Note to directors at the F.B.I., & etc.: RE: your oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" ...

5 U.S. Code § 3331. Oath of office :

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

_____________________________________

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 424.)

But the oath is not to be confused with a license to determine on one's sole whim and private prerogative who constitutes, simply as an individual (and as though he or she were a "threat" to the Constitution of the United States and inherently so) some existential threat to the Constitution of the United States. By far, the greatest and the most abiding threat to the Constitution of the United States is popular ignorance or simple indifference to its terms and the principles behind them. Only after that come the potential danger, actual dangers, in their cases, from people such as Former F.B.I. Director James Comey, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the Directors of National Intelligence or the disparate agencies which comprise this grouping: C.I.A., D.I.A., N.S.A., etc., former U.S. Attorney Generals (acting) Sally Yates, Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, party election campaign chiefs like John Podesta and the candidates they serve to the detriment of the Constitution, Hillary Clinton.

"What ( former FBI Deputy Director (Andrew)) McCabe’s version strongly suggests is that the FBI took it upon itself to be a check on the president of the United States. This is not its appointed role in our system. If the president abuses his powers, that’s a matter for Congress to take up, not for executive branch officials whose panic eclipsed their judgment." —Rich Lowry.
____________________

The demented FBI bid to oust Trump
By Rich Lowry February 19, 2019 | 7:22pm

Former Deputy Director McCabe claims he informed all the elected Congress members he was supposed to inform. But one, Jim Jordan (R-OH) says he was not informed:

" Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, pushed back Tuesday on ex-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s claims he informed top Congressional leaders and that no one objected to the investigation into President Donald Trump and his alleged ties to Russia.

"Speaking to 'Fox & Friends' host Brian Kilmeade, Jordan said he was never informed by McCabe and blasted him as someone who cannot be trusted.

" 'I was never informed or I would have objected,' Jordan, who was a key member of the House Judiciary Committee at the time, said."

____________________

Jim Jordan hits back after McCabe claims congressional leaders didn't object to Trump probe |
By Victor Garcia | Fox News

The point, of course, is that high-ranking officials at the F.B.I. or other agencies of the Justice Department (U.S. Marshall's Service, etc.), or at the C.I.A., the N.S.A., the Treasury Dept. (which includes the U.S. Secret Service)— these officers don't each have his or her own personal license to designate threats to the Constitution as and when the whim may strike them.

Dear Proximity1,

On behalf of the FBI I would like to thank you for your act of vigilant citizenship, informing us of the possibility of gross misconduct on the part of the people we work with day in and day out, and to whom we owe our allegiance, and to assure you that though we are laughing our asses off, that is in no way to be construed as a lack of appreciation for your attempts to bring us to heel. We shall forward your letter to the concerned {Very Concerned} {and labeled as such} wastebasket here beneath my desk next to the shoes I wear, rather cowboy boots, sharp-toed, the better to deal with malcontents who believe they know the law better than we do and apparently support the law-breaking President whom we are making every effort to protect you from.

All the best,

Rick, FBI
Office of Public Relations

"What ( former FBI Deputy Director (Andrew)) McCabe’s version strongly suggests is that the FBI took it upon itself to be a check on the president of the United States. This is not its appointed role in our system. If the president abuses his powers, that’s a matter for Congress to take up, not for executive branch officials whose panic eclipsed their judgment." —Rich Lowry.

That's just deluded. The FBI has the responsibility to investigate crimes committed in the US and counter foreign intelligence operations. It doesn't matter who the perpetrator is, they should investigate anyone, even the POTUS, if there is a reasonable suspicion against them. The POTUS doesn't get a free pass just because of his position.

>3 jjwilson61:

... "The FBI has the responsibility to investigate crimes committed in the US and counter foreign intelligence operations" ...

____________________

There was not only "no crime", there wasn't even probable cause to suspect a crime had been committed by Donald Trump either while a presidential candidate or after, as president-elect.

This was, by every fair and honest appraisal, a witch-hunt, cooked up with malice aforethought and undertaken with its designed conclusion a foregone one: to get its target, Donald Trump, to eliminate him as a political actor, a political factor in national politics.

To do this, the officials involved had to violate their oaths of office and existing
U.S. statutes.

Again, not since the time of Joe McCarthy and his "anti"-Communist witch-hunts, with the House Un-American Activities Committee's inquisitorial purges, has the nation seen so black a page in widespread official malfeasance and a public so ready, so willing, to be swept up and carried away in the propaganda-made hysteria.

