The Democrats Do the Hokey-Pokey

Do you remember the nursery school song about the Hokey Pokey? This week, this part of the song kept running though my head:

You put your left foot in,

You put your left foot out,

You put your left foot in and shake it all about.

You do the hokey pokey,

And you turn yourself around,

That’s what it’s all about. 

Watching the Democrats' contortions, in truth no more than an extended tantrum that they lost the 2016 election and will simply not abide by a constitutionally mandated transition of power from their party, it’s like the hokey pokey. They keep sticking a foot in, pulling it out and turning around.

They were outraged at what they considered James Comey’s interference with the election as head of the FBI. He first cleared Hillary of mishandling classified information by following up a bizarre non-investigation with an equally bizarre refusal to follow the clear words of the law and prosecute. Then he was their hero, their incorruptible lawman. When New York investigators looking into Anthony Wiener’s sexting with a minor (for which he pleaded guilty this week) noticed classified Clinton emails on his computer, Comey publicly announced he was reopening the matter, which he then also shut down without enforcement action. Then he was their goat. Did he devilishly collude with the Russians to defeat Hillary in their eyes?

The party leaders -- well, in the absence of a leader, their biggest mouths -- demanded that he resign or be fired. Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi expressed lost confidence in Comey’s ability to do the job.

Citing Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein’s criticism of Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation, President Trump fired him. Then they complained he should not have been removed.

And they stuck that left foot back in again.

Maxine Waters was typical:

The congresswoman who -- in the wake of attending a classified briefing by Comey in January -- told the press, “All I can tell you is the FBI Director has no credibility” and who issued a press statement under the headline, “Rep. Waters: FBI Director Comey Advanced Russia’s Misinformation Campaign” was interviewed by Alexander on Wednesday. Alexander began by saying, “You obviously have been very critical of James Comey in the past. You said that he had ‘no credibility.’ I assume you support the president's decision, then, to fire his FBI director.” Of course, the operative word in Alexander's statement is “support.” And supporting Trump is a bridge too far for Maxine Waters. She responded, “No, I do not -- necessarily -- support the president's decision.” She went on to say, “If the president had not gone all over -- If the president had not gone all over the country praising him about the way he handled Hillary and the e-mails, if the president had not said he had confidence in him, if the president had not said he was a part of his team...”

Just as Waters was building up a good head of steam, Alexander interrupted to ask, “I understand in the past he was praising him. But if you said that FBI Director James Comey had no credibility, wouldn't you support the fact that the president, then-candidate Trump, now president Trump, made the decision to get rid of him?” Her answer? “No. Not necessarily.”

[Snip] Before it was over, Alexander did get Waters to admit that there was one possible set of circumstances where firing Comey would be all right. He asked, “So if Hillary Clinton had won the White House, would you have recommended that she fire FBI Director James Comey?” Waters did not hesitate for a moment to answer. The answer she gave was free of disclaimers such as “not necessarily.” She said, “Well, let me tell you something. If she had won the White House, I believe that given what he did to her, and what he tried to do, she should have fired him. Yes.”

So, just to clarify -- Trump firing Comey for being a lousy FBI director is bad, but Hillary Clinton firing him out of spite and vengeance would be fine, according to Waters. 

Referring to nonsensical claims of “collusion” with Russia and improper divulging of shareable and already public warnings about laptop bombs, the biggest Democrat mouth of all, Charles Schumer, was in high dudgeon

Concerns about our national security, the rule of law, the independence of our nation's highest law enforcement agencies are mounting in this land. The stated explanation for these events from the White House have been porous, shifting, and oftentimes contradictory.

The country is being tested in unprecedented ways.

What are now required are facts and impartial investigations into these very serious matters.

Before he was fired. Comey had testified to Congress that he had been investigating claims of “collusion” between the Russians and the Trump campaign and had found none. 

FBI Director James Comey told Congress that his agency is investigating President Trump's campaign for evidence it colluded with Russia to influence November's election. The only problem is he has no evidence at all that it has taken place.

In his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, Comey said that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's possible coordination with Russia's government as part of a "counterintelligence probe that could reach all the way to the White House and last for months."

