The Hypocrisy of Our "Justice" System

After literally years of scandal mongering and a dozen investigations into Benghazi and Hillary Clinton's private email server, Congress and the FBI had to finally give up.

This summer the final Republican investigation found Clinton had done nothing wrong with regard to Benghazi. And FBI director James Comey pronounced the email investigation closed and that no crimes had been committed. But Comey couldn't just leave it there: he insisted on offering his personal opinion that Clinton was careless with her handling of email. 

It was highly questionable for the FBI director to make such a politically loaded statement in the first place, let alone in the middle of an election.

But last Friday Comey dropped a nuclear bomb on the campaign when he announced that emails from Clinton's server appeared on Anthony Weiner's laptop, which the FBI was looking at with regard to allegations that Weiner was sexting an underage girl. He offered no details; was Comey being coy, or was he intentionally muddying the waters as much as possible?

Compare this to the treatment Donald Trump received in the Trump University fraud case. In May Judge Gonzalo Curiel delayed the start of the trial until Nov. 28, weeks after the election, even though the plaintiffs had expected a July date. This saved Trump the monumental embarrassment of having to testify in a fraud trial during the Republican National Convention.

For Curiel's kindness, Trump blasted the judge a month later:

In an interview, Mr. Trump said U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel had “an absolute conflict” in presiding over the litigation given that he was “of Mexican heritage” and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. Mr. Trump said the background of the judge, who was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants, was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” Mr. Trump said. 

As for the emails: there are Huma Abedin's emails, not Hillary Clinton's. Abedin used the laptop to connect to the server, so some of Abedin's emails were left on it. Nothing has been said about the content of those emails, or how many were sent by Clinton.

Now it turns out that Comey knew about these emails several weeks ago, but waited until 11 days before the election before telling Congress. Clearly this wasn't that urgent: he waited two or three weeks to tell Congress. He waited exactly long enough to do maximum damage to Clinton's campaign. By the time we find out that there's still nothing to this phony email scandal, it may be after the election.

Comey has been blasted by Democrats and Republicans alike. Among his critics are the chief White House ethics lawyer of the Bush administration from 2005 to 2007, Richard Painter. Painter has filed a complaint against the FBI with the Office of Special Counsel, accusing Comey of violating the Hatch Act.

Painter describes a different email scenario that Comey isn't talking about:

THE F.B.I. is currently investigating the hacking of Americans’ computers by foreign governments. Russia is a prime suspect.

Imagine a possible connection between a candidate for president in the United States and the Russian computer hacking. Imagine the candidate has business dealings in Russia, and has publicly encouraged the Russians to hack the email of his opponent. It would not be surprising for the F.B.I. to include this candidate and his campaign staff in its confidential investigation of Russian computer hacking.

But it would be highly improper, and an abuse of power, for the F.B.I. to conduct such an investigation in the public eye, particularly on the eve of the election. It would be an abuse of power for the director of the F.B.I., absent compelling circumstances, to notify members of Congress that the candidate was under investigation. It would be an abuse of power if F.B.I. agents went so far as to obtain a search warrant and raid the candidate’s office tower, hauling out boxes of documents and computers in front of television cameras.

The F.B.I.’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election.

This isn't some fantastical story, it's an exact description of what Donald Trump has done. What Painter doesn't mention is that several of Trump's advisors have close ties to Russian oligarchs, getting paid by Trump and the oligarchs at the same time.

And about the same time the Abedin emails were found on the Weiner laptop, it was learned that one of Trump's advisers has held secret meetings with Kremlin officials.

Yet Comey has not publicly humiliated Trump by commenting on these investigations, or investigations into allegations that Paul Manafort and other Trump cronies are unregistered foreign agents for Ukrainian and Russian politicians trying to manipulate U.S. elections.

Comey is either grossly incompetent or intentionally interfering with the election. Or is he just pissed off that his boss, Loretta Lynch -- who told him not open his big fat mouth, is a woman?

What this incident clearly shows is that Trump's charges of the "system" being rigged against him are completely false. The legal system has come down on Trump's side every single time during this election cycle, while individuals like Comey have abused and misused the system's rules to hurt Clinton again and again.

The irony here is that the first time a woman has a serious shot at winning the presidency, the election is dominated by men's inability to control their lust: from Trump's bragging about pussy-grabbing, to accusations from more than a dozen women that Trump sexually assaulted them, to Trump dredging up decades-old accusations of rape against Bill Clinton, and finally now to Anthony Weiner's obsession with sexting.

Usually the charge against women being president is that they can't control their emotions. But this election makes a far stronger case that men are incapable of controlling their dicks.