"Hours after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, FBI Director Kash Patel declared online the "subject" in the killing was in custody. The shooter was not. The two men who had been detained were released quickly.
The false assurance was more than a slip. It spotlighted the high stakes uncertainty surrounding Patel's leadership of the bureau when its credibility is under extraordinary pressure, including his own. Patel now faces congressional oversight hearings this week, not just questions, about that investigation but broader doubts about whether he can stabilize a federal law enforcement agency fragmented by political fights and internal upheaval." - The Denver Post, Sept. 14, p. A14, 'Patel Faces Congressional Hearings After Missteps, Upheaval'.
“Yes, Brazil put their version of Trump in jail – and for 27
years. It’s a shame our Republican Party only pays lip service to respect for actual
law and justice. But it’s hard to stand up to crime when you’re serving a
convicted criminal.” Denver Post letter
writer.
Holman Jenkins Jr. can't conquer his political delusions, and they've once again imploded a new column ('Why The FBI Is A Charlie Kirk Sideshow', Sept. 13-14, p. A13). Basically, instead of getting to the core of the FBI's successive errors in its release of two early Kirk murder suspects, choosing instead to harp on his old stupid saw: i.e. the agency went astray with the "Russia Hoax" and pursuing the criminals in the January 6 insurrection.
Adding:
"How different our world might be if Trump opponents hadn't bet on Biden, lies and lawfare".
But at least his WSJ sidekick Kimberley Strassel, in another "lawfare" column,
WSJ's Kim Strassel Hails Trump As The "Noxious Lawfare" Winner - And She's Right!
recognized at the end Trump's true nature as a liar, thug and grifter, writing:
"This Trump 'skill' (at lawfare) is nothing to be proud of, it's a broken campaign promise. Mr. Trump passionately decried the political campaigns against him and vowed to put an end to lawfare if elected. He insisted his 'retribution' would be through winning office and 'making our country successful'."
So give Kimmie a break that she has a handle on reality- faint as that hold might be. Not so Holman Jenkins Jr. who appears to exist in a universe of his own delusions and fabrications. If in reality he'd have been aware of what right wing activist Chris Rufo said Friday, maybe he'd have picked his words more carefully. According to Rufo - the guy who invented the "woke" and DEI bunkum to bring the Dems down in 2024 by cratering voters' brains:
“We would be wise to take a moment and ask whether Kash Patel
has what it takes to get this done. I’ve been on the phone the last few days
with many conservative leaders, all of whom wholeheartedly support the Trump
Administration and none of whom are confident that the current structure of the
FBI is up to this task.”
Nor was Holman aware of what the Washington Post reported on Friday in the wake of the early "person of interest" flubs:
"Within the FBI, multiple people said the Kirk investigation
has highlighted Patel’s inexperience and minimal knowledge of how the vast law
enforcement bureau operates. Morale is low and he is “crumbling under
pressure,” current, and former officials said, accusing the leader of being more
interested with his image within right-wing circles on social media than with
learning the ins and outs of the expansive and powerful agency he leads. The
people familiar with the FBI, and others in this article, spoke on the
condition of anonymity, fearing retaliation."
Or aware of what retired FBI agent Christopher O'Leary - a decades long counter terrorism expert - said in the same piece, i.e.
“It’s just a drastic departure from the standards that the
organization has had for years and the professionalism and organization that
it’s demonstrated.”
No Jenkins Jr. likely was not aware of any of this, or that:
"Patel used profanities as he lashed out at officials on a phone call for agents on the manhunt, further sowing distrust between him and the workforce. "
THAT is the basis for the FBI "Charlie Kirk sideshow", not any past pseudo-history about Dem 'lawfare', lies about Trump or anything else.
Jenkins Jr. was clearly more intent on riding his hobby horse of the Russia hoax and misplaced pursuit of Trump for his 2020 lies and insurrection than placing the blame for the Kirk 'sideshow' where it really resided: Patel's green behind the ears ineptitude. Go back to Holman's future outcome rumination:
"How different our world might be"?
Well, vastly different had 19 million voters who turned out for Biden in 2020 turned out for Kamala in 2024. OR - had 8 m Gen Z first time voters not been bambooozled by Charlie Kirk's feel good propaganda against women, blacks and immigrants.
But most importantly, if the U.S. had had a Supreme Court more like Brazil's ('Brazil's Top Court Displays Power', (op. cit., WSJ, p.A7), which put another firebrand insurrectionist leader (Jair Bolsonaro) away for 27 years. This as opposed to doing what our corrupt 6 SC conservos did: confer immunity on Trump. See e.g.
Trumpers On Supreme Court Crown Trump As "King" In Wildly Reckless 'Premature Immunity' Ruling.
As the WSJ piece noted:
"The court panel voted 4-1 to convict Bolsonaro of plotting to overturn the 2022 election and sentenced him to a 27 year prison term - ending the comeback dreams of the 70 year old firebrand and the millions of backers who - polls showed- might have made him president again."
Adding: "For many legal scholars, Bolsonaro's trial illustrates exactly why the Supreme Court was given so much power: to keep its politicians in check. Written after the 1964-1985 dictatorship, the 1988 constitution was purposefully designed to guard against authoritarianism."
But here in the U.S. not so much. Despite the 14th amendment (Sec. 3) of our own constitution prohibiting insurrectionists being qualified to run for highest office. But evidently old laws don't count anymore.
See Also:
by Ailia Zehra | September 12, 2025 - 5:47am | permalink
In an article for The Daily Beast published Thursday, David Gardner, the outlet's chief national correspondent, argued that the failure of the FBI’s response in the wake of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk's killing indicated that the bureau was ill-prepared and operating more like bumbling amateurs than a top‐tier law enforcement agency.
He noted the delay and opacity around releasing the suspect’s image, highlighting one specific misstep: Although the FBI had been directed under its current leadership to prioritize street crime and illegal immigration over political violence, the shooting brought that shift into harsh relief.
"The implication of failure was clear," he wrote.
Gardner noted that a man was killed and the event was streamed live; a video camera “tower” less than 200 yards from where the victim sat captured footage of the suspect almost immediately. Yet the bureau took a full day to locate that footage and release it.
And:
by Thom Hartmann | September 16, 2025 - 5:40am | permalink
Every president and most members of Congress have known for the past two centuries that having the ability to wield the power of government is a serious responsibility that carries with it real obligations for self-control.
The reason is simple and obvious, although our media appears to not realize it when they act like Trump’s and Miller’s rhetoric is normal: Government can legally kill you, imprison you, and take everything you own. Fox “News” and other commentators can’t.
When some bigot on Fox or another rightwing outlet goes off on how Democrats are “left wing extremists,” “terrorists,” or “traitors” he doesn’t have the power or ability to do anything about it. They’re just words, which is why they’re protected by the First Amendment. Inflammatory words, certainly, but just words.
But when a government official slaps one of those kinds of labels on you because of things you’ve said or political views you hold, you can lose literally everything.
And:
by Ailia Zehra | September 16, 2025 - 5:33am | permalink
Rachel VanLandingham, a retired Judge Advocate General's Corps officer, strongly criticized President Donald Trump over his announcement that the U.S. military forces “literally shot out a boat” believed to be carrying narcotics from Venezuela.
During an appearance on CNN Monday, she said the administration was using "lethal force in the American people's name in a very unique manner," calling the action "deeply troubling."
"It sure looks like the president, on his own accord, is deciding to kill people, extrajudicial killings outside of an armed conflict, outside of war. And there's a binary here. The president can use lethal force, can kill people either because they're posing an imminent, deadly threat against Americans or American interests, or we're at war," VanLandingham said.
She added: "And the president has properly identified them as being a member of an armed group, either a military or some type of terrorist organization for which he has authority to to designate that we're at war against from Congress and is killing them based on their status. And we really don't see evidence of either," she continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment