, whether Mr. Comey followed agency policies when he held his news conference about the Clinton probe on July 5, 2016, and when he sent letters alerting Congress to the reopening and subsequent closing of the Clinton investigation.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Thursday the report “must be seen as an opportunity for the FBI, long considered the world’s premier investigative agency, and all of us at the Department to learn from past mistakes.”
He said the public should have confidence in the new leadership team assembled by Director Christopher Wray, who took over in August.
“Their mission is to return this great agency to its longstanding, and nonpartisan policies and great traditions,” Mr. Sessions said.
—Rebecca Ballhaus contributed to this article
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6)The “Trump Doctrine” for the Middle East
6)The “Trump Doctrine” for the Middle East
- Trump has shown the strength of the United States and restored its credibility in a region where strength and force determine credibility.
- Trump more broadly laid the foundation for a new alliance of the United States with the Sunni Arab world, but he put two conditions on it: a cessation of all Sunni Arab support for Islamic terrorism and an openness to the prospect of a regional peace that included Israel.
- Secretary of State Pompeo spoke of the “Palestinians”, not of the Palestinian Authority, as in Iran, possibly to emphasize the distinction between the people and their leadership, and that the leadership in both situations, may no longer be part of the solution. Hamas, for the US, is clearly not part of any solution.
- Netanyahu rightly said that Palestinian leaders, whoever they may be, do not want peace with Israel, but “peace without Israel”. What instead could take place would be peace without the Palestinian leaders. What could also take place would be peace without the Iranian mullahs.
After three successive American Presidents had used a six-month waiver to defer moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem for more than two decades, President Donald J. Trump decided not to wait any longer. On December 7, 2017, he declared that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; the official embassy transfer took place on May 14th, the day of Israel's 70th anniversary.
From the moment of Trump's declaration, leaders of the Muslim world expressed anger and announced major trouble. An Islamic summit conference was convened in Istanbul a week later, and ended with statements about a “crime against Palestine”. Western European leaders followed suit. Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel said that President Trump's decision was a “serious mistake” and could have huge “consequences”. French President Emmanuel Macron, going further, declared that the decision could provoke a “war”.
Despite these ominous predictions, trouble remained largely absent. The Istanbul statement remained a statement. The “war” anticipated by Macron did not break out.
The Islamic terrorist organization Hamas sent masses of rioters from Gaza to tear down Israel's border fence and cross over, to force Israeli soldiers to fire, thereby allowing Hamas to have bodies of “martyrs” to show to the cameras. So far, Hamas has sent 62 of its own people to their death. Fifty of them were, by Hamas's own admission, members of Hamas.
Palestinian terrorist groups fired rockets into southern Israel; Israeli jets retaliated with airstrikes. Hamas sent kites, attached to incendiary devices and explosives, over the border to Israel. So far, 200 of the fire-kites that Hamas sent have destroyed 6,200 acresof Israeli forests and farmland.
Pundits who predicted more violent reactions have been surprised by the relatively quiet reaction of the Palestinian and Muslim communities. The reason might be called the “Trump Doctrine for the Middle East”.
One element of it consisted of crushing the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. President Trump had promised quickly to clear the world of what had become a main backbone of Islamic terrorism. He kept his promise in less than a year, and without a massive deployment of American troops. Trump has shown the strength of the United States and restored its credibility in a region where strength and force determine credibility.
Another element of it was put in place during President Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia in May 2017. President Trump renewed ties which had seriously deteriorated during the previous 8 years. Trump more broadly laid the foundation for a new alliance of the United States with the Sunni Arab world, but he put two conditions on it: a cessation of all Sunni Arab support for Islamic terrorism and an openness to the prospect of a regional peace that included Israel.
Both conditions are being gradually fulfilled. In June 2017, Saudi Arabia's King Salman chose his son Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) as heir to the throne. MBS started an internal revolution to impose new directions on the kingdom. The Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition, created on December 15, 2015, was endorsed by the United States; it held its inaugural meeting on November 26, 2017. In addition, links between Israeli and Saudi security services were strengthened and coordination between the Israeli and Egyptian militaries intensified.
An alliance between Israel and the main countries of the Sunni Arab world to contain Iran also slowly and unofficially began taking shape. MBS, calling called Hamas a terrorist organization, saying that it must “be destroyed”. He told representatives of Jewish organizations in New York that Palestinian leaders need to “take the [American] proposals or shut up.”
Pictured: President Donald Trump hosts Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House on March 20, 2018, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images)
|
Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas was summoned to Riyadh twice — in November and December 2017; and it appears he was “asked” to keep quiet. Never has the distance between Palestinian organizations, and Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Arab world, seemed so far. The only Sunni Arab country to have maintained ties with Hamas is Qatar, but the current Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim ben Hamad Al Thani, has been under pressure to change his stance.
Immediately after President Trump left Riyadh, a third element emerged. The US presidential plane went directly from Riyadh to in Israel: for the first time, a direct flight between Saudi Arabia and Israel took place. President Trump went to Jerusalem, where he became the first sitting US President to visit the Western Wall, the only historical remains of a retaining wall from the ancient Temple of King Solomon. During his campaign, Trump had referred to Jerusalem as “the eternal capital of the Jewish people”, implicitly acknowledging that the Jews have had their roots there for 3,000 years.