The 25th Amendment disagrees with Mr. Lowry. Of course, proximity runs right by that in his desperate flailing efforts to claim that Trump has been the subject of a "witch-hunt", because proximity has no idea what he is talking about on any subject.

Halloween comes right before the election in 2020. A half minute--45 second attack add starts off with Trump at various times saying 'witch hunt' witch hunt' 'witch hunt' followed by a rogues gallery of his prosecuted associates--Manafort--wearing a witches hat, Cohen--wearing a witches hats, Flynn with a witches hat ending with Trump with a broomstick--black cat lurking in the background. No doubt someone will think of something better than that but he's going to get walloped.

Anyway loved #2.

>5 StormRaven:

"The 25th Amendment disagrees with Mr. Lowry."
__________________________________________

Lowry's pertinent text reads as follows (direct quoted portions and the corresponding parts within the Amendment's text are in boldface, below):

"According to McCabe, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein brought up invoking the 25th Amendment.

"It is worth considering how this Rube Goldberg amendment is supposed to work: The vice president takes power if he and a ­majority of the cabinet declare in writing to the Senate and the House that the president is ­“unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” (See, below, Section 4, Paragraph (1))

"Then the president can contest the declaration, also in writing to the Senate and the House. (See, below, Section 4, Paragraph (2 (A)) If the veep and a majority of the cabinet still say he can’t serve, (See, below, Section 4, Paragraph (2 (B)) Congress has 21 days to vote on the question.(See, below, Section 4, Paragraph (2 (C)) If two-thirds of both chambers say he can’t, the vice president remains acting president.

The Twenty-fifth amendment reads as follows:

Amendment XXV
(Ratified February 10, 1967)

Section 1
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4

(1) Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

(2) Thereafter, Section 4, Paragraph 2(A)when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless Section 4, Paragraph 2 (B) the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. (Section 4, Paragraph 2 (C) Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Anyone so inclined is welcome to present in clear detail where, how and why Lowry's article is in any significant way unfaithful to the text and the clear meaning of the XXVth amendment, shown above.

Here's your Federal Bureau of Investigation's director, James Comey, when it comes to a case that just really doesn't interest him:

... "Comey, announced on July 5, 2016, that he would not recommend criminal charges.¹ He did so without consulting the Department of Justice, a decision the department’s inspector general (IG) later concluded was misguided and likely usurped the power of the attorney general to make prosecutorial decisions. Comey has said, in retrospect, he accepts that finding but took the actions he did because he thought “they were in the country's best interest.” (emphasis added)

Here, Comey decides what is "in the country's best interest" where the matter concerns whether to bring a charge or not to bring a charge in a criminal case. This, under usual operating rules of the Justice Department, is not the F.B.I. director's call to make.

But when it comes to the matter of Donald Trump, whether as candidate or, still more, later, as elected president of the United States, that case, entirely dependent, at its source, on a wholly specious trumped-up load of now-discredited bullshit--shown to have been accepted without the usual verification and corroboration--that case, the origin of the most spectacular and scandalous government malfeasance since Joseph McCarthy's infamous

"The State Department is infested with communists. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department."²

is one that Comey, while Director of the F.B. I., apparently did not consider to be without merit or unworthy of the bureau's carrying on. Presumably, there again, in the opinion of James Comey, that investigation's continuation must have been one that was also in the country's best interest. ³
____________________

(1) (The Hill) FBI’s top lawyer believed Hillary Clinton should face charges, but was talked out of it |by John Solomon, Opinion contributor — 02/20/19 08:10 PM EST |

"For most of the past three years, the FBI has tried to portray its top leadership as united behind ex-Director James Comey’s decision not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for transmitting classified information over her insecure, private email server.

"Although in the end that may have been the case, we now are learning that Comey’s top lawyer, then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, initially believed Clinton deserved to face criminal charges, but was talked out of it 'pretty late in the process.'

"The revelation is contained in testimony Baker gave to House investigators last year. His testimony has not been publicly released, but I was permitted to review a transcript.

"During questioning by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), Baker was unequivocal about his early view that Clinton should face criminal charges.

“ 'I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of law — various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?' Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, asked Baker.

"Baker paused to gain his lawyer’s permission to respond, and then answered, 'Yes.'

"He later explained why he came to that conclusion, and how his mind was changed:

“ 'So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,' he said. 'And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).'

