Military and Police

The (Neo) Democrat’s Party of Lawlessness — Part II

And the lawlessness continues. Add Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) to the list of overt neo-Democrats advocating for lawlessness. When the Democrats take over the House of Representatives in January 2019, he has vowed to end the House probe into any FBI and DOJ wrongdoing in the 2016 presidential election under President Obama.

He’s telling the American people the House investigation into DOJ-Democrat collusion (read: conspiracy) during the 2016 presidential campaign is “a waste of time to start with” (because it’s looking into Democrats). Asserting that the House inquiry into what sure seems like possible (even likely) legal transgressions, Nadler says this investigation is a “diversion of the real investigation, which is Mueller” (because it’s looking into Republicans). Nadler said, “There is no evidence of bias at the FBI.”

Hang on a sec…(coffee just spurt through my nose)

Wasn’t it senior FBI Agent Peter Strzok who texted, “Hillary should win 100,000,000 to 1”? And that’s just a smidgeon of the overt bias shown by Strzok and his inamorata, Lisa Page, alone. Other than Strzok and Page, just look at the list of those demoted, reassigned, fired, or voluntarily resigned from the FBI. Let’s also remember what Comey, McCabe, Ohr, etc., did and said relative to supporting Hillary Clinton and opposing Donald Trump. Just look at all the Hillary-supporting Democrats on Mr. Mueller’s team. Oh, no bias with any of those folks, right? Right!

So, continuing where we left off in Part I, you can see that it would be unfair if the father of this biased investigation, Mr. Mueller, were to release publicly what is, by design, a one-sided report that cast doubt on a legally innocent president. This is not standard operating procedure in the United States of America—no matter who you are or what government level you’re at. The purpose of such a biased report is to be used as a political cudgel to win even when you lose—by finding no evidence of Trump “Russian collusion.”

And for an investigation specifically mandated to look for Russian collusion, choosing only to investigate one political party with no evidence of Russian collusion, while choosing not to investigate the other party with significant incriminating evidence of Russian collusion/conspiracy (Uranium One) is the height of lawlessness. Remember, when there is no equal justice, there is no justice.

If Mr. Mueller issues such a report, which would obviously be for purely political motives, he will cast an unnecessary doubt on an innocent United States citizen, President Trump. Don’t agree? Well, what would be the legal justification for an ostensibly non-partisan law enforcement authority to publicly tarnish someone they were unable to charge with the specific wrongdoing they were looking for because no legitimate evidence exists? What legal purpose would the casting of doubt in the minds of the American people about their president do to promote justice? Nothing. In fact, it subverts justice. Such a report would only promote the lawlessness of the neo-Democrats.

How can America continue to function as a democratic-republic if one of the two major parties insists it never loses and actively advocates for lawlessness? If Dems win an election, there’s no tampering or collusion—never heard of it. If Dems lose an election, the tampering or collusion was so bad they blame it on Russia. If Dems win, it was the fairest and most un-tampered-with and un-colluded-by election in the history of elections. If Dems lose, it was the unfairest and most tampered-with and colluded-by election in the history of elections. If Dems win, the ballot machines were flawless and no voter suppression existed—not even from club-wielding New Black Panthers at a Philly election-polling place. If Dems lose, the ballot machines were flawed, they were victims of voter suppression, and they insist on counting—any Dem votes they can find—until they win.

Now, if we want to find presidential campaign corruption, even the dreaded collusion, including with Russia, we need to look at Secretary Clinton and also President Obama who once infamously said, “This is my last election… After my election I have more flexibility.” To which Russian President Dmitry Medvedev replied, “I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin].” (The Russian accent in my head sounds so spot-on for the occasion.)

We already know about Hillary and the Dems paying for the fake Steele dossier. But it’s looking like President Obama may have been more aware than we knew about the shenanigans with the “deep state’s” (or maybe not so deep) spying on and trying to set up the Trump campaign and, later, his administration. And what about Hillary’s and President Obama’s part in selling 20 percent of America’s uranium to Russia? Shouldn’t we want to know about this as much as any Trump collusion that supposedly exists? Isn’t it the crime committed and its threat to the nation and not the specific individual we’re most concerned with?

This is remarkable in modern America—hell, it would be in early America. There seems to be mounting evidence that the previous Democrat administration attempted to prevent a Republican candidate from becoming president and then mounted a covert coup to remove him from office after he was duly elected. After all, the Democrats can’t lose—that’s the new rule, and they know better than the American people what or who is good for them.

No wonder former, self-described “non-partisan,” FBI boss James Comey is now openly calling for Americans to vote Democrat. Does he need the neo-Democrat’s selective investigation lawlessness in order to survive these investigations? If they aren’t quashed, will he be going to prison?

As far as we can tell from the information that’s public, Mr. Mueller is choosing to pursue only Republicans’ and not Democrats’ possible crimes—or collusions, even though the “crime” of Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential elections was his mandate.

Instead, Mr. Mueller targeted only Republicans even if the crimes fell outside his narrow mandate, as with Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen (neither of whose illegal actions I remotely condone). And it appears Cohen is a true viper (recording clients), giving validity to every sleazy lawyer joke we’ve ever heard. And those other “crimes” committed only because of the investigation. The so-called process crimes derived from “perjury-traps,” as it seems may have happened in General Michael Flynn’s case.

And when we consider how the same FBI treated Democrat Hillary Clinton and her disciples, we truly have to wonder about the lack of fairness in Mueller’s probe and the related investigations that preceded it.

I couldn’t have gotten away with this type of bias when I was investigating traffic infractions, never mind the serious felonies Secretary Clinton is suspected of committing. Some of which she’s admitted to doing but for which the DOJ/FBI have given immunity to witnesses (and possible co-conspirators) in the investigation. Given immunity and not required to provide testimony or physical evidence to justify the immunity. How does that work? Oh, right…that Democrat lawlessness thing.

Now, I’m wondering if the special counsel will soon be joining his good friend, Mr. Comey, on the neo-Democrat’s lawlessness pulpit, an open partisan preaching against a duly elected president of the United States?

Ah, but there’s the rub. The neo-Democrats have created a mythology that the president was not “duly elected.” According to these lawless radicals, without Russia’s help, Trump would not have won the election. Hillary, the Dems’ rightful heir to the U.S. presidency, would be in office. The thing is, any collusion, including Russian, on the parts of Obama, Clinton, their Democrat entourages, along with their royal court, otherwise known as the mainstream media, has much more evidence for it than of any alleged collusion against President Trump. Again, consider the suspicious Uranium One deal alone.

Here’s a comment about the Dems’ lawlessness from a well-known Obama administration official talking about the “royal court:” David Samuels, writing for (The New York Times Magazine), quoting Obama administration’s Ben Rhodes, “‘We created an echo chamber,’ he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the [Iran] deal. ‘They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.

“‘When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America’s future role in the world, Rhodes nodded. ‘In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this,’ he said. ‘We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So, we knew the tactics that worked.’ He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal. ‘We drove them crazy,’ he said of the deal’s opponents.’”

So, the above is an admission of what the right has suspected about the mainstream media. This is why you don’t have to wonder how President Obama could deny any corruption and proudly assert his administration had no significant scandals. “We’re probably the first administration in modern history that hasn’t had a major scandal in the White House,” President Obama said. He also asserted, during an interview with Bill O’Reilly while he was still with the Fox News Channel, there was not even a “smidgeon of corruption” in the IRS conservative-targeting scandal.

When your loyal royal court won’t report on any scandal, corruption, or even a smidgeon of wrongdoing, it’s easy to fool Americans who get their news through mainstream media. Now, the following is not an exhaustive list, though it is exhausting but necessary to capture the scope. If there is no link, it’s because the scandal was linked within the text of the article. This list of Obama administration scandals appear in no specific order:

  • Lois Lerner and the IRS targeting
  • Eric Holder and the ATF Fast and Furious, perjury, contempt of Congress
  • Benghazi cover-up
  • Pallets of cash delivered to Iran
  • Spying on Associated Press
  • Spying on James Rosen
  • NSA spying on Congress
  • HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicited donations from companies HHS might regulate and called for election of Dem gubernatorial candidate in her official capacity
  • Obama: The Pigford scandal
  • GSA $823,000 Las Vegas “training
  • VA Disney World “training
  • Solyndra
  • Lisa Jackson: EPA used email alias to evade
  • DOJ dropped New Black Panthers case that was ready for prosecution
  • Joe Sestak allegedly bribed with White House job to drop out of primary
  • Clinton’s lawyer, associates—witnesses in the email server case—were given immunity during FBI investigation
  • Clinton was not put under oath for questioning
  • Comey exceeded his authority and cleared Clinton of multiple apparent crimes and State Department policy violations: setting up a personal server, deleting emails that were under subpoena, and physically and digitally destroying her devices
  • The Steele Dossier—happened under Obama
  • Under President Obama, FBI allegedly sent in at least four operatives to make it appear the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians (John Solomon)

The shocking thing is, this is nowhere near a comprehensive list. And, with all of the deep state mischief we’re learning about, who knows how many more entries will be added to this list? If you want to keep apprised, I suggest following John Solomon’s excellent reporting at

In Hillary’s email server case, can you imagine doing something so illegal you’d risk being prosecuted for perjury and evidence tampering and destruction rather than allow the contents of those emails to get into investigator’s hands? What did they contain? What was she hiding? Just not sure the yoga-and-baby-shower explanation cuts it.

Speaking about the Obama administration, Kevin D. Williamson, for, made a comment I found particularly poignant for this conversation on lawlessness: “It is one thing to have a degenerate president. It is something else — something far worse — to have a degenerate government.

“Using the machinery of the state to seek political power and to aggrandize the political power one holds is the most destructive form of political corruption there is. A sane society would prosecute it the way we prosecute murder or armed robbery. It is a scandal and more than that: It is an assault on the foundations of a free society.”

It is also the definition of lawlessness, and under a President Hillary Clinton, it would have continued. Will it continue under President Trump? I hope not but, so far, I’m not as hopeful as I once was. The president said he would be declassifying documents pertinent to the government’s possibly spying on his campaign and using the fraudulent Steele Dossier as a justification for it. I suspect his delay is strategic, and I hope so because, in the interest of reassuring the American people, we need to see that stuff.

The opinions expressed here by contributors are their own and are not the view of OpsLens which seeks to provide a platform for experience-driven commentary on today's trending headlines in the U.S. and around the world. Have a different opinion or something more to add on this topic? Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own experience-driven commentary.
Steve Pomper

Steve Pomper is an OpsLens contributor, a retired Seattle police officer, and the author of four non-fiction books, including De-Policing America: A Street Cop’s View of the Anti-Police State. You can read a review of this new book in Front Page Magazine and listen to an interview with Steve on the Joe Pags Show. Steve was a field-training officer, on the East Precinct Community Police Team, and served his entire career on the streets. He has a BA in English Language and Literature. He enjoys spending time with his kids and grand-kids. He loves to ride his Harley, hike, and cycle with his wife, Jody, a retired firefighter. You can find out more about Steve and send him comments and questions at

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Watch The Drew Berquist Show

Everywhere, at home or on the go.