Monday, April 23, 2018

Politico Reporter: With DNC Lawsuit, Democrats Worry Their Party Is ‘Manically’ Obsessed With Russia


By Matt Vespa |Townhall


The cash-strapped Democratic National Committee has decided to be clown itself further by suing Wikileaks, Russia, and the Trump campaign for collusion during the 2016 election. 

For a party that’s tired of the media talking about Hillary and 2016, this is a way to keep both issues front and center.

It’s going to re-open the wounds between the left and far left of the Democratic Party, erecting another obstacle for unity as the party heads into the 2016 election. 

Now, if you’re a Democrat, it keeps Russia in the news, as the interest in it has flat lined (for quite some time now; no one cares), though depositions and other points of investigation and discovery can be executed; CBS This Morning’s Leslie Sanchez gave rundown into how a Democrat would view this move by the DNC. 

Well, some of them at least. 

Sanchez also noted that:

a) it still doesn’t resolve the allegations the progressive Left has hurled at the DNC, which is that they colluded with the Clinton campaign to torpedo Bernie Sanders; and

 b) they’re virtually bankrupt. The DNC had to take out a $2 million loan to keep the lights on. They’re millions of dollars in the hole. 

And even members of their own party see this as a bunch of baloney. 

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) called the whole affair a “silly distraction.” 

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) said this was an “ill-conceived” exercise, and that she does not support it. 

As Cortney noted earlier this morning, the RNC has plenty of cannon fodder.
  
For McCaskill, you can see why she would probably say this, given that she could be fighting for her political life, and that voters in a state where Trump won by double-digits probably wouldn’t be thrilled to see her give a robust endorsement of this political stunt. 

Yet, Speier has nothing to worry about it. She’ll probably represent her district until the end of her days unless redistricting forces her into a primary. 

It takes a lot for a California liberal, who is anti-Trump and from a state where this Russian collusion nonsense is digested daily, to tell her party’s committee apparatus that this is a dumb, dumbmove. 

After over a year of investigating, there is zero evidence to suggest there was collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. 

The Comey memos, which were supposed to contain some bombshell from the former FBI director about these allegation, yielded nothing; it barely last 24 hours in the news cycle. 

It’s pathetic, really. 

Democrats cannot stand that they lost in 2016. 

They can’t lose; they’re so awesome, or something. 

So, because of that—they had to be cheated. 

Or maybe they had a terrible candidate with no charisma, economic message, or political skill that though she could win, despite these awful flaws, while also calling half the nation deplorable for supporting Trump. Doesn’t sound like a big baseline to win. 

Trump was not heavyweight either a candidate, but he spoke to the voters’ interests, spoke about jobs, visited their communities, and made himself as a cheerleader for the country; liberals are incapable of doing that because they’re obsessed in their campaign to tear down America.

Hillary lost. She will never be president. Acceptance is a natural part of the process during grieving. 

On a side note, MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski had Mimi Rocah, the former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, on this morning’s broadcast of Morning Joe, where she said her first reaction to the lawsuit was “oh no, please don’t.” 

She said that as a prosecutor it’s important to control the flow of information in your case. She said it was not good if you’re Mueller or are working on his team. 

Brzezinski added this is yet another time the Democrats seem incapable of hitting a homerun concerning the timing, to which Politico’sJake Sherman said there was little disagreement over that with elected Democrats on the Hill.

Sherman said Democrats “like their party is focused on Russia almost maniacally to the detriment of every other issue that matters.”


BREAKING: Waffle House Murder suspect Travis Reinking is in custody


Police in Tennessee arrested the man who is suspected of opening fire on a Waffle House near Nashville over the weekend.

Schools in the Nashville, Tennessee area were in "lock-out" mode Monday morning as authorities continued the manhunt for Travis Reinking.

Reinking, 29, is suspected of killing four people and wounding four others at the restaurant overnight on Sunday.

He was disarmed by an unarmed patron who rushed him when the AR-15 jammed or was empty. 

Those who died have been identified as 29-year-old restaurant worker Taurean C. Sanderlin, and restaurant patrons Joe R. Perez, 20, Akilah Dasilva, 23, and DeEbony Groves, 21. Two were shot outside the building, while the two others were hit inside. 

One of the wounded victims remains in critical condition. 