These are serious allegations. But both Comey and National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, who also testified, agreed that there is no evidence so far of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Nor was there any evidence that Russia's amateurish meddling in the campaign had any influence on voters, Comey said, echoing earlier comments by both former acting CIA Director Michael Morell and by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein, who had previously in confirmation hearings received almost unanimous Senatorial approval announced that he was appointing Richard Mueller as special prosecutor to investigate:

“...any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump and any matters that may arise directly from the investigation and any matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. Sec. 600 (4)(a)”

This appears to be a follow-up of Comey’s assertion that the FBI was investigating the “collusion” claim.

What constitutes “collusion” anyway, and how is it a crime? As law professors Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz both observe, there is no crime of “collusion.”

On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dershowitz, a legal scholar and Harvard University Law School professor, said he doesn't see a crime that necessitated the appointment of a special counsel.

He explained that it would not be criminal, even if it happened, for the Trump campaign to have collaborated with the Russians in an effort to get their candidate elected.

"That's political wrongdoing, but it's just not a crime," Dershowitz said. "Nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated. And a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime."

From Turley:

No one has yet to explain to me what the core crime that would be investigated with regards to Russian influence," Turley said Wednesday evening.

Turley also said he does not take seriously the conspiracy theory that Comey was fired because he was "closing in" on Trump because he doesn't know what the FBI would be "closing in on." 

"I criticize many of those folks that are saying this had to be because the investigation's closing in on Trump," the legal scholar said. "I don't see the crime, so I don't see how it's closing in on Trump."

And here comes that left foot again.

Nancy Pelosi, for one, thinks the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate something for which there is no evidence and which, in any event, is not a crime, does not go far enough. She wants a special commission appointed as well.

In other words, she’d like a nice dog and pony show where people can make more allegations and leak to more partisan reporters while those who are doing the actual investigating must decline to respond because “it’s under investigation.”

Who would be the key mystery witness before the commission? A hooded guy with a thick Russian accent who claims he whispered in Trump’s ear that he should knock himself out racing from one state to another while Hillary fanned herself on Long Island? That he slipped him a note saying, use the slogan “Make America Great Again’” -- it’ll drive the globalists on the coasts so nuts everyone else will be laughing at them?”

At this point, Pelosi is sticking both feet in and the hokey pokey looks more like a pratfall to me. The Democrats want their power back, and keep engaging in conduct so transparently childish, who would ever hand them the reins again?

Do you remember the nursery school song about the Hokey Pokey? This week, this part of the song kept running though my head:

You put your left foot in,

You put your left foot out,

You put your left foot in and shake it all about.

You do the hokey pokey,

And you turn yourself around,

That’s what it’s all about. 

Watching the Democrats' contortions, in truth no more than an extended tantrum that they lost the 2016 election and will simply not abide by a constitutionally mandated transition of power from their party, it’s like the hokey pokey. They keep sticking a foot in, pulling it out and turning around.

They were outraged at what they considered James Comey’s interference with the election as head of the FBI. He first cleared Hillary of mishandling classified information by following up a bizarre non-investigation with an equally bizarre refusal to follow the clear words of the law and prosecute. Then he was their hero, their incorruptible lawman. When New York investigators looking into Anthony Wiener’s sexting with a minor (for which he pleaded guilty this week) noticed classified Clinton emails on his computer, Comey publicly announced he was reopening the matter, which he then also shut down without enforcement action. Then he was their goat. Did he devilishly collude with the Russians to defeat Hillary in their eyes?

The party leaders -- well, in the absence of a leader, their biggest mouths -- demanded that he resign or be fired. Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi expressed lost confidence in Comey’s ability to do the job.

Citing Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein’s criticism of Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation, President Trump fired him. Then they complained he should not have been removed.

And they stuck that left foot back in again.

Maxine Waters was typical:

The congresswoman who -- in the wake of attending a classified briefing by Comey in January -- told the press, “All I can tell you is the FBI Director has no credibility” and who issued a press statement under the headline, “Rep. Waters: FBI Director Comey Advanced Russia’s Misinformation Campaign” was interviewed by Alexander on Wednesday. Alexander began by saying, “You obviously have been very critical of James Comey in the past. You said that he had ‘no credibility.’ I assume you support the president's decision, then, to fire his FBI director.” Of course, the operative word in Alexander's statement is “support.” And supporting Trump is a bridge too far for Maxine Waters. She responded, “No, I do not -- necessarily -- support the president's decision.” She went on to say, “If the president had not gone all over -- If the president had not gone all over the country praising him about the way he handled Hillary and the e-mails, if the president had not said he had confidence in him, if the president had not said he was a part of his team...”

