Why I’m Changing My #NeverTrump Ways

It began on July 5th.

Right after FBI Director James Comey let Hillary Clinton off the hook for what’s become in the following three months a cascading number of revelations of wrong doing, cover-ups and secret immunity deals. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote this at the time in National Review:

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require

And PJ Media‘s Michael Walsh:

And so once again the leading crime family in America skates, thumbing its nose at the rule of law as an earnest but politically clueless FBI director stands before the nation to repeat the well-worn Clinton mantra of “insufficient evidence,” and to attribute to Hillary another shopworn cliche that the Clintons habitually use in their defense: sloppiness.

It was Walsh’s reference to “the rule of law,” which stirred something within me. If we are to remain a representative democracy we cannot ignore “the rule of law” for any reason. Especially for political ones.

Fast forward to this September 15 piece by Judge Andrew Napolitano for FOX News:

Everyone who believes that the government works for us should care because we have a right to know what the government — here the FBI — has done in our names. Sen. Grassley has opined that if he could reveal what he has seen in the FBI unclassified records, it would be of profound interest to American voters.

What is going on here? The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton has not served the rule of law. The rule of law — a pillar of American constitutional freedom since the end of the Civil War — mandates that the laws are to be enforced equally. No one is beneath their protection, and no one is above their requirements. To enforce the rule of law, we have hired the FBI.

What do we do when the FBI rejects its basic responsibilities?

Another shoe dropped last week when revelations emerged that Clinton’s long time consigliere Cheryl Mills also received immunity in the FBI investigation surrounding Clinton’s email server. PJ Media’s Roger Simon, a one-time radical leftist wrote this is a post titled What Happens When You Can’t Trust the FBI and the Department of Justice:

This amounts  to what the great Italian playwright Ugo Betti referred to as Corruption in the Palace of Justice. Besides being totalitarian in essence, the obfuscatory policies of Lynch and Comey have made certain that Hillary Clinton, should she win the presidency, will never have anything close to the consent of the governed.  She will never be reliably cleared and an extremely high percentage of the public  will never believe her — and will be correct in doing so.

We live under a dictatorship of the moral narcissist bourgeoisie. They think they know more than we do and can do anything they wish. Actually, they know little and couldn’t care less.  All they want is power and will cling to at it any cost, even the truth and basic morality.  And we are their victims.

The rule of law….

The the leading intellectual communicators of the #NeverTrump movement witnessed the corruption of the first Clinton presidency. The Chicago way of the Obama administration proved to be worse that anyone feared, especially with their weaponization of the IRS. The institutional cover-up of Benghazi which included the American media  remains breathtaking.

We cannot brush aside our rule of law.

#NeverTrump began for all the right reasons. Some are still valid. Yet Trump talks to – not at – the middle class. Clinton’s devotion to the left’s rhetoric on race and contempt for Trump supporters as “deplorable” shows her to be willing to divide to win an election. Trump has made it OK for Republicans to be against the Iraq War while advocating for a robust fight against ISIS and radical Islam. Clinton will double down on the tragic Iran Nuclear Deal and will have to acquiesce to the Democrat Party’s new anti-Israel stance. Few dispute that Trump would be much more forceful than Clinton on immigration and border security.

Temperamentally, Trump is no Ronald Reagan. Nor a Marco Rubio or John Kasich or any of the 15 other candidates he dispatched in the primaries. But he has inspired enough Americans to trust him to lead them toward change away from the direction the Obama presidency took the nation. These American trust Donald Trump and certainly don’t trust Hillary Clinton.

I’ve joined them.


About Bob Sikes

A long time ago and a planet far, far away I was an athletic trainer for the New York Mets. I was blessed to be part of the now legendary 1986 World Series Championship. My late father told me that I'd one day be thankful I had that degree in teaching from Florida State University. He was right and I became twice blesses to become a teacher in the late 1990's. After dabbling with writing about the Mets and then politics, I settled on education.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Why I’m Changing My #NeverTrump Ways

  1. Emerson says:

    And you know for sure that these emails are related to the national defense and that she committed “gross negligence,” a legal term that differs from merely careless or reckless? And you know that she intended to harm the Unites States by her actions?

    This issue was already decided by the Supreme Court in 1941.

    “In 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case which challenged whether the phrase “national defense” in this Espionage Law was too vague and overbroad. The answer was no only because:

    “we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”

    The Supreme Court clearly never envisioned a prosecution under the Espionage Act without “intent” to injure the United States and in “bad faith.” (This was in reference to a different section of the same law but the point remains the same.) Other courts have interpreted the phrase “national defense” narrowly as a direct result of the fact that on its face, the words seem so broad.

    Furthermore, ”gross negligence” as a legal matter, doesn’t, and shouldn’t, just mean it was wrong or dumb or even just careless. Rather gross negligence is generally defined legally as:

    “A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence….”

    As Professor Laurie Levinson explained in the National Law Journal:

    “Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after ‘leakers,’ but not bunglers.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s