On Matters OF Definition

Focus, Class.  This is important.

from rickwells.us: ‘Turley Says McCabe Denials May Have Exposed Comey Lying To Congress’’ - Rick Wells - March 1819 

(“Law Professor Jonathan Turley says that the denials of wrongdoing by Andrew McCabe may come back to haunt him and James Comey, in that he appears to have exposed Comey…

“George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley says that Andrew McCabe may have exposed criminal wrongdoing on the part of James Comey in his statements lashing out at President Trump and AG Sessions for his termination.

“McCabe claimed, in a Friday statement following his firing, that he had been “singled out” after “unrelenting” attacks by President Trump and critics. Turley sees a line of text that he says could be interpreted as incriminating Comey, not only as a leaker but also for lying to Congress.

“McCabe is accused of lying to FBI investigators in statements made about giving information to the Wall Street Journal about the Clinton “investigation” and the Clinton Foundation. McCabe claims he not only had the authority to share the information with the media but that he did so with the full knowledge of Director Comey.

“McCabe wrote, “I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor. As deputy director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter.”

“Turley says that if that “interaction” refers to leaking the information, then McCabe’s statement would directly contradict statements made by Comey made in a May 2017 congressional hearing. Comey was asked if he had “ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation” or whether he had “ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation,” Comey replied “never” and “no.”

“He fails to point out the deceptive nature of Comey lends itself to technically “telling the truth” as a protection from it. One could see the word-parsing dirty cop contending that McCabe, not himself, was the anonymous source and also claiming that he never specifically authorized McCabe, that he had that kind of authority by virtue of his position. Being aware of something taking place is different from authorizing it. There is no indication that he was asked specifically whether or not he was aware of such an action by someone else. It’s thin but perhaps it’s enough.

“Turley notes that “Comey repeatedly stated that he had never leaked nor caused anyone to leak information to the media.” At a minimum it seems he never stopped them either.”)

..

Stan // March 19, 2018 at 2:18 pm // Reply

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

It all depends on what the definition of ‘is” is.

‘Is’ all a nonsense. As James says [ref. to the just-previous comment]: Arrest the lot of them. There is plenty of evidence already in for that partial draining of the swamp to take place.

—

All of the Obama administration appointees need, at a minimum, to be released from their positions in the federal government anyway. As I have said before in these pages: It should be as though Obama had never been there, in that particular office.  For, he was never there legally.

And this, interestingly enough, to me, at least, brings up another matter, of the same general nature: that of the original, 'real' 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

I have heard of this question before, but it came back to my attention today/yesterday now amongst my emails, for another look at/reminder of the matter.

It turns out that that the original 13th Amendment, which some say was - legally - ratified in 1819,(1) was clarifying Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution itself, which talks about not allowing ‘titles of nobility’ to be granted to anyone holding a federal office (“without the consent of Congress”), but which slight ambiguity was trumped with said Amendment, which outlawed ‘titles of nobility’ to federal officeholders, period.  So that lawyers holding their profession under the English Bar, and known as ‘esquires,’ if this be true, were/are therefore, er, ‘barred’ from holding federal office.  Including, of course, Congress.  (And stripped of citizenship as well, under that amendment.)

What a legalistic mess.  How much more murky and corrupt can things get in this country.(2)  But as I say, in my first footnote: There is a way out, that does not involve us having to go back before we can go forward on the right foot, as it were.

And that is, to accept that we are at a fundamental Turning Point. 

With the opportunity to go, neither back, nor Right, nor Left, nor forward on the same level as we are (the same level as the problem).

But Up.  

And considering everything, I would say that that is not a bad choice, indeed.  

By which to get out of this Crisis Point that we are at.

For a good reason.

For - as I said in my last blog - a Good reason.

—

footnotes:

(1) I make the point because there have been some questionable ratifications in our nation’s checkered history along these lines, of illegality: the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments all have serious claims against their legality on that score.

   It’s time either to go back, and set all these matters right.  Or to go forward, into a New Era altogether.  For this nation.  And the world.

   See below.

(2) And this is not even to get into the murky waters that were created in 1868, when the U.S.A. was incorporated, and stealthily put under the heel of the Brits after all.  Meaning, after both the War of Independence and the War of 1812.  With perfidious Albion.
   For more on that corruption, and need for redress on the issue - a major involvement - see: annavonreitz.com.