Reinking, who is believed to have mental health problems, entered the restaurant wearing nothing but a green jacket. After fleeing the scene, he was seen on foot near an apartment complex where he lived.

Fox News' Jonathan Serrie reported that police were confident Reinking was still in the general area, possibly in the woods, since his pickup truck was left at the scene. 

The suspected gunman has a history of run-ins with police, including claiming Taylor Swift was stalking him and being arrested by the Secret Service for entering a restricted area near the White House in an attempt to meet President Trump. 

Earlier on Monday, police said Reinking led officers on a chase in a stolen BMW days before the rampage.


RELATED STORY:




Kate Middleton, Prince William leave hospital after welcoming baby boy




Kate Middleton and Prince William proudly held their new bundle of joy as the couple left the hospital after welcoming a baby boy on Monday.

Prince William, wearing a simple blue suit, and the Duchess of Cambridge wearing a red dress with a white lace collar, waved to the hoards of media and royal watchers as they left the Lindo Wing of St. Mary's hospital.



REVELATION: No official intel used to start FBI probe into Trump campaign-Russia collusion



House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes says on 'Sunday Morning Futures' that potential 'major irregularities' exist at the State Department.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said Sunday his review of FBI and Justice Department “electronic communication” documents shows no intelligence was used to begin the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.

“We now know that there was no official intelligence that was used to start this investigation. We know that Sidney Blumenthal and others were pushing information into the State Department. So we’re trying to piece all that together and that’s why we continue to look at the State Department,” Nunes told Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Nunes, R-Calif., cited the Five Eyes agreement as a way of knowing no intel was used. The U.S., along with Canada, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, make up the “Five Eyes,” or countries that share intelligence in a more-trusted fashion than other arrangements, like NATO, particularly due to years of trust and a common language.

“We are not supposed to spy on each other’s citizens, and it’s worked well,” he said. “And it continues to work well. And we know it’s working well because there was no intelligence that passed through the Five Eyes channels to our government. And that’s why we had to see that original communication.”

The California Republican said he is now investigating the State Department due to signs of “major irregularities,” in an effort to figure out how information about former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos – who reportedly met with a foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and Britain’s MI6 in London in 2016 – was obtained by the FBI.

“We know a little bit about that because of what some of the State Department officials themselves have said about that,” Nunes said, adding that “We have to make sure that our agencies talk and they work out problems. We have to make sure that they don’t spy on either American citizens or that we’re not spying on British citizens.”

Still, Nunes doesn’t know whether the former secretary of state and then-Democratic challenger to Trump in the election, Hillary Clinton, was pulling the strings of the investigation launched against her political opponent. However, he said it is known that two long-time Clinton associates – including Sidney Blumenthal – were “actively” giving information to the State Department, which “was somehow making its way to the FBI.”

Adam Schiff, a California Democrat and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, responded to Nunes’ comments on Sunday, calling the information regarding Papadopoulos which led to the initiation of the investigation “well-founded.”

“The majority seems to believe that if it can discredit the initiation of the investigation by attacking the FBI, Justice Department and State Department, it can get the public to ignore the growing body of evidence of illicit contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians. This approach is as disingenuous as it is destructive to our institutions,” Schiff said in a statement to Fox News.

Fox News’ Ellison Barber contributed to this report.



Sunday, April 22, 2018

Cory Booker’s Inquisition Into Marriage Views Is About Keeping You Silent


Daniel Davis | Daily Signal


 “Do you believe that gay sex is a perversion?”

Believe it or not, that question was posed—repeatedly—in a Thursday Senate confirmation hearing to Mike Pompeo, the CIA director now nominated to be secretary of state. The graphic question was put to him by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.

He also wanted to know exactly what Pompeo thought about same-sex marriage.



Booker’s line of questioning is simply astounding—and inappropriate.

He presumes, almost out of thin air, to set a new non-negotiable standard for anyone who wants to hold executive office: You must be completely on board with same-sex marriage, you must affirm gay sex, and you must espouse these convictions openly.

This kind of thought policing is becoming a trend for politicians on the left.

Last year, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., treated Russ Vought with similar hostility in his confirmation hearing to be deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Sanders asked Vought, a Christian, if he stood by his past statements about salvation and final judgment—then excoriated him when he refused to recant his orthodox Christian beliefs.


