Hat tip Mediaite
Today, I watched part of FBI Director Robert Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. I apparently missed the best part, which came when Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) grilled Mueller about the FBI investigation into the IRS scandal.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-hosts-disturbed-by-fbi-directors-clueless-detached-testimony-maybe-there-is-not-an-investigation/
In addition, Rep Randy Forbes (R-VA) tried to pin Mueller down on the FBI affidavit involving Fox's James Rosen, who was identified as a possible criminal co-conspirator in the leaks case involving Steven Kim. It was revealed that the affidavit described Rosen as actively encouraging Kim to divulge classified information and discussed ways of surreptitiously communicating. Mueller was asked at one point why Rosen would not, in fact, be subject to prosecution. Forbes wanted to know how Mueller could assure the committee that Rosen was never a target for prosecution given his description on the affidavit. Mueller responded that it was not unusual to list someone as a co-conspirator without prosecuting them.
But isn't it curious that Mueller doesn't seem to know if any of the Tea Party people who were the victims of IRS apparently have been interviewed? In addition, how curious is it that the director of the FBI cannot say how many agents are assigned to the case or who the lead agent is?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Forbes also commented how unusual it was to investigate a crime without questioning ANY of the victims. So they are predisposed not to give any weight to Tea Party claims.
It turns out that a high proportion of FBI vote Democratic. I forget where I saw the figure but if I find it I'll post the reference here.
Makes sense. They are government employees.
So much for "equal protection" in the Obama world.
Your transitions between paragraphs need some work Gary, as any instructor in English could explain to you.
Siarlys,
Is that your best response?
In fact, I teach a class on grammar and writing. Don't worry; I teach them all about intro-body-conclusion, topic sentences, thesis statements, transition signals and everything else. Do I follow those rules when I blog? No-I employ a variety of writing techniques including saracasm, which comes in pretty handy when debating you.
Good point Miggie! Obama and his minions have decended into the depths of deciet, deceptin and dishonesty.
Alinsky would be proud
Squid
I know what you teach Gary. It would do your arguments good to apply it. Hopping from one statement to a totally unrelated statement with no transition is not only good cause to get a D in English class, it is confusing and unpersuasive, which is why its discouraged when teaching English class.
A high proportion of the FBI votes Democratic? Is that also true of the DEA? Gary seems to make a point quite often of observing that people in law enforcement generally vote Republican. I suspect both statements are ignorant stereotypes or wishful thinking, but they certainly aren't consistent with each other.
Now if you include all the mid-level clerical employees at offices in Washington DC, I'm sure a majority of them vote Democratic. But out in the provinces? Among people in law enforcement specializations per se? I doubt that very much.
Post a Comment