After his visit to the Wall, President Trump went to Bethlehem and told Mahmoud Abbas what no American President had ever said: that Abbas is a liar and that he is personally responsible for the incitement to violence and terror. In the days that followed, the US Congress demanded that the Palestinian Authority renounce incentivizing terrorism by paying cash to imprisoned Palestinian terrorists and families of terrorists killed while carrying out attacks. President Trump's Middle East negotiators, Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt made it clear to Palestinian leaders that US aid to the Palestinian Authority could end if the US demand was not met. Nikki Haley told the United Nations that the US could stop funding UNWRA if Palestinian leaders refused to negotiate and accept what the US is asking for. Since it was founded in 1994, the Palestinian Authority has never been subjected to such intense American pressure.
The fourth element was President Trump's decision to leave the Iran nuclear deal. President Trump immediately announced he would restore “the harshest, strongest, most stringent sanctions” to suffocate the mullahs' regime. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has since presented to Iran a list of 12 “basic requirements” for a new agreement.
President Trump's decision came in a context where the Iran regime has just suffered a series of heavy blows: the Israeli Mossad'sseizure in Tehran of highly confidential documents showing that Iran has not ceased to lie about its nuclear program; the revelation by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the Mossad operation, and the Israeli army's decisive response to an Iranian rocket barrage launched from Syrian territory. By it, Israel showed its determination not to allow Russia to support Iran when Iran uses its bases to attack Israel.
Netanyahu was invited by Russian President Vladimir Putin to Moscow on May 9 to commemorate the Soviet victory over Germany in 1945; during that visit, Putin seems to have promised Netanyahu neutrality if Israel were attacked by Iranian forces in Syria. Putin, eager to preserve his Russian bases in Syria, clearly views Israel as a force for stability in the Middle East and Iran as a force for instability — too big a risk for Russian support.
In recent months, the Iranian regime has become, along with Erdogan's Turkey, one of the main financial supporters of the “Palestinian cause” and Hamas's main backer. It seems that Iran asked Hamas to organize the marches and riots along the Gaza-Israel border. When the violence from Gaza became more intense, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was summoned to Cairo by Egypt's intelligence chief, who told him that if violence does not stop, the Israel military would carry out drastic actions, and Egypt would be silent. It could become difficult for Iran to incite Palestinian organizations to widespread violence in the near future.
It could become extremely difficult for Iran to continue financially to support the “Palestinian cause” in the coming months. It could soon become financially unbearable for Iran to maintain its presence in Syria and provide sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah. Turkish President Erdogan speaks loudly, but he seems to know what lines not to cross.
Protests in Iran have become less intense since January, but the discontent and frustrations of the population persist and could get worse.
The Trump administration undoubtedly realizes that the Iranian regime will not accept the requirements presented by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and that the harsh new sanctions might lead to new major uprisings in Iran, and the fall of the regime. Ambassador John Bolton, now National Security Advisor, mentioned in January that the “strategic interest of the United States” is to see the regime overthrown.
Referring recently to the situation in the Middle East and the need to achieve peace, Pompeo spoke of the “Palestinians”, not of the Palestinian Authority, as in Iran, possibly to emphasize the distinction between the people and their leadership, and that the leadership in both situations, may no longer be part of the solution. Hamas, for the US, is clearly not part of any solution.
No one knows exactly what the peace plan to be presented by the Trump administration will contain, but it seems certain that it will not include the “right of return” of so-called “Palestinian refugees” and will not propose East Jerusalem as the “capital of a Palestinian state”. The plan will no doubt be rejected by both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas; it already has been, sight unseen.
Netanyahu rightly said that Palestinian leaders, whoever they may be, do not want peace with Israel, but “peace without Israel”. What instead could take place would be peace without the Palestinian leaders. What could also take place would be peace without the Iran's mullahs.
It should be noted that on December 7, 2017, when Donald Trump announced the transfer of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem, the leaders of the Muslim world who protested were mostly Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iran's Hassan Rouhani. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Oman did not send representatives to the Islamic summit conference in Istanbul. When the US embassy in Jerusalem opened its doors on May 14, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf emirates were quiet.
On that day, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron repeated what they had said on December 7, 2017: that the embassies ofGermany and France in Israel would remain in Tel Aviv. Macron condemned the “heinous acts” committed by the Israeli military on the Gaza border but not aggression of Hamas in urging its people, and even paying them, to storm Gaza's border with Israel.
If current trends continue, Macron and Merkel could be among the last supporters of the “Palestinian cause.” They sound as if they will do just about anything to save the corrupt Palestinian Authority.
They are also doing everything to save the moribund Iran “nuclear deal,” and are deferential to the mullahs' regime. During aEuropean summit held in Sofia, Bulgaria, on May 16, the Trump administration was harshly criticized by the European heads of state who argued that Europe will “find a way around” US sanctions and “resist” President Trump. European companies are already leavingIran in droves, evidently convinced that they will be better off cutting their losses and keeping good relations with the United States.
On June 3-5, Benjamin Netanyahu went to Europe to try to persuade Merkel, Macron and British Prime Minister Theresa May to give up backing the Iran nuclear deal. He failed, predictably, but at least had the opportunity to explain the Iranian danger to Europeans and the need to act.
As Iran's nuclear ties to North Korea have intensified in the last two years — Iran seems to have relied on North Korea to advance its own nuclear projects — the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula that might have begun with the Donald Trump-Kim Jong-Unmeeting in Singapore on June 12, clearly will not strengthen the Iranian position.
European leaders seem not to want to see that a page is turning in the Middle East. They seem not to want to see that, regardless of their mercenary immorality, of their behavior staying on the page of yesterday, is only preventing them from understanding the future
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
