“We Don’t Have Many Presidents Left”

Jim George

So said one of our dearest friends recently in discussing this election season, based on the fact that she and My Lady are “of a certain age” and I am a good decade past them on that dark scale. Because of the level I have acquired on that dreaded counter, I may well have only one President left and, with all due respect to those many citizens, including some (many?) friends, acquaintances and family, who will use one of the most precious rights ever given mankind to vote for the only presidential candidate under active criminal investigation (before you cite Mr. Comey’s latest letter, note that the Clinton Criminal Family Foundation is still under active investigation), a person who is probably the most deeply corrupt and blatantly dishonest person to ever run for the White House.

I am writing this on the eve of Election Day 2016 in order to set out my thoughts on my choice at a time well before anyone has even an inkling of the actual outcome at least 24 hours after this is posted. For the same reason, to assure there can be no “shading” of these remarks by the influence, real or imagined, of who will actually win, I wish to express my concern at the number of our fellow citizens with obviously functioning minds who have had access to the very same information I have studied over the years about this truly wretched and openly unethical person who will cast their precious vote for her tomorrow, or have already done so in early voting.

I can—and do—respect their obvious right to vote for such a thoroughly lawless person and still wonder how anyone who knows what she is, what she represents, what the scurrilous gang she surrounds herself with represents (have they read even one Wikileaks release?) and the cloud of sleaze which will surround her from Day One could even consider giving her their vote. When a person like Doug Schoen, one who has made his living as a consultant to nothing but Democrat candidates states very openly, and I might add, very courageously, that he cannot in good conscience vote for Clinton in view of his certain knowledge that her election will precipitate a Constitutional crisis due to the many (justifiable and well founded!) investigations she and her sycophants will undergo, it speaks volumes against the fitness of such a person to serve in any office, much less the highest office in the land.

As I am speaking my mind so that the record will be one of clarity as to where I stood well before there was either a President Trump or a, God forbid, President Clinton (does no one remember the open sewer of slime the first one was?), I will also express my astonishment at the numbers of citizens voting for Clinton who are members of the Learned Profession of the Law, whose very existence is due to, and devoted to the preservation of, the American Rule of Law. It is, quite simply, beyond me and my admittedly limited intellect to fully grasp how a person trained in the sacred principles of the Law, and, yes, I do know I am showing what a dinosaur I am by using “quaint” words like that, could even think about voting for a person who, as outlined in an excellent analysis on Ricochet this morning by Dave Carter , responded to the FBI’s investigation by:

  • Providing two BlackBerry devices with their SIM or SD data cards removed.
  • Destroying or losing 13 of Hillary’s personal mobile devices being sought by the FBI as evidence while claiming publicly that she only used one device.
  • Deleting server backups to avoid FBI examination.
  • Wiping laptops with BleachBit when notified that they contained records sought by the FBI and the House Benghazi Committee.
  • Permanently deleting emails from her “PRN” [Platte River Networks] server after those emails were subpoenaed.
  • Manually deleting backups of the PRN server after her records were subpoenaed.

Despite these extraordinary efforts by the candidate and her staff to circumvent lawful subpoenas by hiding and destroying evidence, further FBI investigation discovered:

  • 2,093 emails that the State Department classifies as Confidential or Secret despite Hillary’s claims that there were no classified emails..
  • 193 emails (totaling 81 individual email chains) that ranged in classification, at the time they were sent, from Confidential to Top Secret/Special Access Program.
  • 8 Top Secret email chains.
  • 37 Secret email chains.
  • 36 Confidential email chains.
  • 7 Special Access Program email chains.
  • 3 Sensitive Compartmentalized Information email chains.
  • 37 Not Releasable to Foreign Government email chains.
  • 2 Releasable Only to Five Allied Partners email chains.
  • 12 of the above email chains which were withheld by Clinton attorneys, but which the FBI recovered using other methods.
  • The above email chains also contained classified information from CIA, DOD, FBI, NGA, and NSA.

As a person who spent many decades as a member of the Bar engaged in civil litigation in many Courts of Law, the conduct of this person, and those in her group of courtiers, would definitely get me indicted and disbarred and I would be laughed out of the Courtroom if I tried to mount any kind of defense against, just to take one example, the deliberate destruction of evidence known to be under subpoena at the time the order to destroy was given.

A recent article went through a very helpful analysis of the dictionary definition of “corrupt” and reached the following conclusion, with which, it will not surprise the reader to learn, I fully agree:

Under dictionary.com’s definition of “corrupt” one finds the following:

  1. Guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked:
  2. Debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil:
  3. Infected; tainted.

When used as a verb with an object we find:

  1. To destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal, etc., especially by bribery.
  2. To lower morally; pervert.

Don’t these definitions perfectly describe Hillary Clinton?

Returning to Mr. Carter’s fine analysis, as I could not possibly improve upon the elegance with which he sums up the evil which is Hillary Diane Rodham, these words perfectly sum up the reasons I plan to be there when the polls open tomorrow morning at 6 am to cast my vote for the candidate who has given voice to the many “Forgotten Men” and “Forgotten Women” across our Beloved Nation:

The failure of the progressive industrial complex and their enablers in both parties is, in a pivotal way, an intellectual failure because as Bill Buckley observed, “…all intellection is moral, because disembodied from moral precepts, thought is misleading, empty, vulgar.” For all the talk of Donald Trump’s vulgarity, his “moral precepts” do not revolve around bribery, subterfuge, lawlessness, the destruction of evidence, the compromising of national security, and a network of accomplices both in and out of government who actively undermine the democratic process.