"Asked when he was persuaded to change his mind, Baker said: 'Pretty late in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until the end.' "
... ...

(2) Griffith, Robert (1970). The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and the Senate. University of Massachusetts Press. p. 49. ISBN 0-87023-555-9. (Wikipedia: Joseph McCarthy.)

(3)

Trump–Russia dossier

(The Federalist) Top Mueller Officials Coordinated With Fusion GPS Spouse In 2016 | The Department of Justice's Bruce Ohr claimed he repeatedly said information was not verified, risked bias, and had been obtained under political circumstances. | by Mollie Hemingway, 17 January, 2019 |

“A senior Department of Justice official says he repeatedly and specifically told top officials at the FBI and DOJ about dossier author Christopher Steele’s bias and his employer Fusion GPS’ conflicts of interest, information they kept hidden from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. These conversations involved high-level officials, including some who are now senior officials in the special counsel probe. And the conversations began taking place in the earliest days of August 2016, much earlier than previously revealed to congressional investigators seeking to learn the facts about the FBI’s decision to spy on the Trump campaign.
…

“It turns out that (Bruce) Ohr⁴ kept top officials at both the FBI and Department of Justice apprised of his conversations with Steele, passed along electronic and written materials from multiple Fusion GPS employees, and shared key information that was excluded from the FISA application to the courts.

“In fact, Ohr met with Steele on July 30, 2016, and initiated discussions with top officials within days, continuing to share information from and about the supposedly terminated source, not just through the election but well into the first year of the Trump administration.
… …

“In conversations with various members, Ohr claimed he repeatedly made it clear to the FBI that the information was not verified, risked bias, and had been obtained under political circumstances.

“He said he was open about his relationship with Steele and Simpson and about the fact his wife was on Simpson’s payroll, working on the same project Steele was. Asked if they were aware of Steele’s bias against Donald Trump, Ohr said ‘I provided information to the FBI when I thought Christopher Steele was, as I said, desperate that Trump not be elected. So, yes, of course, I provided that to the FBI.’ He said he told the bureau that Simpson was doing opposition research against Trump.

Rep. John Ratcliffe, (R-Texas), asked specifically about what the FBI had been told before their first FISA application. He said, ‘So, again, so the record is clear, what the Department of Justice and the FBI was aware of prior to the first FISA application was your relationship with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson, your wife’s relationship with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson, Mr. Steele’s bias against Donald Trump, your wife’s compensation for work for Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS, correct?’

"Ohr conferred with his lawyer but said, Right,’ and went on to list the things he told the FBI, including ‘At some point, and I don’t remember exactly when, I don’t think it was the first conversation, I told them that Chris Steele was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected. So those are all the facts that I provided to the FBI.’

"He went on in other lines of questioning, such as this one from Rep. Trey Gowdy, (R-S.C.):

Mr. Ohr. So when I provided it to the FBI, I tried to be clear that this is source information. I don’t know how reliable it is. You’re going to have to check it out and be aware. These guys were hired by somebody relating to — who’s related to the Clinton campaign, and be aware —
Mr. Gowdy. Did you tell the bureau that?
Mr. Ohr. Oh, yes.
Mr. Gowdy. Why did you tell the bureau that?
Mr. Ohr. I wanted them to be aware of any possible bias or, you know, as they evaluate the information, they need to know the circumstances.
Mr. Gowdy. So you specifically told the bureau that the information you were passing on came from someone who was employed by the DNC, albeit in a somewhat triangulated way?
Mr. Ohr. I don’t believe I used — I didn’t know they were employees by the DNC, but I certainly said, yes, that — that they were working for — you know, they were somehow working associated with the Clinton campaign. And I also told the FBI that my wife worked for Fusion GPS or was a contractor for GPS, Fusion GPS.
Mr. Gowdy. And, again, you thought it was important to tell the bureau that for bias —
Mr. Ohr. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. — motive, interest in the outcome, all of the reasons that you have to produce —
Mr. Ohr. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. — not complimentary information?
Mr. Ohr. Yes.

"This information did not make it into the FISA applications, which asserted on the basis of an unverified dossier that Page was an agent of Russia. Carter Page, whom the U.S. government spied on for at least a year, has not been charged with any crime.”

(4) former Associate deputy attorney-general at Justice Deparment and " ..."the Justice Department contact for Christopher Steele, the former MI6 agent commissioned to author the Trump–Russia dossier; the men first met in 2007." ... (Wikipedia / Main article: "Nunes Memo")