Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Where are our REPUB Senators DEMANDING Mueller and the phony anti Trump investigation be stopped??????Chickens all of them

Where are our REPUB Senators DEMANDING Mueller and the phony anti Trump investigation be stopped??????Chickens all of them. Afraid fake News NYSLIME will be upset? WHAT WE SUSPECTED ALL ALONG. DEMS BEHIND RUSSIAN PHONY COLLUSION. Mueller one of their errand boys it looks more and more like.…/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-b…/
Mueller has to go. BFF of fired FBI director Comey has hired 14 Democratic hack attorneys totally loyal to Hillary to persecute Trump based on NOTHING.
From WSJournal editorial "the special counsel whose friend was fired by Donald Trump is focusing on obstruction of an investigation into an underlying crime that so far doesn’t exist. In Watergate at least there was a third-rate burglary...
Much of Washington clearly views Mr. Mueller as their agent to rid the country of a President they despise. Every political and social incentive in that city will press Mr. Mueller to oblige. But you cannot topple a duly elected President based merely on innuendo or partisan distaste without doing great harm to democracy... Imagine what it will be like if millions of Americans conclude that a presidential election is being overturned by an elite consensus across the vast ideological and cultural divide running all the way from the New York Times to the Washington Post.
Move on. Let Trump do what he was ELECTED to do by the people. Mueller, do the decent thing and resign.

Hypocritical Dems want to endanger us by opposing Trump travel ban.

Hypocritical Dems want to endanger us by opposing Trump travel ban.
Carter, Clinton, Obama all Dem Presidents, all right to control immigration. Carter banned Muslim Iranians, Obama banned Muslim Iraqis. Question: why are Democrats hell bent on endangering us all the time, by now trying to block Trump's efforts to keep us safe?

Democrats really want socialized medicine, which they call "single payer"


The Boston Herald
Single-payer health care is back in the news. Activists in Colorado just secured enough signatures to put single-payer on the state ballot next fall. Last month, a state legislator from Philadelphia introduced legislation that would, if passed, install single-payer in Pennsylvania.
And then there’s Democratic presidential hopeful U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) who has promised to push for a nationwide, Medicare-for-all system if he wins the White House. “It’s time for a single-payer health care system in America,” Sanders recently announced on Twitter.
There is indeed a lot to learn from foreign, government-run single-payer systems — just not what Sanders and others might like to hear. From Canada to the United Kingdom and even Scandinavia, single-payer systems have proven cripplingly expensive even as they limit patients’ ability to access quality care.
Consider Canada’s true single-payer system. Patients must wait an average of more than two months to see a specialist after getting a referral from their general practitioner, according to the Fraser Institute, a nonpartisan Canadian think tank. Patients can expect to wait another 9.8 weeks, on average, before receiving the treatment they need from that specialist.
Overall, Canadians now wait even longer than last year — and 97 percent longer than they did in 1993.
Access to care is so poor, in fact, that 52,000 Canadians flee to the United States each year for medical attention. They refuse to wait in line for care as their health deteriorates.
The situation is no better under Great Britain’s mainly government-run health system.
As of this summer, 3.4 million Brits were stuck on waiting lists — a 36 percent uptick since 2010. Last year, about a million people had to wait more than four months to get treatment. Almost 300,000 waited at least six months.
As with most centrally-controlled bureaucracies, the British health system is inefficient. According to a recent government report, the country’s National Health Service is plagued by problems like neglect, incorrectly-administered medications and inadequate care for the dying. In some cases, the report concluded that the treatment of patients was “appalling.” Last month, more than 40,000 young doctors threatened an all-out strike over their hours.
As for Scandinavia, patients there would likely advise Sanders to reject socialized medicine.
In recent years, Swedish residents have gravitated toward private insurance to avoid the rationed care and long wait times common in the country’s single-payer system. Today, roughly one in 10 Swedes — more than half a million people — has a private health insurance policy.
As the Swedish economist Nima Sanandaji recently explained, the country’s socialist experiment has proven “such a colossal failure that few even in the left today view the memory as something positive.”
Of course, Sanders needn’t look abroad to see how socialized medicine fails patients. Just last year, his home state of Vermont abandoned an attempt to launch a statewide single-payer system. The reason? As Gov. Peter Shumlin — who supported it — explained, “The cost of that plan turned out to be enormous.”
The same would be true of the “Medicare-for-All” policy that Sanders continues to tout. According to the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, the senator’s proposal would require roughly $15 trillion in new federal spending over 10 years.
Single-payer in America isn’t that far-fetched. According to a December Kaiser Family Foundation poll, 58 percent of Americans support a Medicare-for-all system.
What’s more, UnitedHealth — the largest insurer in the country — recently announced that it may pull out of Obamacare’s exchanges in 2017. Others may follow suit, now that Congress has approved a budget measure that cuts federal payments to insurers originally promised by Obama-care. That may cause even more insurers to lose money on the exchanges.
If they respond to those losses by opting out of the exchanges, then Obamacare would collapse — and single-payer advocates would have an opening to push for Medicare-for-all as a replacement government-run system that denies patients access to high-quality health care. Embracing such failed health policies would cause nothing but harm for Americans.