Over 40 years ago, a President was forced to resign over a mere fraction of what the Clinton political machine has wrought. Under the circumstances, we must not entrust instrumentalities of the state to a presidential candidate whose moral compass consistently points the wrong way, whose administration would make the Nixon administration look like the Little Sisters of the Poor.

I pray for Mr. Trump and Gov. Pence and I pray for all the citizens of this, the Greatest Nation ever created by the mind of man but, most of all, I pray for our Beloved Nation, the United States of America!

God Bless America!

The Chicago Way

One of my favorite columnists, John Kass of the Chicago Tribune, has an excellent analysis out this morning entitled, appropriately enough, What Plagues Clinton in the final days: The Chicago Way, in which he sets out a nice, succinct statement of all the ways the Clintons’ thirty years of sleaze is catching up with them in the last stretch of the campaign.

Using the full force of his many years of experience of reporting political news in the place which gave that special treatment its name, he notes that one thing which is different this time, as is the case with anyone with half a brain who experiences Chicago politics on a day-to-day basis, is that everyone knows the system is rigged now that it is all out in the open for all to see:

“Something they’ve felt for years, whether Republicans or Democrats were in charge, something they were mocked from saying outright:

It’s rigged.

Now that this is commonly understood by the people, and has become a daily feature of the presidential campaign — with both sides leveling the charge — and the Department of Justice mired in politics, the republic is treading on dangerous ground.”

Emphasizing the fact that this time the voters have it all laid out right in front of their eyes, if they just take a moment to see it and understand the depth of its rottenness and decay and corruption, he says:

“It’s a ripe mess and voters know it. It’s right there in front of them. And this has outraged many liberal pundits, who perpetuate the myth that they speak truth to power even as they rally around the desperate establishment queen. The wits of our modern Versailles continue to ridicule voters who dare think the system is rigged, and call them foolish, deplorable hicks or mentally ill.

But media ridicule and the mocking of voters who have been left behind in this economy has its limits. All it does, really, is stoke cynicism in the final days, leaving Mrs. Clinton and her friends scrambling one step ahead of a closing Trump.”

After reviewing the cast of bottom-feeders which have performed in this Theater of Sleaze just in the past few weeks, such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile and the open and blatant rigging of the DNC against Bernie Sanders, he sums up the recent battle between the FBI and The “Justice” Department:

“And now comes the worst of all, what seems to be that proxy war, fought through the media, between FBI agents investigating Clinton on a series of fronts and the Department of Justice which has reportedly tried to shut those investigations down.

Yes, it’s corrosive. It is the Chicago Way writ large.

And pretending it is something else blinds Americans to dangers yet to come, no matter who is elected president in November.”

This is an outstanding summary of the tsunami of slime we have witnessed in this campaign– in such volume it is hard to fathom even for those of us who try to stay abreast of the new eruptions every day — and I highly recommend it for your careful consideration.

God Bless America!


By Jim George

Hillary Clinton has finally been called, by one of those rarest of creatures, a Congressman with a very sturdy backbone, what many of us have believed she is and has been for a very, very long time– a traitor to her country, clearly guilty of treason.

Here is the brief story on his remarks, which should be read and considered by every person who is privileged to call themselves Americans–truly the luckiest people on the planet– but especially those who are about to make the tragic mistake of voting for this traitor:

“Michael McCaul on Hillary Clinton server, hacks: ‘It’s treason’

“By David Sherfinski – The Washington Times – Thursday, November 3, 2016

Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, on Thursday said Hillary Clinton’s exposing sensitive information to potentially multiple hacks from foreign actors amounts to treason.

““This is why you have security protocols — to protect classified information,” Mr. McCaul said on “Fox and Friends.” “She exposed it to our enemies, and now … our adversaries have this very sensitive information that not only jeopardizes her and national security at home, but the men and women serving overseas.”

““In my opinion, quite frankly, it’s treason,” said Mr. McCaul, Texas Republican.


“Citing sources familiar with the FBI’s investigations, Fox News reported Wednesday that there is about a “99 percent accuracy” that at least five foreign intelligence agencies successfully hacked Mrs. Clinton’s private email server she set up to use as secretary of state.

Mr. McCaul said Mrs. Clinton “absolutely” would be exposed to potential blackmail from such countries if elected president.

““The concern I’ve had all along is she has had seven special access programs on these devices. Those are the most classified, sensitive secrets in the federal government — many of them covert operations,” he said”

I well and truly pray that enough Americans see this Congressman’s remarks, consider them carefully and prayerfully, and ask themselves the simple question: Do I really want to vote for someone who has sold herself–and America’s foreign policy– to the highest bidder?

I knew the answer to that question a long time ago. I pray that enough citizens will answer it soundly and intelligently, with the interests of our Beloved Nation before all other considerations.

God Bless America.