Booker treated Pompeo with the same inquisitorial attitude, perhaps confirming a sad new norm in the treatment of conservative nominees for executive office.

What is most striking is that Booker seems baffled by Pompeo’s refusal to accept the left’s views on sexuality. Yet, contra the attitude of the left that such views are normal, Pompeo’s views are the same as the ones countless Democrats and even President Barack Obama held until very recently.

Booker may be surprised to learn that opposition to same-sex marriage is still very much a mainstream view in America. According to a 2017 Gallup poll, about 1 in 3 Americans disagreed with same-sex marriage. That’s about 100 million people.

Perhaps Booker can be forgiven for his ignorance of this large segment of the nation, though, since so few social conservatives speak up about their views in public these days.

But more to the point of Thursday’s hearing, Pompeo’s views on marriage are completely irrelevant to the job that he seeks. At least, they should be irrelevant. Foreign policy should have nothing to do with promoting a vision of sexuality abroad, particularly one that is novel and offensive to many cultures.

Of course, this is quite separate from standing up for the basic human rights of those overseas who identify as LGBT. Some countries punish people simply because of their sexual orientation, and the United States must never condone such actions.

But unfortunately, the U.S. government has gone far beyond standing for basic human rights and has sought to advance a liberal LGBT agenda abroad.

A New Cultural Imperialism

In early 2015, the Obama State Department created a special envoy position to promote LGBT and intersex “rights” abroad. Keep in mind that at the time, same-sex marriage was not even federally recognized in the United States (Obergefell v. Hodges changed that a few months later).

This envoy’s impact abroad has not been negligible. Randy Berry, who held the post from 2015 to 2017, visited dozens of countries where he reported having “frank conversations” with leaders, pressing them to adopt more liberal laws on sexuality and marriage. He took credit for several changes in foreign countries, including Vietnam allowing a change of sex in official documents and Nepal’s new constitution adding sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.

Astoundingly, the Trump administration has opted to keep this envoy position in place, even as the State Department is undergoing a massive restructuring. (Berry has, however, transitioned out of the position.)

This envoy is a most egregious form of cultural imperialism, made even more illegitimate by the fact that it misrepresents American values to the world. Same-sex marriage is an extremely recent phenomenon in American life.

It also remains an ongoing source of controversy as LGBT activists seek to wield it as a cudgel against the rights of religious Americans. We are just beginning to grapple with the consequences of same-sex marriage—so what is the State Department doing exporting it abroad?

The Purge at Home

Just as LGBT activists now seek to punish religious Americans in courts of law, liberal politicians like Booker seek to purge the remaining dissenters from polite society. In the world of Cory Booker, there is no place for Mike Pompeo—except perhaps, in a re-education class. Certainly not in the Cabinet.

This sort of social ostracization and occupational discrimination was coming, but liberals long denied it. They assured us that same-sex marriage would make the world more tolerant, that conservative holdouts would have nothing to fear, and that the progressive future would have a place for everyone.

Indeed, some liberals of yesteryear would have flinched hard at Booker’s rigid questioning of Pompeo over something as seemingly peripheral as gay sex.

These liberals either failed to see just how coercive their movement would become, or they knew better and were just placating America while cultural changes gained steam—and then jumped on board the train.

Justice Samuel Alito was very prescient in his 2015 dissent to the Obergefell decision: “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.” And, we should now add, senators.

Breaking the Public Monopoly

It is not Pompeo who went after Booker, and it is not conservatives who are going after liberals. Liberals are the aggressors in the culture war. They introduced the values of sexual libertinism that so many, like Pompeo, would prefer not to imbibe—yet somehow find the audacity to demand conformity to those values as the price of admission into mainstream institutions.

This form of coercion—and it is coercion, by public shaming—is only necessary when an idea is truly vulnerable to rational critique. The truth is, the left needs conservatives to stay silent on this issue. Booker needs Pompeo to keep his head down and at least feign approval of the left’s sexual orthodoxy. Because silence feeds the regime.

The left’s monopoly on this issue ends when conservatives, like Pompeo, begin refusing to hide their views and in fact speak up in the public square.
One-third of Americans still hold to traditional marriage. If one-third of Americans start speaking up about their views, we may find the winds of history don’t always blow in one direction.