Just as Waters was building up a good head of steam, Alexander interrupted to ask, “I understand in the past he was praising him. But if you said that FBI Director James Comey had no credibility, wouldn't you support the fact that the president, then-candidate Trump, now president Trump, made the decision to get rid of him?” Her answer? “No. Not necessarily.”

[Snip] Before it was over, Alexander did get Waters to admit that there was one possible set of circumstances where firing Comey would be all right. He asked, “So if Hillary Clinton had won the White House, would you have recommended that she fire FBI Director James Comey?” Waters did not hesitate for a moment to answer. The answer she gave was free of disclaimers such as “not necessarily.” She said, “Well, let me tell you something. If she had won the White House, I believe that given what he did to her, and what he tried to do, she should have fired him. Yes.”

So, just to clarify -- Trump firing Comey for being a lousy FBI director is bad, but Hillary Clinton firing him out of spite and vengeance would be fine, according to Waters. 

Referring to nonsensical claims of “collusion” with Russia and improper divulging of shareable and already public warnings about laptop bombs, the biggest Democrat mouth of all, Charles Schumer, was in high dudgeon

Concerns about our national security, the rule of law, the independence of our nation's highest law enforcement agencies are mounting in this land. The stated explanation for these events from the White House have been porous, shifting, and oftentimes contradictory.

The country is being tested in unprecedented ways.

What are now required are facts and impartial investigations into these very serious matters.

Before he was fired. Comey had testified to Congress that he had been investigating claims of “collusion” between the Russians and the Trump campaign and had found none. 

FBI Director James Comey told Congress that his agency is investigating President Trump's campaign for evidence it colluded with Russia to influence November's election. The only problem is he has no evidence at all that it has taken place.

In his testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, Comey said that the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's possible coordination with Russia's government as part of a "counterintelligence probe that could reach all the way to the White House and last for months."

These are serious allegations. But both Comey and National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, who also testified, agreed that there is no evidence so far of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Nor was there any evidence that Russia's amateurish meddling in the campaign had any influence on voters, Comey said, echoing earlier comments by both former acting CIA Director Michael Morell and by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein, who had previously in confirmation hearings received almost unanimous Senatorial approval announced that he was appointing Richard Mueller as special prosecutor to investigate:

“...any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump and any matters that may arise directly from the investigation and any matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. Sec. 600 (4)(a)”

This appears to be a follow-up of Comey’s assertion that the FBI was investigating the “collusion” claim.

What constitutes “collusion” anyway, and how is it a crime? As law professors Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz both observe, there is no crime of “collusion.”

On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dershowitz, a legal scholar and Harvard University Law School professor, said he doesn't see a crime that necessitated the appointment of a special counsel.

He explained that it would not be criminal, even if it happened, for the Trump campaign to have collaborated with the Russians in an effort to get their candidate elected.

"That's political wrongdoing, but it's just not a crime," Dershowitz said. "Nobody can point me to a statute that would be violated. And a prosecutor is only allowed to look for evidence of a federal crime."

From Turley:

No one has yet to explain to me what the core crime that would be investigated with regards to Russian influence," Turley said Wednesday evening.

Turley also said he does not take seriously the conspiracy theory that Comey was fired because he was "closing in" on Trump because he doesn't know what the FBI would be "closing in on." 

"I criticize many of those folks that are saying this had to be because the investigation's closing in on Trump," the legal scholar said. "I don't see the crime, so I don't see how it's closing in on Trump."

And here comes that left foot again.

Nancy Pelosi, for one, thinks the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate something for which there is no evidence and which, in any event, is not a crime, does not go far enough. She wants a special commission appointed as well.

In other words, she’d like a nice dog and pony show where people can make more allegations and leak to more partisan reporters while those who are doing the actual investigating must decline to respond because “it’s under investigation.”

Who would be the key mystery witness before the commission? A hooded guy with a thick Russian accent who claims he whispered in Trump’s ear that he should knock himself out racing from one state to another while Hillary fanned herself on Long Island? That he slipped him a note saying, use the slogan “Make America Great Again’” -- it’ll drive the globalists on the coasts so nuts everyone else will be laughing at them?”

At this point, Pelosi is sticking both feet in and the hokey pokey looks more like a pratfall to me. The Democrats want their power back, and keep engaging in conduct so transparently childish, who would ever hand them the reins again?

RECENT VIDEOS