A Fish Called Obama Or The Fish Rots From The Head


James A. George

As one who very publicly proclaimed his belief that James Comey was one of the most honest, incorruptible public servants in Washington, before he permanently stained himself and his agency with the corruption so endemic to that swamp of mendacity in these times, I feel uniquely qualified to comment on the serious damage his decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton has done to our Nation. And, as one who really believed in his integrity and probity, I can certainly agree with his own words in describing himself in a Senate Committee hearing –“a deeply flawed and fallible human being.” That deficiency, obviously not peculiar to Mr. Comey, is one which addresses itself to Mr. Comey and those he has dragged with him into such disrepute. However, as with so much of the lawlessness which will forever be the real legacy of this most corrupt administration in our history, the damage to the Rule of Law—the very foundation of our Republic, as designed by the Founding Fathers—carries the potential of being dangerous and far-reaching. Should, God forbid, Hillary Clinton be elected President, it could well become permanent.

In a post recently on Ricochet.com, the author observed the following, in a piece appropriately entitled “James Comey Is A Disgrace”:

“When James Comey was not eroding everyone’s belief in the competence of the FBI, he was acting as a political hack for the Obama’s and Clinton’s. One of the largest intelligence breaches in American history takes place and director Comey’s response is to hand out immunity to almost everyone involved, ask no follow up questions, and then say he could not prove intent by Hillary Clinton. John Schindler does an excellent job documenting the sham of an investigation.

“It’s prudent to judge people by comparing how they found something against how they left it. James Comey has destroyed the credibility of the FBI. The man is a disgrace. I do not care if he was feeling pressure from Obama, if he was uncomfortable with that pressure then he should have resigned. He is just another apparatchik along with Loretta Lynch and John Koskinen in an increasingly corrupt and incompetent government.”

I am  a great admirer of the writings of Andrew McCarthy, a former Federal prosecutor who was the lead prosecutor of “the Blind sheik” in the successful prosecution of that radical Islamic terrorist for his role in planning the first World Trade Center attack in the early ‘90’s. Thus, when he analyzes matters prosecutorial, this non-criminal-defense lawyer credits his opinions as highly as any commentator on the scene today. Way back in the distant mists of February, he opined that

“As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.”


“Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.”

He concluded at that time:

“To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information.”

More recent analyses have shown rather clearly that, in all probability due in large part due to the President’s own exposure to liability (see, e.g., United States v. Nixon) if these e-mails were to be made public, as they absolutely would be in any prosecution of Clinton, there never was a plan to do anything but let her skate.

As McCarthy discussed a few days ago, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, her Chief of Staff during her tenure as Secretary of State (N.B.: not her attorney), who was a target of the investigation, was allowed to represent Clinton as her attorney in her “voluntary” interview—an “unheard-of accommodation … made in violation not only of rudimentary investigative protocols and attorney-ethics rules, but also of the federal criminal law.”

He further notes that Comey kept stressing that Clinton’s interview was “voluntary” and that she could impose any conditions on her appearance she wanted to impose. This is, of course, pure fantasy, as any person in that situation (except, of course, The Dowager Duchess of Chappaqua) who insisted on having present in her interview a target of the investigation, who was not her lawyer, would have simply been handed a subpoena and directed down the hall where a Grand Jury would be waiting for her to testify—“under oath and all by her lonesome, without any of her lawyer legion in attendance.”

In the Wall Street Journal, Kimberley Strassel addressed questions posed by Rep. Tom Marino, a former Justice Department prosecutor, as to why

“…. Ms. Mills was so courteously offered immunity in return for her laptop—a laptop that Mr. Comey admitted investigators were very keen to obtain. Why not simply impanel a grand jury, get a subpoena, and seize the evidence?”

“Mr. Comey’s answer was enlightening: “It’s a reasonable question. . . . Any time you are talking about the prospect of subpoenaing a computer from a lawyer—that involves the lawyer’s practice of law—you know you are getting into a big megillah.” Pressed further, he added: “In general, you can often do things faster with informal agreements, especially when you are interacting with lawyers.” ”

The key words: “The lawyer’s practice of law.” What Mr. Comey was referencing here is attorney-client privilege. Ms. Mills was able to extract an immunity deal, avoid answering questions, and sit in on Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview because she has positioned herself as Hillary’s personal lawyer. Ms. Mills could therefore claim that any conversations or interactions she had with Mrs. Clinton about the private server were protected by attorney-client privilege.

She then illustrates how easily Mills conned (there really is no other way to describe the way she lied her way into both the interview with Clinton and her own immunity agreement) the apparently eager-to-please FBI agents and Justice Department lawyers by telling them she did not know about Clinton’s server until they both left the State Department. At one point, she even said she didn’t even know what a server was! As McCarthy observed, these obvious fabrications don’t even pass the laugh test, but they were accepted hook, line and sinker by these inside-the-Beltway “investigators” (why does the phrase “Keystone Kops” come to mind?) who were busy constructing their Potemkin village to help Clinton stagger to the White House.

Now, if all that pile of corruption stench is not overpowering enough, it has just been learned that side agreements were reached with Mills and another member of the Clinton team in which the FBI agreed (1) to destroy their laptops after reviewing their contents and (2) limited their search to no later than January 31, 2015, preventing the Bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice. According to a Fox News summary of these truly bizarre agreements:

“Judiciary Committee aides told FoxNews.com that the destruction of the laptops is particularly troubling as it means that the computers could not be used as evidence in future legal proceedings, should new information or circumstances arise.”

“Committee aides also asked why the FBI and DOJ would enter into a voluntary negotiation to begin with, when the laptops could be obtained condition-free via a subpoena.”