Saturday, April 21, 2018

Today: Funeral service held for former first lady Barbara Bush



Barbara Bush, the former first lady, lay in repose at
 St. Martin's Episcopal Church in Houston. Credit Pool
Photo by Richard Carson


A Program: May she rest in peace.


                          St. Martin's Episcopal Church in Houston


                      A mourner at Martin's Episcopal Church in Houston



Photo (Left to Right): 
Former Florida Lieutenant Governor Frank T. Brogan, 
Frances Rice, Peter Rice, Former First Lady Barbara Bush


Peter and I remember Barbara Bush with love and gratitude
 for all she did for our nation.

Revealed: Robert Mueller’s FBI Repeatedly Abused Prosecutorial Discretion


By Mollie Hemingway | The FEDERALIST
  


Establishment DC types who reflexively defend Mueller haven't explained how they came to trust him so completely. It's a question worth asking given the bumpy historical record of Mueller's tenure as FBI director.

Journalist Mike Allen of Axios recently said that one word described Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and that word was “unafraid.”

The context for his remarks on Fox News’ “Special Report” was that Mueller had just spun off to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York a bit of his limitless investigation into President Donald J. Trump. Allen’s comment was like so many others from media and pundit types since the special counsel was launched. If there’s one word to describe the media’s relationship to Mueller, it’s “unquestioning.”

Pundits and politicians have said, repeatedly, that he is “somebody we all trust” with “impeccable credentials.” No matter what his office does, from hiring Democratic donors to run the Trump probe to aggressively prosecuting process crimes, he is defended by most media voices. Criticism of Mueller by people who aren’t part of the Trump Resistance is strongly fought, with claims that disapproval of anything related to Mueller and how he runs his investigation undermine the rule of law.

The media and establishment DC who reflexively defend Mueller haven’t explained how they came to trust him so completely. It’s a question worth asking given the bumpy historical record of Mueller’s tenure as FBI director from 2001 to 2013.

For instance, as I noted to Allen, Mueller was also “unafraid” at completely botching the anthrax killer case, wasting more than $100 million in taxpayer dollars, destroying the lives of multiple suspects, and chasing bad leads using bad methods. Let’s look at that and other cases involving how Mueller and those he placed in positions of power used their authorities and decided what charges to pursue.

The Anthrax Bungling

Shortly after the terrorist attacks in 2001, letters containing anthrax were mailed to media outlets and the offices of Sens. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., killing five people and infecting 17 others.

The FBI quickly focused on an innocent man named Steven Hatfill, relentlessly pursuing him for years while the real killer walked free. As Carl Cannon wrote about the botched case, ridiculous and aggressive methods were used to go after the wrong man:

So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they’d ‘alerted’ on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

Mueller and his deputy James Comey were certain they had the right guy. They didn’t, and taxpayers had to pay Hatfill $5.82 million for the error. When that settlement was announced, Cannon noted:

Mueller could not be bothered to walk across the street to attend the press conference announcing the case’s resolution. When reporters did ask him about it, Mueller was graceless. ‘I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation,’ he said, adding that it would be erroneous ‘to say there were mistakes.’

The man the FBI decided was responsible for the anthrax killings killed himself as the FBI pursued him, but reports from the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office were critical of the bureau’s scientific conclusions used to determine the man’s guilt.

Mueller placed Special Agent Van Harp in charge of the initial investigation. He had been “accused of misconduct and recommended for discipline for his role in a flawed review of the deadly Ruby Ridge standoff,” according to a Washington Post report. He had helped “prepare an incomplete report on the 1992 Ruby Ridge siege that had the effect of protecting high-level FBI officials, according to a confidential 1999 report by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility.”

After Hatfill sued the FBI, Harp admitted that he talked to the media about the anthrax case due to political concerns at the bureau. 

According to The Atlantic:

Special Agent Harp, who initially headed the anthrax investigation, conceded after Hatfill sued the government in August 2003 that the FBI had been sensitive to accusations that it had stumbled in other high-profile investigations, and that it had consciously sought to assure the public that it was working hard to crack the anthrax murders. Part of providing such assurance involved actively communicating with news reporters. 

Questioned under oath, Harp admitted to serving as a confidential source for more than a dozen journalists during the case, but he insisted that he had never leaked privileged information about Hatfill, or anyone else for that matter.
Hatfill’s attorney’s found the latter claim highly improbable.