17 Arguments Against Socialized Medicine

Mr. Johnson is a teacher at Hialeah Senior High School in Florida.
After School recently, a student posed an interesting question. His father was deceased, and he and his mother were living on a small in­come of which social security con­stituted a substantial portion. His mother had recently undergone an expensive operation, and it had been tough to pay the bills. His question was: "Why shouldn’t I favor government medical assist­ance?"
Other obligations prevented me from answering immediately, but the next morning the student re­ceived the following 17 points:
1. To the extent that your mother is living on social security she is al­ready the victim of an actuarially unsound program classified by many as an outright fraud. A large part of your difficulty in meeting bills is the product of this govern­ment program designed to "help the aged." You may be sure that a government program designed to "help the sick" would fare no bet­ter, and probably worse. People do better if they are charged with per­sonal responsibility for their wel­fare.
2. Social security payments are reduced or eliminated if your mother earns over $1,200 per year. This particular inequity within the entire inequitable program should be remedied, yet the problems posed by any attempt at "equity" tend to point up the undesirability of seeking "solutions" on a na­tional basis.
3. Your mother’s income is un­doubtedly suffering from inflation, which is the result of prior govern­ment activity. Please, therefore, do not ask for more government pro­grams. Inflation raises the cost of everything, medical services and supplies included, and such "hid­den taxation" affects all income, taxable and nontaxable.
4. If you ask the government to force others (through taxes) to help you in your particular situa­tion, you cannot expect others not to ask government to force you to help them. In all probability you will end by paying out much more than you will receive through this process.
5. Assuming genuine need, pri­vate charities and local agencies would be willing and able to do considerably more along lines of aiding you if taxes were not al­ready markedly diminishing their ability and inclination to function. The high progressive rate also tends to discourage many would-be doctors, whose terrific initial edu­cational investment should be al­lowed to pay off. To the extent that a doctor shortage exists, govern­ment must share a substantial por­tion of the blame. My own dentist has cut his work-week from five days to four because, in the words of his financial adviser, he was "working too many days for the government." Do not, therefore, add to this tax burden.
6. Even assuming that the taxes required to run a program of gov­ernment medicine might aid your mother in the short run, such taxa­tion would also put more people into her shoes.
7. Government bidding for medi­cal services and supplies would in­crease costs. Great Britain‘s pro­gram has slightly more than trip­led such costs. If you are serious in your alarm over high costs, you will resist a government program strongly.
8. Since the program would be designed to help millions of others, and not your mother alone, com­petition for supplies and services, in addition to raising costs, might make it difficult to obtain any at all. A shortage of goods and serv­ices would immediately occur if the government were to attempt to mitigate the effects of its own ac­tions through price controls. Pri­ority given to more serious cases would frustrate immediate treat­ment of minor cases. A man who could be "back on the job" in min­utes might have to wait weeks, with resulting loss of production to himself and to society.
9. A program of socialized medi­cine, once begun, would be ex­tremely difficult, politically, to abandon, no matter how mistaken the program should prove to be.
10. The vast majority of doctors do not like socialized medicine. The reasons they give—dislike of regi­mentation, the destruction of doc­tor-patient relationship, and the like—while important in them­selves, are secondary to the ines­capable conclusion. If the govern­ment seeks to accomplish by force something that would not occur voluntarily and institutes a pro­gram which doctors dislike, the re­sult will be fewer, and poorer, doc­tors. We hardly want this situa­tion.
11. The temptation to "get some­thing for nothing" would prove ir­resistible for many people. Statis­tics contrasting the number and length of illnesses of those who have government health insurance (in Great Britain and elsewhere) with those who have private insur­ance (in the U.S. and elsewhere) provide amusing proof of this. A large portion of government ex­penditure would go to those whose needs are questionable. This, also, would increase costs. Lack of local administration and responsibility might frequently deny sufficient benefits to those whose needs are genuine.’
12. Socialized medicine would be another long step to total socialism. Socialism, whatever else it may do, hardly increases production. By its emphasis on distribution, it re­tards production in a thousand ways. This will lower the standard of living for everyone, your mother included.
13. The functions of medicine are basically twofold: administra­tion of known drugs and tech­niques, and research. We come in contact with the profession through the former, but progress occurs only through the latter.’ So­cialized medicine would cause a shifting of emphasis from research to general upkeep, with the result that over-all medical progress would be retarded. The British ex­perience proves this beyond ques­tion.
14. Since the science of medicine under free enterprise in the United States has given us the best medi­cal service in the world’s history; since it has prolonged life in a phenomenal manner; since our medical supplies and services are infinitely superior to those in any other country… you should at­tempt to retain these advantages by fighting to retain the system under which they developed.
15. It is a mistake for the gov­ernment to consider the problems of the sick apart from those of so­ciety as a whole. Such considera­tion is a private matter, to be solved by private and local meth­ods. Such a narrow outlook on be­half of the government obscures the broader problem which is, in a moral sense, one of promoting respect for the individual and the furtherance of initiative and self-providence; in an economic sense, one of increasing production for the benefit of all citizens;and in a political sense, one of removing government as a battlefield for spe­cial favor and substituting cohe­sion and solidarity for division and disintegration.
16. No system, not even the free economy, can give everyone every­thing he wants at once. It is dan­gerous to allow or encourage any government to substitute its judg­ment for that of its citizens. It is well to keep in mind that no coun­try has come close to matching the United States in the solution of the very problem your mother pre­sents. I would recommend investi­gation of the numerous, actuarially sound private health insurance pro­grams, which already insure a sub­stantial majority of all American families. There are approximately 150 such programs in the United States today. Such diversification provides an ability to suit individ­ual requirements which would be impossible under a federal pro­gram.
17. Finally, let us consider the moral issue. You may feel that this is simple—that it is not morally correct for society to neglect those in need. But is there such a thing as "collective morality"?Is not moral action exclusively individ­ual? Can any action be moral if it is induced by compulsion? Who is acting and thinking in moral terms: the person who, cognizant of those in need, seeks to remedy the situation insofar as possible by resorting to his own pocketbook, or a person who thinks only in terms of legislation to force everyone else to take care of the problem?
Even if the facts were otherwise and it could be shown that the gov­ernment were capable of providing satisfactory medical care, the basic moral question you should ask yourself is this: What right have I to take another’s property without his consent, for my personal use? Under what conditions does it be­come proper or right for any in­dividual or group to rob another?
I feel that when you have an­swered the questions contained in this last point, you may find the first sixteen arguments superflu­ous. At least I hope so.