“The letter also asked why the DOJ agreed to limit their search of the laptops to files before Jan. 31, 2015, which would “give up any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.” ”

“Aides expressed shock at the parameter, saying it is especially troubling as Mills and Samuelson already had immunity from the consequences of whatever might be on the laptop.”

““You’re essentially extending immunity to everyone,” one aide said.”

These house-of-mirrors shenanigans have now been brought to the attention of the D.C. Bar Association in a letter outlining the ethical violations by the Republican National Committee. Based on the Clintons’ records over the past 30 years, there is scant reason for optimism that these transgressions, which would bring this lawyer and any other not favored by the aura (perhaps “aroma” might be more appropriate here) of the Clintons into a disciplinary hearing, will be acted upon, but perhaps there is some reason to hope that the Bar will fairly discharge its obligations.

This strange and – may I say it?—deplorable parade of one corrupt act following closely upon the heels of another has even caused scholars of a decidedly leftist persuasion to raise questions about the glaring double-standards being applied. One such scholar had this to say:

“As Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and who first defended the FBI’s decision not to prosecute Hillary,  recently put it:”

“Of all of the individuals who would warrant immunity, most would view Mills as the very last on any list. If one assumes that there may have been criminal conduct, it is equivalent to immunizing H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman in the investigation of Watergate.”


As Americans who love our country and who simply do not want to believe that the persons leading our government are engaged in the destruction of evidence, lying under oath, impeding proper investigations, granting favorable treatment and immunity to certain favored persons where no one else in the country would ever get such treatment—even to targets of a criminal investigation. As a lawyer who practiced in many Courts of Law for many years, it is especially grievous—painful!—to witness the steady dismantling of the Rule of Law by conduct which is clearly, under any objective analysis, thoroughly and deeply corrupt.


One of the best summaries of what we’re faced with was written by Col. Lawrence Sellin (U.S. Army, Ret’d), a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq, and captures the way so many of us feel about the sewer known as the Obama Administration. He said:


“Comey’s performance in office is symptomatic of a problem that cuts across the entire political-media establishment, namely the desperate attempts being undertaken by those trying to preserve the corrupt status quo.”

“As part of that effort, the FBI Director joins a long list of aspiring office holders and fawning journalists willing to exchange integrity for the opportunity to audition for a seat at Hillary Clinton’s Presidential dinner table.”

“President Trump should fire James Comey.”

It is my fervent wish that this is President Trump’s second official act, right after ordering his Justice Department to forthwith issue an indictment against Hillary Rodham Clinton.

God Bless America.

The Bottomless Corruption of Hillary, Huma, Cheryl and their sycophants

We now have, in addition to the multitude of violations of public trust outlined by the Director of the FBI right before he permanently soiled himself and his reputation for integrity and that of his agency by letting this criminal skate for Federal offenses from which no one not named Clinton would have escaped prosecution, the spectacle of this gang of lawless cretins deliberately and intentionally destroying evidence they knew to be under Congressional subpoena! It does seem that every day that passes sees new levels of sheer depravity by these people and, of course, it will continue as long as they know they can get away with it–truth be known, the Dowager Duchess of Chappaqua has been getting away with violations of public trust, that of the citizens of Arkansas, where she honed her slithery talents of deception and artifice, and then, for lo these many years, after an interim training on the citizens of New York, the citizens of the United States.

Therefore, I have written the following letters to my representatives in Congress, and would most wholeheartedly urge any of my fellow citizens so moved to do the same. I muddle along under no illusions whatsoever that my lone voice, even though I have tried to back it up with brief, but hopefully solid, research, is going to make a whit of difference, but I am still naive enough to believe that if enough of us present a strong and powerful enough voice about this outrageous in-your-face lawlessness, it just might make some difference, even if only a small one.

So, here are my letters; just a cry in the wilderness of just one citizen trying to get the attention of his public “servants” and trying to get them to do SOMEthing, ANYthing, before it’s too late, because if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States, it will, in all probability, be “too late” for America.

Letter of September 4, 2016:

This message is being sent to my representatives in Congress, Senators Vitter and Cassidy and Congressman Graves and concerns what I and many others view as the complete dismantling of the Rule of Law by the President, the Attorney General and the FBI, with regard to Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and others on Mrs. Clinton’s staff.


It is becoming more and more clear that Clinton and her staff may welll have destroyed evidence which, at the time of its destruction either by them personally or at their direction, they knew to be evidence subject to a validly issued subpoena. This was beginning to be the clear case before the  FBI cynically made its “Friday night before a long holiday weekend document dump”, an act which should convince anyone that the Bureau and the Department of Justice have become totally politicized under this Administration. However, although the Bureau only gave Congress two items for public release, ordering that the remainder be subject to very strict viewing “privileges” (when did we get to the point that a Member of the Senate or the House of Representatives are ordered to observe such strict limits on what they can and cannot see of records which should all be totally public records? ) but, according to several analyses I have reviewed over the past two days, it is beginning to appear that Clinton’s staff deliberately destroyed, or attempted to destroy, a large volume of her e-mails, some of which related to the Benghazi tragedy, over which she should have been impeached long ago, not by “wiping with a cloth, or something” as she so cynically stated at one of her two “press availabilities” in 10 months, but by the use of a device known as Bleach Bit, said to leave no traces whatsoever on any drive it touches. One of the most thorough discussions I have seen on this question, and one which I most respectfully request that you read carefully, was published yesterday in the Washington Examiner and authored by Byron York, a highly respected investigative reporter, and a real journalist in a time when those are more and more scarce on the ground. His article (From FBI Fragments, a question: Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under subpoena?”) contains the following statement, and it is important in reading this sentence to remember  that this reporter is not given to unsupported charges of any kind:

“But even with the fragments now public-the Clinton 302, the overview report, but none of the many other witness interviews-  it seems fair to conclude that staff on the Clinton team destroyed material that was under subpoena. Whether that was unwitting, or whether it was something else, is not known, at least publicly.”

There are so many other legitimate questions to which the public should be demanding answers it has become difficult to keep track of all of them, but certainly one such question which should be answered by the Justice Department and the FBI is, as is phrased in the title of an excellent article by Andrew McCarthy which appeared Friday in National Review Online: “Hillary Clinton’s Mind-Boggling FBI Interview-What Was Cheryl Mills Doing There?” It is truly astonishing that an agency which was once known world-wide as the epitome of integrity and incorruptibility is now shown to have conducted an investigation which was, to be most charitable, almost as “extremely careless” as its Director deemed Mrs. Clinton’s handling of National Security secrets. It is truly mind-boggling that they would permit one of the main organizers of the entire e-mail cover up scheme, if not the one who conceived the entire operation, to sit in with the person who was the target of the investigation (and who without a doubt would now be under indictment had her name been Hillary Rodham Smith).

After many decades at the Louisiana Bar, the very idea of this kind of pure, unmitigated lawlessness is so repulsive to me that it defies description in terms civil and professional.

Therefore, I am asking you, as one of my representatives in the United States Congress, to –as soon as possible, please-use whatever procedures, powers, agencies, etc. you may have within your authority to bring to bear whatever needs to be done, including urging the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, to bring these lawless people who were supposed to be working for us, the taxpayers, but were in fact working for the Clinton Family Foundation, all the while, to the Bar of Justice, exactly as would be any other “regular” citizen not named Clinton, long ago.

I would greatly appreciate being advised of what steps you intend to take in this regard, and with best wishes, I am,

James A. George

Letter of September 7, 2016:

This message is being sent to my representatives in Congress, Senators Vitter and Cassidy and Congressman Graves and concerns what I and many others view as the complete dismantling of the Rule of Law by the President, the Attorney General and the FBI, with regard to Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and others on Mrs. Clinton’s staff and constitutes my request that you join publicly with Chairman Jason Chaffetz in calling upon the US Attorney for the District of Columbia to open an investigation into their lawless conduct by the intentional destruction of evidence under subpoena.

I urge you, as one of my three representatives in Congress, to actively and openly and publicly join the Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in his call for the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia to immediately launch a full investigation into what more and more clearly appears to be deliberate, willful, intentional, wanton and lawless destruction of evidence –UNDER SUBPOENA AT THE TIME OF ITS DESTRUCTION—by and/or on behalf of Hillary Clinton during and after her tenure as Secretary of State, in which capacity she doubled as Manager of the pay to play scheme benefitting herself, her husband and her daughter.

In an article appearing in the Independent Journal Review (url: http://ijr.com/2016/09/687917-federal-prosecutor-called-on-to-investigate-hillary-clinton-for-obstruction-of-justice/?utm_campaign=morning-newsletter&utm_medium=owned&utm_source=email) the author notes:

“Hillary Clinton was let off the hook earlier this summer when The Department of Justice hastily dropped the mysterious case of the missing emails.

The flurry of activity coinciding around that curious decision was punctuated by an odd press conference delivered by FBI Director James Comey, followed by a pronouncement by Attorney General Loretta Lynch that ‘of course, she’d be taking the advice of the FBI and would cease investigation of Mrs. Clinton posthaste.’

As is always the case with the Clintons, there is more to the story. Signaling that a Hillary Clinton presidency would truly be a historically fractious one, the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has now issued a call for the federal prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton for “obstruction of justice.”

Although I assume your staff has ready access to Chairman Chaffetz’ letter, here is the url for ease of immediate reference: https://www.scribd.com/document/323159423/US-Attorney-for-District-of-Columbia-Letter#download.

She should be (finally!) indicted for, inter alia, obstruction of justice for this clearly intentional (regardless of what the Director of the FBI and the Attorney General of the United States may believe) destruction of evidence under subpoena, which fact was very clearly, according to the string of letters submitted by Rep. Chaffetz along with his recent letter to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, known to Mrs. Clinton and her staff, or, at a minimum, should have been known by the person we have been assured is “the most qualified person to ever run for the President of the United States”.

I would appreciate very much hearing from you, or a staff member who is authorized to give me a complete report, as to your response to this request and what steps you intend to take to publicly support Chairman Chaffetz in pushing for this investigation of this extremely corrupt group of people, who have violated the great trust put in them by the American people.

I remain,

James A. George

As this critical election season moves on, “in its steady pace”, and it becomes more and more clear that the defeat of the most dishonest, corrupt, grasping, greedy, hypocritical, cold, cynical pathological liar who ever stood for election to the highest position of trust we Americans can give anyone is absolutely essential to the survival of our Beloved Nation as we know it, all I can say in closing is

God Bless America!






Le’VonteKing Jason, Barack Hussein Obama and The Baton Rouge Police Horror

I am a Baton Rougean and sick to my stomach and grieving for the families of our incredible officers gunned down by an “alleged” member of The Nation of Islam this morning in my home town. I have tried to read and study and learn about all the ramifications of the War on Cops in our recent and nightmarish past, and have come to know, and highly respect, the writings of Heather MacDonald on this very subject and have seen the admiring reviews of her new book “The War on Cops”, reviews almost universally positive across the board and across all aspects of political thought and persuasion. In the process of reeling from the news of the morning about the unspeakable slaughter of our protectors here in our town this morning, I happened across a piece  (“The Fire Spreads”) she just published about this horror, but, much more importantly, about the events which have been leading inexorably to this moment, and the one last week in Dallas, by so many in the administration and the totally out-of-control-irresponsible mainstream media but, primarily, by our Instigator-In-Chief, The President of the United States. I recommend it highly as you will learn many things from it that you almost certainly never knew–that is, unless you have been following her writings and have picked up her new book. As an example of things you never knew, after finally finding an article which carried the basic identification facts of the perpetrator of this insane act of slaughter, I had to go through about three or four more media reports before finally finding one which reported the apparently politically incorrect fact that he is a black man. It is almost like the media assumes we are all so knuckle-draggingly stupid that we will “give up” after being spoon-fed one or two articles and give up our quest for a more complete report.

However, I did come to know about a little two-year old boy named Le’Vonte King Jason in Ms. MacDonald’s article of today and I feel it is a fairly safe bet that not many people know the story of this little baby boy who was in a car driven by his father that was peppered by bullets in a drive-by shooting, which snuffed out his little two-year life on this Earth and also injured his 15-month old sister. This unimaginable tragedy took place in Minneapolis, a few miles away and two days after Philando Castile was shot by police during a traffic stop. As Ms. MacDonald notes in today’s article, “Except for a local columnist, the press ignored Jason’s funeral, in contrast to the media scrum that inundated Castile’s funeral on the same day.” (I must note it was all I could do to type “scrum” other than the similar sounding word I use more and more for the mainstream media these days –this one in particular.)

While I refer you to the piece this highly respected authority wrote today after this nightmare has hit our city, and, horribly, the families of these members of the Blue Line, a few of her conclusions are worth noting and highlighting. After quoting from the disgracefully bigoted and biased remarks of The President of the United States, clearly the lowest form of humanity to ever occupy that office, at the Memorial Service for the fallen officers in Dallas, in which he “rebuked all of America for its ‘bigotry’, but paid special attention to alleged police bigotry”, she had this to say:

“The irresponsible zealotry of this rebuke was stunning. Obama was fully on notice that the hatred of cops was reaching homicidal levels. And yet his commitment to prosecuting his crusade against phantom police racism trumped considerations of prudence and safety, on the one hand, and decent respect for the fallen, on the other.”

The author also noted that “the media bear equal responsibility for the ongoing carnage.” I note for the record my wholehearted agreement with this statement.

I also go on record with the following, which I have held back on stating publicly out of concern for offending our more moderate, or, in some cases, far left, friends, but it is way past time that we all start speaking our minds much more forcefully and without concern for all this political correctness [_ _ _ _]; sorry, I just could not bring myself to actually write the word which was in my mind but perhaps one might hazard a guess as to what I had in mind. This is the President who has urged his many drooling, sycophantic rabid fans to “bring a gun” when the other side brings a knife to a fight. There are so many other similar illustrations of that kind of radical statement on his part they are legion. Yet today, this same person, clearly the most radical, biased, bigoted, far-left creature of the world of Saul Alinsky to ever even get close to the Oval Office, which he has thoroughly soiled, called for all of “us” to discard “divisive language” and “inflammatory rhetoric thrown around to advance an agenda.” I go on record as fully agreeing with this author when she says: “Sorry, Mr. President, those who tell the truth about crime and policing are not part of the problem and they bear no responsibility for the massacre of cops. The killing of cops is furthered exclusively by those peddling a false narrative that cops harbor lethal bias toward blacks. Obama should call for the Black Lives Matter movement to fold its tent–and he himself should start telling the truth about inner-city crime.”

It is so far past time for all of us to state our beliefs forthrightly and directly without regard for all this pusillanimous political correctness and concern for the delicate “feelings” of those who are, for reasons which entirely escape me, in swoon to this far-left mindset which, as sure as night follows day, is setting us on a course of all out open warfare in this Nation. This is my first step in that direction and, unlike every politician who makes the mistake of speaking his mind about something, I will not apologize for one single word of it, and I fully plan to say much more in the future for which I will also not apologize.

God Bless America!




Police Tragedy in Baton Rouge

Like  all of our Baton Rouge friends, we are deeply stricken with grief and anger and hurt at this despicable and insane slaughter of officers of the Baton Rouge Police Department and, while I have been the first to express strong disagreement with those who leap to conclusions without having even a scintilla of evidence before making speeches, etc. (if the phrase “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” sounds vaguely familiar, that incident is exactly what I am referring to– sadly, only one of many statements by this President which have not been helpful, and that is the most civil way I can put my feelings at this point), it is quite apparent that this was, quite simply, an ambush of some sort. We will offer our prayers for the fallen and the injured and their families as we await further evidence, but one thing is clear–this must stop before this Nation is plunged into all-out warfare. I will now proudly display the following emblem on my messages to show my deep and respectful support for the defenders of (what is left of) the American Rule of Law, the bedrock upon which this, the greatest Nation ever created by the mind of man, is based.