The Democrat Berger Treated Gently

As aggressive as Mueller can be about pursuing the wrong man, he showed surprising leniency and laxity when it came to the case of Samuel “Sandy” Berger, a Clinton White House national security adviser. In the run-up to testifying before the 9/11 Commission that sought to examine the failures that led to those terrorist attacks, Berger visited the National Archives to review classified documents with his notes on them.

But instead he intentionally removed and destroyed multiple copies of a classified document the commission should have reviewed for national security purposes, and lied to investigators about it.

He was found to have stuffed the documents in his socks and otherwise hidden them. His punishment was that he was allowed to plead guilty in 2005 to a single misdemeanor. He served no jail time but had to give up his security clearance for three years.

The staff of Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., authored a 60-page report about the theft of the documents, in which he said “The Justice Department was unacceptably incurious about Berger’s Archives visits.”

Republican Scooter Libby Charged, But Not The Leaker

As lax and lenient as the Department of Justice was with Berger, the opposite was true in other cases. After Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA employee was leaked, a special counsel operation was set up to investigate the leak. 

Mueller’s deputy Comey pressured John Ashcroft to recuse himself from the case on the grounds he had potential conflicts of interest.

Comey named Patrick Fitzgerald, his close personal friend and godfather to one of his children, to the role of special counsel. Mueller, Comey, and Fitzgerald all knew the whole time that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the leaker. 

Yet they set things up so Fitzgerald would aggressively investigate the Bush administration for three years, jailed a journalist for not giving up a source, and pursued both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

Comey even expanded the investigation’s mandate within weeks of setting up the special counsel. Libby, who was pardoned by President Trump last week, was rung up on a process charge in part thanks to prosecutorial abuse by Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald encouraged a witness to give false testimony by not providing exonerating evidence to her and Libby’s attorneys. The Wall Street Journal and Commentary have write-ups on the saga.

Republican Ted Stevens Railroaded

In 2016, the FBI kept getting involved in the presidential election. Political considerations rather obviously played a role in Comey showing deference to Clinton in July 2016 in the investigation into her mishandling of classified information. Political considerations also played a role — he says subconsciously — in Comey’s decision to announce a probe into Clinton’s mishandling of classified information had been reopened shortly before the election.

It wasn’t the first time the FBI meddled in a U.S. election. In 2008, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, was indicted by a federal grand jury following a lengthy investigation by the FBI and found guilty eight days before Election Day. Stevens narrowly lost his re-election bid as a result and died in a plane crash a couple of years later.

The prosecutors in that case repeatedly withheld exculpatory evidence that would have yielded a different verdict. The convictions were voided by U.S. District Court Judge Emmett G. Sullivan, who called it the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he’d ever seen. Stevens’ attorney complained about FBI abuses and said:

‘To us, while this is a joyful day and we’re happy that Sen. Stevens can resume a normal life without the burden that he’s carried over these last years,’ he said, ‘at age 85, it’s a very sad story too. 

Because it’s a warning to everyone in this country that any citizen can be convicted if the prosecutor ignores the Constitution of the United States.’

An Israeli Spy Ring That Wasn’t

Another black mark on Mueller’s record at the FBI was the pursuit of what the bureau dramatically claimed was an Israeli spy ring operating out of the Pentagon. The news broke in August 2004 that a spy working for Israel was in the Department of Defense.

It turned out that the bureau had gone after a policy analyst who had chatted with American lobbyists at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Charges were also pursued against two AIPAC employees. Those charges were later dropped and the sentence of the first person was dropped from 13 years to 10 months of house arrest and some community service.

The Washington Post wrote:

The conspiracy case against two former AIPAC lobbyists came to an inglorious end in May when the government dropped all charges after 3 1/2 years of pre-trial maneuvers.

It was a curious case: First, the lobbyists, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, were charged under an obscure section of the Espionage Act of 1917, a law that had been used only once before — unsuccessfully and never against private citizens for disclosing classified information. 

Second, they were targets of a bizarre sting in which they were fed false information suggesting that the lives of U.S. and Israeli operatives in Iraq were at risk and that American officials were refusing to take steps to protect them.