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Let's play WHO's GOING TO JAIL and how long?

Let's play WHO's GOING TO JAIL and how long?
1. Comey 5 years for perjury about leaking…/
2. Hillary 10 for many felonies including charitable fraud, recklessness with nation's secrets…/fbi-clinton-was-extremely_b…
3. Loretta Lynch 5 for obstruction of justice in covering up Hillary crimes…/loretta-lynch-faces-another-po…
4. Mrs  Bernie Sanders 10 years bank fraud

Why does media continue to LIE/make stuff up about supposed Trump-Russian collusion?

Why does media continue to LIE/make stuff up about supposed Trump-Russian collusion? 1. makes them $ 2. Dems want them to do so to distract us from their many crimes and media is propaganda arm of the Dems.

Trump right again. Hillary's popular vote "win" was based on illegals voting

The editorial cited a study by Just Facts Daily, a libertarian think tank. A Harvard/you.Gov poll had as many as 5.7 million non-citizens saying they had cast votes in former President Barack Obama's first election, and that number was 3.6 million in 2012.
With 21 million American adults in the 2016 Census – up from 19.4 million in 2008, the start of the Obama administration – "it is therefore highly likely that millions of non-citizens cast votes in 2016," according to the study.
"Democrats had extensive get-out-the-vote campaigns in areas heavily populated by illegal aliens," according to the IBD editorial this week. "As far back as 2008, Obama made sure that those who wanted to vote knew it was safe, announcing that election records would not be cross-checked with immigration databases.

"And last year, the Obama White House supported a court injunction that kept Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia from requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. The message was sent, loud and clear: If you're a non-citizen or here illegally, don't be afraid. You're free to vote. No one will stop you."
The editorial concludes Democrats should be troubled by the notion every "non-citizen voter negates the vote of a citizen," and American needs to "stop encouraging non-citizens and illegal aliens to vote in our election."

Saturday, June 24, 2017

How did it become widely believed in the first half of 2017 that a U.S. president committed treason with Russia?

Americans won’t be really good citizens until they read Timur Kuran and Cass Sunstein’s 1999 law review article about “availability cascades.”
Their launching point is the process by which we (i.e., human beings) decide to believe what others believe, and judge the truth of a proposition by how familiar it is. Such “availability cascades” drive government policy in good ways and bad, but usually bad. An example the authors analyze in detail is 1989’s fake “Alar” cancer scare that devastated U.S. apple growers.
Which brings us to today’s question: How did it become widely believed in the first half of 2017 that a U.S. president committed treason with Russia?


Consider what has passed for proof in the media. Tens of thousands of Americans have done business with Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union, not to mention before.
In 2009 President Obama made the first of his two trips to Russia with a gaggle of U.S. business leaders in tow.
Of these many thousands, four were associated with the Trump campaign, and now became evidence of Trump collusion with Russia.
Every president for 75 years has sought improved relations with Russia. That’s what those endless summits were about. Mr. Trump, in his typically bombastic way, also promoted improved relations with Russia. Now this was evidence of collusion.
Russian diplomats live in the U.S. and rub shoulders with countless Americans. Such shoulder-rubbing, if Trump associates were involved, now is proof of crime.
The Alar pesticide scare only took off when activists whom Messrs. Kuran and Sunstein label “availability entrepreneurs” peddled deceptive claims to a credulous “60 Minutes.” We would probably not be having this Russia discussion today if not for the so-called Trump dossier alleging improbable, lurid connections between Donald Trump and the Kremlin.
It had no provenance that anyone was bound to respect or rely upon. Its alleged author, a retired British agent named Christopher Steele, supposedly had Russian intelligence sources, but why would Russian intelligence blow the cover of their blackmail agent Mr. Trump whom they presumably so carefully and expensively cultivated? They wouldn’t.
Yet recall the litany of Rep. Adam Schiff, who declared in a House Intelligence Committee hearing: “Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy coincidence?”
His litany actually consisted of innocuous, incidental and routine Trump associations interspersed with claims from the Trump dossier to make the innocuous, incidental and routine seem nefarious.
Maybe Mr. Schiff is a cynic, or maybe Harvard Law sent him back into the world with the same skull full of mush with which he arrived. But ever since, every faulty or incomplete recollection of a meeting with a Russian has been promoted in the media as proof of treason by Trump associates.
The president’s obvious irritation with being called a traitor is proof that he is a traitor.
Whether the Russia incubus did more harm to Mr. Trump’s vote or Hillary’s vote during the election is impossible to know. But Mr. Trump won, so under the hindsight fallacy his victory is now proof that he conspired with Russia.
The term “availability bias” originated in the work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, whose Nobel Prize-winning research gave birth to the field of behavioral economics.
Mr. Kahneman went on to write 2011’s indispensable “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” and I’m here to tell you that journalists especially pride themselves on their fast thinking—the kind that mistakes randomness for pattern, confuses correlation with causation, and gives excessive rein to emotional and cognitive biases.
Notice I don’t say reporters and editors are so dumb they can’t free themselves from such errors. I say that such errors are their stock in trade.
The original allegory of fast thinking, of course, is the old folklore tale, “the emperor’s new clothes.” In his 1922 book “Public Opinion,” Walter Lippmann explained how journalists reduce complex, novel realities to off-the-shelf “stereotypes.”
Or as a colleague once said of Stalin, “[He] tries to force life into a ready-made framework. The more life resists . . . the more forcefully he mangles and breaks it.”
Come to think of it, that’s not a bad way of describing how the D.C. anthill has reacted to the unexpected, exotic, high-risk, possibly providential experiment of the Trump presidency.
We mean every descriptor. His very unsuitability, the mood of the American public that elected him, the obscure impasse of American politics that brought him to power—all these signs deserve more respect than they’re getting.
His Torquemadas don’t and can’t know whether our democracy, in the improbable Mr. Trump, found a lever to move us forward, and there’s something repugnant in their desire not to find out.
Appeared in the June 21, 2017, print edition.

Friday, June 23, 2017

Mueller is hiring an army of Democratic lawyers with one goal: get Trump. Fire them all!!!!

Posted: 23 Jun 2017 05:24 AM PDT
(Scott Johnson)
President Trump is now in a death struggle with Robert Mueller and James Comey. That’s the conclusion I draw from former Assistant United States Attorney Andrew McCarthy’s gimlet-eyed American Greatness column “Mueller’s empire.” Andy’s column makes several important points on which I have slightly expanded:
• Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein fundamentally violates the applicable regulation. The regulation requires that the Attorney General or the Acting Attorney General determine “that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted…”
• Rosenstein’s order appointing Mueller is posted online here. In his announcement of Mueller’s appointment Rosenstein stated: “In my capacity as acting Attorney General, I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a Special Counsel to assume responsibility for this matter.”
• Nota bene (this is still Rosenstein speaking): “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”
• McCarthy explains: “The way this is supposed to work is: the Justice Department first identifies a likely crime, and then assigns a prosecutor to investigate it. Here, by contrast, there are no parameters imposed on the special counsel’s jurisdiction.”
• Therefore: “Mueller’s probe is the functional equivalent of a general warrant: a boundless writ to search for incriminating evidence. It is the very evil the Fourth Amendment was adopted to forbid: a scorch-the-earth investigation in the absence of probable cause that a crime has been committed.”
• Mueller’s team includes 14 lawyers and counting. There are “several more in the pipeline.”
• A funny thing about these lawyers. They “overwhelmingly, are Democrats. Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff and the Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross have been tracking it: Mueller’s staffers contribute to Trump’s political opponents, some heavily. The latest Democratic talking-point about this unseemly appearance is that hiring regulations forbid an inquiry into an applicant’s political affiliation. That’s laughable. These are lawyers Mueller has recruited. They are not ‘applicants.’ We’re talking about top-shelf legal talent, accomplished professionals who have jumped at the chance of a gig they do not need but, clearly, want.”
• Mueller is drawing on a limitless budget to conduct an investigation without boundaries by lawyers hostile to the president.
• McCarthy draws on his own experience prosecuting complex cases to ask two questions: “Why does special counsel Mueller need 14 lawyers (and more coming) for a counterintelligence investigation, as to which the intelligence professionals—agents, not lawyers—have found no ‘collusion with Russia’ evidence after over a year of hard work? What will those lawyers be doing with no limits on their jurisdiction, with nothing but all the time and funding they need to examine one target, Donald Trump?”
One reads McCarthy’s column with a deep sense of foreboding. To understand the legal component of Trump’s ordeal — to understand the nature of the train that is coming down the tracks toward Trump — McCarthy’s column is mandatory reading.

Climate Change "science" continues to be disproven by honest scientists

Posted: 19 Jun 2017 03:42 PM PDT
(Steven Hayward)
Most climatistas are going to call today “Black Monday,” because today has dealt a double-whammy of what Al Gore would call inconvenient news.
 First, an article out today in Nature Geoscience ponders the problem of why observed temperatures in the troposphere are not matching up with what the climate models have predicted. The lead author, Ben Santer, is one of the leading climatistas, so this article can’t be written off as “denier” distortions. (One of the co-authors is Michael Mann.) The complete article is behind a paywall, and while it is evident that the authors have done all the necessary contortions that essentially say “our models are just a little off” so as to convey a “nothing to see here” conclusion, the abstract can hardly be reassuring because it has to concede the problem:
Ben Santer, et al.
In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
 Second, one of the heroes of the climate fantasists is Stanford’s Mark Jacobson, who has been arguing for some time now that the U.S. can get to 100 percent renewable electricity (wind, solar, and hydro) by the year 2050. His work is preposterous, and as I noted here once before, Jacobson is regarded as a joke by most of his Stanford colleagues. Some of them (along with heavyweight energy academics from Berkeley, MIT, and elsewhere—there are a total of 21 authors signed on) have joined a major article out today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that thoroughly rubbishes Jacobson’s fantasies:
A number of analyses, meta-analyses, and assessments, including those performed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the International Energy Agency, have concluded that deployment of a diverse portfolio of clean energy technologies makes a transition to a low-carbon-emission energy system both more feasible and less costly than other pathways. In contrast, Jacobson et al. [Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA, Cameron MA, Frew BA (2015) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(49):15060–15065] argue that it is feasible to provide “low-cost solutions to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of WWS [wind, water and solar power] across all energy sectors in the continental United States between 2050 and 2055”, with only electricity and hydrogen as energy carriers. In this paper, we evaluate that study and find significant shortcomings in the analysis. In particular, we point out that this work used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions. Policy makers should treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.
Translated from the politesse of formal academic writing, this means: Jacobson is full of crap. If you need confirmation, just consider that Jacobson has responded by attacking his critics in ad hominem fashion, rather than their arguments, telling the MIT Technology Review that “They’re either nuclear advocates or carbon sequestration advocates or fossil-fuels advocates. They don’t like the fact that we’re getting a lot of attention, so they’re trying to diminish our work.” (By the way—who has been giving Jacobson “a lot of attention”? Actor Mark Ruffalo and activist Van Jones in particular  Not exactly a compelling rebuttal. And totally incorrect about the authors of the new PNAS study, many of whom (I know some of them) are totally convinced climateers and dedicated energy decarbonizers. They just don’t like B.S.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Democrats have opened up a legal can of worms for the Obama administration

Next up: a special counsel to probe Team Obama’s obstruction of justice


By using fired FBI Director James Comey to attack the new Republican administration, Democrats have opened up a legal can of worms for the Obama administration.
Under sworn questioning, Comey has veered off the topic of President Trump and Russia and revealed several damning incidents in which his predecessor’s administration politically interfered in the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation. And now the Senate will investigate Team Obama for obstruction of justice.
Specifically, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced last week it will hold hearings to “examine then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s involvement in the Clinton e-mail server investigation.”
The findings of the powerful panel, which has oversight of the Justice Department and FBI, could lead to a separate criminal investigation and the naming of another special counsel — exactly what Trump needs to distract attention from his growing legal woes.
What Lynch did reeks of obstruction. According to Comey his ex-boss:

  •  Ordered him to mislead the public about the criminal investigation of Clinton by calling it a “matter” rather than an investigation. (He complied with her wish, even though it made him feel “queasy.”)
  •  Refused to recuse herself from the case after Comey confronted her about a secret June 2016 meeting she had with former President Bill Clinton — five days before his wife was scheduled to be interviewed by the FBI. (Hillary was cleared three days later.)
There are also concerns, raised by a New York Times report, that Lynch privately assured the Clinton campaign she would keep FBI agents in check and wouldn’t let their investigation “go too far,” according to a message the FBI intercepted involving then-Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Worried his boss had a “conflict of interest” overseeing the Clinton investigation, Comey testified he “considered whether I should call for the appointment of a special counsel” to take over the case. That would’ve been the right move. Curiously, Comey instead shut down the probe and let Clinton off the hook — three weeks before her presidential nomination.
How compliant was Comey? Here’s how he responded to Lynch’s demand he “align” his rhetoric with the Clinton camp: “I just said, OK.” What other Lynch meddling did he go along with during the yearlong Hillary probe, which was marred by suspiciously generous immunity deals, favorable ground rules, a near-absence of grand-jury subpoenas and a rushed closure ahead of the DNC convention?
These are questions the Senate judiciary panel, chaired by GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, might like to ask Comey, along with: Who else was in the room during your meetings with Lynch, and did you take notes?
Any notes could be subpoenaed, along with the Wasserman-Schultz document, which, contrary to recent media reports, isn’t fake. (Comey testified such reports are “nonsense.”) So might the NSA recording of Lynch’s chat with Clinton, which took place on board a government plane.
Congressional sources say Lynch will almost certainly be called to answer Comey’s allegations under oath. What did she and Bill Clinton discuss? Did the investigation come up? Why didn’t she recuse herself, despite admitting it looked bad? And, did she in fact promise the Clinton campaign a whitewash?
Also on the potential witness list are Wasserman-Schultz and Amanda Renteria, the senior Clinton campaign staffer with whom Wasserman-Schultz claimed Lynch had been in communication.
Democrats will have a hard time dismissing the inquiry as partisan. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary panel, is on record saying Lynch’s suspicious actions are a legitimate avenue of inquiry. Those remarks provide Republicans the political cover they need to aggressively pursue Comey’s leads, and refer evidence to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution.
Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions would recuse himself from that probe, too, the case could end up in the hands of a special prosecutor, who like Robert Mueller would have wide-ranging authority to poke around.
That’s a nightmare scenario for Democrats, who are betting the 2018 midterms on convincing voters of Trump graft. Much to their chagrin, Comey’s testimony has given Republicans grounds to shift focus from the Russia probe back on Clinton-Obama corruption.
Witch-hunting Democrats may soon learn that turnabout is fair play.

Paul Sperry is a former Hoover Institution fellow and author of “The Great American Bank Robbery.”