A Permanent Stain on The Rule of Law

In the terrible shock and dismay in the wake of the FBI Director’s statement of this morning that there will be no recommendation of an indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton, after listing every single element necessary for a conviction under 18 USCA 793(f), I decided to really show my age and actually check with the law, as we were taught to do when I was in the LSU Law School over a half-century ago. I say that while admitting, today for the first time, despite the sleaze and repugnance we have all seen in the ongoing Gong Show loosely referred to as the Presidential campaign, I think the American Rule of Law has been, if not fatally, severely damaged by this open and obvious display of corrupt influencing on the national stage.

As a preface to what my analysis of the applicable law shows me, if not Director Come(d)y and his 100 or more agents on this investigation who we were told if this day ever came, and if the report of the Bureau was against prosecution would rise up in righteous indignation and resign en masse (no resignations announced, righteous or otherwise as of mid-afternoon on this sad day in American history!), I would quote from a piece published on National Review Online by an expert whose analyses I have found most persuasive and well informed, Andrew McCarthy, who was a Federal prosecutor for many years in New York City and was leader of the team which successfully prosecuted “The Blind Sheik” for masterminding the first terror attack on the World Trade Center in the early ’90’s:

“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. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.”

Mr. McCarthy also noted that he was especially unpersuaded by Comey’s claim that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case” based upon the evidence he had outlined and he said he, as a prosecutor, would ask:”Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence” and that the answer to that question is, obviously, to prevent harm to national security. Then, the next question our reasonable prosecutor would naturally ask would be was the statute violated, and, if yes, is it likely that her conduct caused harm to national security? As he said, if those two questions are answered in the affirmative, many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Therefore, the next logical step for me, based on my apparently-now-outmoded approach to the law, which, after this morning’s sleazy, slimy, openly corrupt, statement by a person of whom I had the highest regard of anyone in Washington until a few hours ago, may be a dead letter in what used to be a government of laws not of men, was to carefully examine not only the specific provision everyone knows she violated but also the context in which it appears, i.e., other sections of the law in the same general area.

That analysis is truly eye-opening, as I hope to explain below. The specific provision, as Mr. McCarthy noted above, is 793(f), which is as follows:

“18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

What is most interesting is that all preceding sections require a showing of “intent” in one form or other. For example,  Sections (a) and (b) use the word “intent”, while Sections (d) and (e) use the words “willful”, all clearly requiring that specific intent of the accused be shown. Section (c) uses the phrase “knowing or having reason to believe”, again, which connotes to me, at least, a requirement of intent based on prior knowledge.

Section (f) is the only one in the entire group of sections which uses the words “gross negligence”, which is as clear as evidence can be of an intent to write an entirely different standard into that particular section of the law.

Mr. Comey has enjoyed the reputation of being an outstanding lawyer and prosecutor before he became Director of the FBI. That he could stand there today and make the statements he made, directly in the teeth of the evidence he had just outlined, is almost embarrassingly corrupt and his (?) action today will leave a permanent stain on the Rule of Law in America and will soil its legitimacy for a very long time to come.

This is, to put it as mildly as I can without the use of much stronger language, a very sad day for America.



Naive no longer on Shady Lake

Not long ago, I published, for the world to see, my deeply held belief that there were still honorable people in that cesspool also known as Washington, D.C., and the one I named specifically was James Comey, Director, FBI. It was entitled “Naïve on Shady Lake.” Right now, I’m feeling very much like I did when it was becoming apparent that the Thug Hussein had beaten Romney for a second term of Government by Gangsterism, and, while I am reminded that “we all knew this was the way it was going to turn out”, I really don’t think the most cynical among us could have anticipated the in-your-face corruption of the way it was handled with the “snakes on a plane” meeting last Monday, the news of it breaking a few days later (accidentally?), Hillary’s statement that she would likely keep Blandly Sinister (thanks to Andrew Klavan) on as Attorney General, and Air Force One (it almost makes me hurl to think of how even that beautiful aircraft has been soiled by this bunch) touching down in Charlotte with Hussein and the Monster heading for a campaign rally (which flight you and I paid for), as Comey is making a statement which is unbelievable on several different levels – factually, legally, you name it.

This may really be it for me in trying to deal with corruption in American politics; not sure how much fight I have left in me.


Quousque Tandem, Hussein?

In the trial which apparently started Cicero on the path to becoming one of history’s  greatest lawyers, he cried out, of Catiline, Quo usque tandem abutere, Catiline, patientia nostra?—“How long, Catiline, will you go on abusing our patience?” More and more lately, I find myself thinking of that phrase and wondering just how long it is going to take and how much abuse it is going to take for SOMEONE in that lofty perch otherwise known as The Congress of The United States to wake up one day and say something to the effect of ENOUGH IS ENOUGH and—finally!—file articles of impeachment. I know the chances of that are exactly two, slim and none, but I insist on holding out hope there is one person of courage up there who will state that phrase and just decide it’s time that the American people got the representation they deserve and that I took an oath to deliver. Someday………maybe. In furtherance of that perhaps impossible dream, and prompted by the news of yesterday that one of the guns used to slaughter so many people in Paris was part of the insane “Fast and Furious” gun-running scheme of Obama and Holder, I wrote the following letter to our Congressman, Garrett Graves. Lest anyone say such efforts are a pure waste of one’s precious moments in this transitory life, if there is anything else one may do in this “Representative Republic” of ours, I would be deeply appreciative if anyone can enlighten me on that score. 


Dear Congressman Graves:

I attended your recent Town Hall Meeting at the Bluebonnet Library and found it very useful and informative–thank you! I very much admired the way you gave everyone a full chance and opportunity to ask questions on any and all topics. I write today to renew an ongoing request I made with your predecessor, to no avail whatsoever, but now with renewed emphasis due to recent events such as reports that one of the guns used in the Paris slaughter was part of the “Fast and Furious” program which was apparently carefully designed by idiots to assure the largest possible number of people could be killed by rogue guns set loose in the course of that insane, lunatic program, and that is: Why isn’t ANYONE moving to impeach this most lawless and anti-American President in our Nation’s history? Here is a recent release by Judicial Watch, about which I must say Thank God we have them as they are doing the work one would think would be done by a vigorous investigative journalism profession and, no offense to you personally, by the United States Congress:


“Law Enforcement Sources: Gun Used in Paris Terrorist Attacks Came from Phoenix

JUNE 29, 2016


One of the guns used in the November 13, 2015 Paris terrorist attacks came from Phoenix, Arizona where the Obama administration allowed criminals to buy thousands of weapons illegally in a deadly and futile “gun-walking” operation known as “Fast and Furious.”


A Report of Investigation (ROI) filed by a case agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) tracked the gun used in the Paris attacks to a Phoenix gun owner who sold it illegally, “off book,” Judicial Watch’s law enforcement sources confirm. Federal agents tracing the firearm also found the Phoenix gun owner to be in possession of an unregistered fully automatic weapon, according to law enforcement officials with firsthand knowledge of the investigation.


The investigative follow up of the Paris weapon consisted of tracking a paper trail using a 4473 form, which documents a gun’s ownership history by, among other things, using serial numbers. The Phoenix gun owner that the weapon was traced back to was found to have at least two federal firearms violations—for selling one weapon illegally and possessing an unregistered automatic—but no enforcement or prosecutorial action was taken against the individual. Instead, ATF leaders went out of their way to keep the information under the radar and ensure that the gun owner’s identity was “kept quiet,” according to law enforcement sources involved with the case. “Agents were told, in the process of taking the fully auto, not to anger the seller to prevent him from going public,” a veteran law enforcement official told Judicial Watch.


It’s not clear if the agency, which is responsible for cracking down on the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, did this because the individual was involved in the Fast and Furious gun-running scheme. An ATF spokesman, Corey Ray, at the agency’s Washington D.C. headquarters told Judicial Watch that “no firearms used in the Paris attacks have been traced” by the agency. When asked about the ROI report linking the weapon used in Paris to Phoenix, Ray said “I’m not familiar with the report you’re referencing.” Judicial Watch also tried contacting the Phoenix ATF office, but multiple calls were not returned.


The ATF ran the Fast and Furious experiment and actually allowed criminals, “straw purchasers,” working for Mexican drug cartels to buy weapons at federally licensed firearms dealers in Phoenix and allowed the guns to be “walked”—possessed without any knowledge of their whereabouts. The government lost track of most of the weapons and many have been used to murder hundreds of innocent people as well as a U.S. Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry, in Arizona. A mainstream newspaper reported that a Muslim terrorist who planned to murder attendees of a Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas last year bought a 9-millimeter pistol at a Phoenix gun shop that participated in the ATF’s Fast and Furious program despite drug and assault charges that should have raised red flags. Judicial Watch has thoroughly investigated Fast and Furious and has sued the Obama administration for information about the once-secret operation.”


With regard to your Town Hall Meeting, I would also like to note that the second question of the gentleman who was asked to stand down while he was making the point, apparently thought by your staff people to be made too loudly and forcefully and with too much anger, perfectly illustrates why there is an ongoing revolt in this country, one which gave birth to the candidacy of Donald Trump, as I found myself in total and complete agreement with the gentleman and his statement to the effect “when in the world is SOMEONE going to do something about this lawless administration under the most lawless President who ever besmirched and stained our highest office?” The gentleman in question, who I do not know, was simply giving voice to the emotion many very honorable, decent, law abiding citizens of our State and our Beloved Nation are feeling– what do these people have to do and how much do Americans have to take being almost literally spit in the face by this group of thugs before someone in our Representative Republic undertakes his or her sworn duty to take SOME kind of remedial action? Scrubbing the words Allihu Akhbar from public records as we are apparently too delicate for such language (!), private meetings with the Attorney General of the United States and the husband of the most high profile subject of a massive investigation by HER OWN DEPARTMENT, ignoring entire sections of the immigration laws of this country, refusing to call our most obvious enemy by its name, Radical Islamic Terrorism, targeted punitive action by the IRS against people with the temerity to put such hateful words as PATRIOT in the title of their organizations, an entire party making excuses for 25 years of  pathological lying by their candidate for President, and on, and on, and on, are just a very small sample  of the reasons the gentleman in your Town Hall was so visibly angered and upset and while it may have been just a little unpleasant for those more delicate people in the audience to hear I, and I am sure many others, agreed 100% with the feelings he was expressing.


I wish you and yours well and I again applaud your efforts; I would very much appreciate hearing from you on my inquiries.