Our mendacious President said that yesterday, trying to push FBI Director Comey under the bus for reopening an investigation into Hillary’s e-mails (albeit with a different focus) based on new information extending from a separate investigation.
See: Obama Criticizes F.B.I. Director: ‘We Don’t Operate on Leaks’
I’ve never talked innuendo, not once
So what happened to all that high praise from the White House for Comey that Josh Earnest reported yesterday with regard to the same matter? We suspect Hillary’s people informed them in no uncertain terms that anything other than criticism was appropriate. The dominant liberal press got the message and Obama apparat needs to as well. Our illustrious senior editor predicted as much yesterday, maintaining that Comey was in no way immune from the disparagement of Obama or the press even though he saved Hillary Clinton’s bacon back in July. That was then this is now is the MO.
The best that can be said about Comey, and this is spin, is that he is too careful ( his bureaucrat survivalist brain controls). We now find out from an article in the Washington Post that the reopening of the investigation was announced by Comey two weeks after the existence of additional possibly relevant material was brought to his attention. The delay was to make sure it was relevant. So Comey has leaked to the Washington Post that he was using due diligence.
Back to Obama’s truly rich comment via CNN:
Speaking to NowThisNews in an interview released Wednesday, Obama said he didn’t want to meddle in the law enforcement process. But he criticized any action that might allow intimations or suggestions — rather than facts — to pervade the public’s view of the case.
“I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations, we don’t operate on innuendo and we don’t operate on incomplete information and we don’t operate on leaks,” Obama said in the interview, which was taped Tuesday. “We operate based on concrete decisions that are made.”
No siree, no intimations, nothing but facts from him on police matters . . . does not want to pervade the public’s view of the case . . . never operates on innuendo . . . incomplete information or leaks.
A sometimes honest politician would bite one cheek as he spoke that out of the other side of his mouth. Such utter bullsh*t. How conveniently journalists/Democrat campaign scribes forget to bring up Obama’s comments about the Cambridge police “acting stupidly” his comments seeking to virtually convict George Zimmerman, how about his treatment of the Baltimore police, Baton Rouge Police and casting innuendo right and left that police departments are racist.
Now Obama refused to “second guess” Comey’s July statement declining to recommend charges against Hillary while essentially saying she was guilty.
Obama on FBI’s Clinton Email Decision: I Won’t Second Guess Conclusion
Baltimore Police Report Shows Obama Jumped Gun Again On Racism Charge
Obama’s Justice Dept. did a clueless hit job on Baltimore cops
presumption of police racism
Here is a recommended article from Daniel John Sobieski writing in American Thinker in July about Obama’s penchant. Baton Rouge Latest Battle in Obama’s War on Cops
Before someone says President Obama did no such thing and that Baton Rouge, like Dallas, cannot be laid at his doorstep, let us consider his own statement that “words have consequences”. From Ferguson to Baltimore and beyond President Obama’s words have been the equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre. He has encouraged a false narrative of racist cops and racist police departments whose officers are guilty until proven innocent, or buried, whichever comes first
Allahpundit at Hot Air holds forth on that “norm” thing Obama insists he abides by:
Let’s talk about “norms,” though, since Obama seems interested in that. One solid norm in government administration is that you should conduct all official correspondence, particularly when it involves classified information, on heavily protected government servers. That norm hasn’t mattered so much to Team Obama. Another valuable norm is that the Attorney General shouldn’t be granting chummy private meetings to the politically connected husband of someone who’s the target of an ongoing federal investigation. No one cared much about that norm either. A third sound norm is that when a law says that gross negligence in handling classified material constitutes a felony and the evidence against someone indicates gross negligence, that person should be prosecuted regardless of their political stature — especially if they held a high-ranking position like Secretary of State. There’s another norm that went out the window in 2016. And one more norm that usually serves the country well is for the president not to insert himself into a criminal investigation that’s been reopened by suggesting that the matter is settled, whether or not there’s new evidence to be examined. Oddly enough, none of these norms being torn to pieces seems to bother the left. Only the one about the FBI not updating the public on an investigation two weeks before an election does. Any theories why?
R Mall with DLH
