It’s Friday, April 13th, 2018…but before we begin, would someone please explain to us how this…

…is any different than that…

…other than the latter was performed by a cop working for the City of Chicago on a commercial air carrier and the former was done for Connecticut Dimocrats?!?

Oh,…and tell us again how the problem in America is guns rather than the culture…

…and, to a large extent, one…

…specific culture at that!

Here’s the juice: when it comes to the hip-hop-gangsta-ghetto class, Don Zaluchi had it pegged:

And it’s Progressives politicians and policies…

…which have produced it. 

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, writing at Townhall.com Ben Shapiro details…

The Death of the DOJ and the FBI

And all for a horrid harpy whose only real accomplishment in life was marrying Bill.

This week, the FBI raided the office, hotel room and home of President Trump’s personal attorney and self-described “fixer,” Michael Cohen. According to various media reports, the Department of Justice signed off on a warrant for the search; presumably, the law enforcement agency is searching for evidence regarding Cohen’s $130,000 payment to pornography actress Stormy Daniels, who allegedly had a one-night stand with Trump in 2006. Cohen has openly stated that he paid Daniels to shut up about her peccadillo with Trump — and he has said that Trump had no knowledge of the payment.

That presents a problem. If Cohen paid off Daniels without Trump’s knowledge, that raises the question as to whether their agreement was binding. If not, then Trump may have been party to a violation of campaign finance law, since a $130,000 in-kind donation is well above any legal limit. And if Cohen and Trump coordinated that arrangement, none of their communications on the matter are subject to attorney-client privilege.

So, it’s quite possible that the FBI and DOJ may have just ensnared Cohen and, by extension, Trump, in a serious scandal.

But this raises another question: Where the hell were the FBI and DOJ when it came to Hillary Clinton? Trump himself has been enraged by the disparity between law enforcement’s treatment of Clinton and its treatment of him. He rightly points out that the FBI and DOJ worked to exonerate Clinton, with former FBI Director James Comey going so far as to change the definition of existing law to avoid recommending her indictment for mishandling classified material. And not only did then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch meet with former President Bill Clinton on a tarmac in the middle of the election cycle and the investigation of his wife; Lynch’s Department of Justice allowed Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s top aide, to claim attorney-client privilege. As Andrew McCarthy of National Review pointed out at the time, Mills was involved in the scrubbing of over 30,000 emails, yet the DOJ “indulged her attorney-client privilege claim, which frustrated the FBI’s ability to question her on a key aspect of the investigation.” Furthermore, Mills was allowed to sit in on Clinton’s interview with the FBI as Clinton’s lawyer.

And herein lies the problem for the DOJ and the FBI. Let’s assume, for a moment, that everything they’re doing now is totally honest and aboveboard — that there’s no attempt to “get” President Trump and they’re just following where the evidence leads. Many conservatives will rightly point to the DOJ and FBI treatment of Hillary Clinton, and state that the agencies ought to be consistent in their application of the law and leave Trump alone. Or they’ll suggest that Trump ought to turn those agencies into personal defense organizations, as former President Obama did.

Once supposedly neutral organizations are made partisan, a return to neutrality looks partisan. That means that the FBI and DOJ damn well better have gold-plated evidence against Cohen; they better not leak ancillary information damaging Trump to the press; and they better have dotted all their i’s and crossed all their t’s. If not, there will be hell to pay, not merely for those agencies but for a country that can no longer trust its own law enforcement agencies.

In a related item, writing at his Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty offers…

The Right Way to Counter James Comey

It gives me no pleasure to slam the folks at the Republican National Committee, but this strikes me as a particularly ineffective way of countering James Comey:

The battle plan against Comey, obtained by CNN, calls for branding the nation’s former top law enforcement official as “Lyin’ Comey” through a website, digital advertising and talking points to be sent to Republicans across the country before his memoir is released next week. The White House signed off on the plan, which is being overseen by the Republican National Committee.

“Comey isn’t credible — just ask Democrats.” The digital ads will show several Democrats calling for Comey’s resignation after he injected himself into the 2016 presidential race, including House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who is shown saying: “All I can tell you is the FBI Director has no credibility.”

Well, if Maxine Waters says someone has no credibility, that settles it, doesn’t it?

Just about everyone already knows that Pelosi, Schumer, and Waters refused to believe Comey when he criticized Hillary Clinton, but will believe everything he says when he criticizes President Trump. Yes, Democrats are flip-flopping hypocrites, we know. The RNC is coming across the same way by approvingly citing Pelosi, Schumer, and Waters.

A much more effective way to counter Comey would be to quote the criticisms coming from former agents. “Smug.” “Diminishing the FBI.” “Crossed the line.” “He put the agency and himself directly in the spotlight, not a good place for us ever to be…he enjoys the spotlight.” “Incomprehensible” decision-making. “Makes [himself] look better than what actually happened.” “Self-serving, narcissistic.” (Are we talking about Comey or Obama?!?)

If you’re unfamiliar with this particular aspect of the sordid history of Comey and Mueller, you owe it to yourself to click on the link above!

Way back in 2004, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth put together a devastating ad that began by quoting John Kerry’s running mate, “If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him.” If you really want to knock Comey’s credibility, why not create a variation of that ad, spending a few minutes with the men who served under him at the bureau?

James Comey is one of those individuals, the likes of which are unfortunately all too common in Washington, who, the more you explore his sordid history, the more he stinks…

Frankly, we wouldn’t lose a minute of sleep were someone to…

Not that we’re in any way advocating someone take out either Comey or Mueller back to the baggage room…’cuz we’re not!  Like everyone else who’s ever lived on the planet, Jim and Bob will eventually answer to a higher power.  And for some reason, we’re of the mind, them having protected the purveyors of unrestricted abortion…

…will ultimately be held against them.  Vengeance is mine, sayeth The Lord.  And that’s “The Lord“…with a capital “T”…and a definitively capital “L”!

Next up, another interesting article from NRO, as D.J. Jaffe recommends…

Criminal-Justice Officials Should Stand Up to Mental-Health Officials

Police have become the real experts on serious mental illness.

“…Having been to both police conferences and mental-health conferences, I am astounded by how differently they look at the problem. Mental-health advocates tend to look at stigma as the biggest problem facing the mentally ill, while police and the public look at violence as being more important. But mental-health advocates believe acknowledging violence creates stigma and therefore refuse to do it.

In the aftermath of these incidents, it is not uncommon for mental-health proponents to argue the mentally ill are no more dangerous than others. But the untreated seriously mentally ill are more dangerous. Twenty-nine percent of all line-of-duty deaths of police occur on calls related to emotionally disturbed persons. Last month the Secret Service reported that 64 percent of mass shootings in public spaces are mental-illness-related. But the past president of the American Psychiatric Association co-authored an op-ed bemoaning the fact that “mass shootings in the United States have prompted calls to address untreated serious mental illness.” Why? She believes “attributing mass violence to untreated serious mental illness stigmatizes…”

Sorry, but this doesn’t even begin to cut the mustard, as it’s akin to the prevailing Progressive plea that an inanimate collection of objects…

…rather than a single deranged individual…

…is responsible for a particular mass-shooting.

Which brings us to The Lighter Side:

Finally, we’ll call it a wrap with the Just Desserts segment, and this just in from Wales:

Restaurant patron banned for complaining too much, asked to ‘kindly refrain from visiting’ in letter from owners

“A woman in Wales has been banned from her favorite restaurant after complaining too much about the food and service. Kelly Smith and her 8-year-old child loved to frequent the Beefeater steakhouse in Coldra. She said the food was usually excellent, her son was a big fan of their garlic bread, and she liked the discounts available through their reward program, the South Wales Argus reports.

But despite her positive description of the restaurant, Smith apparently complained on multiple occasions to Beefeater staff, which resulted in the company’s owners, Whitbread, sending her a letter asking her to stop coming. “We believe as the Coldra, Beefeater are so clearly unable to meet your requirements in terms of the food quality and the level of service provided, that it would be appropriate if you would kindly refrain from visiting the restaurant in future,” the letter read, per the Argus.

Smith said she “couldn’t believe it” when she got the note, though she admitted to complaining a “handful of times” over the last few months. “I was livid. Surely, it’s my right to complain?” she said.

…A spokesperson for Beefeater issued the following statement to the Argus: “On the past six out of seven visits Miss Smith has complained in order to receive a refund on her meal. Our team work very hard to provide all our guests with a welcoming and enjoyable experience; however, it has become evident that we are unable to meet Miss Smith’s particular requirements.”“

In other words, Miss Smith…

…and take your refund-chasing a*s elsewhere.

Magoo