The accusation was not that they brokered this information to some foreign enemy but that they offered it to everybody they could, hoping, among other things, to get a reporter from The Post to publish it so that it might draw the attention of the right U.S. officials and save U.S. lives. In short, even if the two were guilty as charged, they look more like whistle-blowers than spies.

It turned out the probe was led by David Szady, the same man who notoriously missed Russian spy Robert Hanssen in his midst while he spent years targeting an innocent man named Brian Kelley, an undercover officer at the CIA. For this good work, Mueller named him assistant director for counterintelligence.

Incompetent Supervision

Many of these examples of prosecutorial misconduct and abuse were done not by Mueller but by underlings. He should have been aware of what they were doing, which means he should take responsibility for the errors. If he wasn’t aware, that’s a very bad sign regarding his competence to supervise his special counsel deputy Andrew Weissman.

If Mueller had no effective supervision against the abuses of the above underlings, why would anyone trust him to supervise his good buddy Weissman, whom he picked to run lead on his probe of Trump? 

Weissman destroyed the accounting firm Arthur Anderson LLP, which once had 85,000 employees. Thanks to prosecutorial abuse, jurors were not told that Arthur Anderson didn’t have criminal intent when it shredded documents. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction, but it was too late to save the company.

Weissman also “creatively criminalized a business transaction between Merrill Lynch and Enron,” which sent four executives to jail. Weissman concocted unprecedented charges and did not allow the executives to get bail, causing massive disruption to the families before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed most of Weissman’s case.

One could also argue that the above failures, save the Stevens case, were actually Comey’s responsibility. That’s arguably true as well, but it also shows just how bizarre it is that Mueller was named to investigate a situation in which his friend and partner in prosecutorial abuse is so intimately involved.

This Is About More Than Trump

The media scoff in feigned outrage at President Trump’s claims that the FBI has a reputation that is in tatters. But the last 15 years of leadership of the FBI under Mueller and Comey have largely shown that to be true because of how the FBI handles it cases.

In recent months, the FBI lost a high-profile case against Omar Mateen’s widow Noor Salman, who was charged with material support of ISIS and lying to the FBI about it. The case was an absolute mess. 

The jury foreman said, “I wish that the FBI had recorded their interviews with Ms. Salman as there were several significant inconsistencies with the written summaries of her statements.” The jury felt that the widow had been bullied into signing a false confession.

On the day after the Pulse shooting, Comey promised the bureau would provide transparency as the case was handled. Almost immediately, the claim of transparency was shown to be false when the FBI redacted the killer’s statements about his Islamist terrorism beliefs in a transcript of his calls with Orlando 911. 

The bureau was also less than transparent about the fact that Mateen’s father was a long-time FBI informant. James Bovard has much more.

Or what about the recent mistrial declared in the Cliven Bundy standoff? Here’s The Oregonian:

A federal judge Wednesday declared a mistrial in the prosecution of Nevada cattleman Cliven Bundy, his two sons and a co-defendant, citing the government’s ‘willful” failure to turn over multiple documents that could help the defense fight conspiracy and assault charges in the 2014 Bunkerville standoff…

The judge listed six types of evidence that she said prosecutors deliberately withheld before trial, including information about the presence of an FBI surveillance camera on a hill overlooking the Bundy ranch and documents about U.S. Bureau of Land Management snipers outside the ranch….
‘The failure to turn over such evidence violates due process,” the judge said…..

Yesterday, Comey told Meghan McCain on The View, “Public confidence in the FBI is its bedrock.” That’s true. And the lack of confidence in the FBI is not the result of Trump and his insults but a pattern of abuse of prosecutorial discretion going back 15 years or so. Mueller is responsible for 10 years of that.

The denizens of DC no doubt have had great interactions with Mueller and the men he put in charge of high-profile cases. But those who were wronged in the Anthrax, Libby, AIPAC, Enron, and other cases might have a different view. Those who observe how differing rules have been applied to people in seemingly partisan fashion should not be dismissed.

As former judge and Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week, “Mr. Mueller is not a bad man, nor is Mr. Comey. It’s just that both show particular confidence when making mistakes, which makes one grateful for safeguards like the attorney-client privilege.”

The media should not be so quick to gloss over these mistakes solely because of anti-Trump animus. Journalists who take their role seriously should be skeptical of powerful government institutions and how they can abuse their authority.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway