Pirate's Cove

Alternate headline: Woman who knows quite a bit about thwarting transparency an damaging national security is upset. Jamie Gorelick, along with Larry Thompson, has written a typical moonbat piece for the Washington Post. You remember Ms. Gorelick, right? She was one of the 9/11 Commission members, who, we soon found out, was personally responsible for instituting the “wall” between law enforcement and intelligence during the Bill Clinton administration, making it oh so much easier for al Qaeda to plan and practice for their 9/11 attacks.

Both are big Hillary Clinton supporters

James Comey is damaging our democracy

The Justice Department has a proud history of enforcing federal criminal law without fear or favor, and especially without regard to politics.

So, it sounds like they should approve of the investigation. Of course not. And, of course, it’s only a section of the DOJ that is investigating, namely, the FBI. Loretta Lynch’s DOJ wants nothing to do with investigating Hillary. If she was a Republican, well, things would be different

It operates under long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations to the public and even to Congress, especially in a way that might be seen as influencing an election. These traditions protect the integrity of the department and the public’s confidence in its mission to take care that the laws are faithfully and impartially executed. They reflect an institutional balancing of interests, delaying disclosure and public knowledge to avoid misuse of prosecutorial power by creating unfair innuendo to which an accused party cannot properly respond.

Again, you know that if Hillary was a Republican, this op-ed would have a much different tone, which would be cheering this action.

Decades ago, the department decided that in the 60-day period before an election, the balance should be struck against even returning indictments involving individuals running for office, as well as against the disclosure of any investigative steps. The reasoning was that, however important it might be for Justice to do its job, and however important it might be for the public to know what Justice knows, because such allegations could not be adjudicated, such actions or disclosures risked undermining the political process. A memorandum reflecting this choice has been issued every four years by multiple attorneys general for a very long time, including in 2016.

This would be like the refs deciding that they will not call any penalties, no matter how blatant, in the last 5 minutes of a close Super Bowl. Grab a facemask, mug a receiver, knock a quarterback out with a late hit to the head? Nope, sorry, last 5 minutes.

When they take their vows and assume office, senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI become part of these traditions, with an obligation to preserve, protect and defend them.

Traditions are apparently more important than pesky things like law, order, investigating criminal conduct. All the complaints end with

As it stands, we now have real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation. Perhaps worst of all, it is happening on the eve of a presidential election. It is antithetical to the interests of justice, putting a thumb on the scale of this election and damaging our democracy.

Interesting. People like Democrat voter Gorelick have no problem when the news media, seemingly an arm of the Democratic Party, release information (sometimes totally false and made up) against members of one political party. Does that not damage our democracy in the same manner? If the answer is no, why not? Would it be better to limit all last minute releases till after the election? We could put a moratorium on all transparency from, say, three weeks out from the election. Would that work? For Democrats, transparency is only something that should be practiced when it hurts Republicans.

Of course, the Washington Post is going full bore barking moonbat. We see opinion pieces like

• Eric Holder: James Comey is a good man, but he made a serious mistake (Holder knows quite a bit about making serious mistakes)
• The costs of Comey’s appeasement (EJ Dionne says this is a perversion of justice or something)
• Comey’s mistaken quest for transparency (transparency bad. Donald Ayer must have been talking to Jamie Gorelick)
• Mr. Comey’s dangerous October surprise (Dana Milbank is likewise upset about the threat to our democracy by daring to be mean to Hillary)

And so many more. Again, imagine this had been about Trump. The media would have cheered.

Fortunately, the media is also keeping the story alive with their indignant stories and opinion pieces, which is probably the last thing Hillary wants. Whoops.

(formatting of blockquotes fixed)

Crossed at Right Wing News.