Sam Ross Jr.

Sam Ross Jr.

Last week was a tough one for those living at the intersection of Gullibility and Naivete.

Their neighbors on Hypocrisy Way had a difficult time, too.

On Thursday alone, the U.S. Justice Department moved to withdraw its case vs. President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and there was a forced release of transcripts from Rep. Adam Schiff’s closed hearings in the House of Representative that showed witness after witness testifying under oath to having no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia.

This stood in stark contrast to the public comments by the witnesses and Schiff that they did, indeed, have the proof.

On that very same Thursday last week, the convictions in the political hit job on Chris Christie known as Bridgegate were thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court, that in a telling unanimous 9-0 vote.

It was a lot to swallow for the trust-all crowd, even for the trust-only-those-who-agree-with-me cohort of that group.

Some people honestly believe that no one in the public eye, be they governmental, judicial, media, business or arts and entertainment, could be capable of subterfuge, outright lies, or conduct generally outside the standards of the law or social mores.

Others are convenient hypocrites, who preach ideas such as all women making allegations of sexual assault must be believed, except when the allegations are made against a prominent Democrat, such as presidential candidate Joe Biden.

And some, even if they do claim to believe, don’t care when it’s a member of their party who is being accused.

This sentiment is neatly summed up by a May 6, opinion piece published in the New York Times that was written by Linda Hirshman, an advocate for women making claims of sexual assault.

The headline: “I believe Tara Reade. I’m voting for Joe Biden anyway.”

In her column, Hirshman alluded to a feminist from an earlier era, Gloria Steinem, who famously wrote a 1998 column defending Bill Clinton against sexual harassment claims made against him by former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones.

Beyond this Reade allegation, Biden already has been outed for overstating his academic accomplishments and plagiarizing the work of others. Questions linger about him using political influence to gain employment for his son.

Again, those failures are being forgiven under the common mantra “That’s just Joe.”

Can even the most ardent Biden supporters really be willing to believe everything he tells them if he were to be elected president?

They shouldn’t, but it wouldn’t be a first such lapse for that office, or for other members of government. It’s a bipartisan failing, misleading the public.

Let us begin with former president and Democrat icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who went to great lengths to keep images of him being wheelchair-bound made public.

Republican president Richard Nixon gave us Watergate.

Fellow Republican president Ronald Reagan gave us Iran-Contra.

Democratic president Bill Clinton stared into the television camera and denied – falsely – having had sexual relations with an intern, “that woman,” as he called her.

More recently, Democratic president Barack Obama has made the claim, and continues to have that contention made by his surrogates, that his administration was scandal-free.

It seems that on this topic Obama and his acolytes are borrowing from the Clinton parsing playbook, as in, it depends on what your definition of the word “scandal” is.

You be the judge.

Obama Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt by the House of Representatives in 2012 for refusing to turn over documents regarding the “Fast and Furious” operation that allowed illegal gun sales designed to reach members of Mexican cartels and saw our government losing track of the weapons, some of which were found at the scene at crimes on both sides of the border, including the death of a border agent.

This was the first time for such a contempt sanction made against the head of the Justice Department. But Obama cited executive privilege to protect Holder from prosecution.

Don’t take my word for it.

You can look it up on CNN.com, the self-proclaimed most trusted name in news.

Obama’s administration included an IRS that was harassing conservative groups and the Justice Department had to make multi-million dollar settlements to the aggrieved parties.

Obama also had a Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who used a home computer server, presumably to avoid record-keeping dictates, that could have exposed classified information.

James Comey, the FBI director at the time, interviewed Clinton on the subject and in his report carefully chose his wording of “extremely careless” as opposed to the original “grossly negligent” so as not to expose her to legal ramifications.

The FBI summary of Clinton’s interview mentioned a notice sent on her behalf to all department employees warning against using private e-mail for department business. Clinton said she couldn’t recall that memo.

This same FBI, when Flynn said during his interview he didn’t remember specifically discussing certain points with a Russian ambassador, strong-armed Flynn into a confession of lying. He did so to spare his son from similar accusations.

The Obama-era FBI got the go-ahead to spy on members of President Trump’s team, such as Carter Page, by manipulating the FISA court.

Information was “edited” after the initial Flynn interview report.

Pertinent information was withheld from Flynn and his attorneys.

These failings led to the DOJ decision to drop the charges against Flynn.

It’s a basic legal doctrine that illegally obtained evidence can’t be used. It is the so-called fruit of the poisonous tree.

Responses to the Flynn development, and the release of House transcripts, has been a lockstep exercise in psychological projection – attributing one’s shortcomings to others – by Democrats and their friends in left-leaning media outlets.

Obama himself chimed in via a convenient “leak” of a conversation in which he found it curious and without precedent to have someone “charged with perjury just getting off scot-free.”

Jonathan Turley, Constitutional scholar and self-described liberal who testified at Trump’s impeachment proceedings, went on Twitter to point out Flynn hadn’t been charged with perjury and, more importantly, this was yet another Obama memory lapse, sort of like with scandals.

Turley noted that Obama’s own attorney general, Holder, had pressed for dismissal of a case due to prosecutorial misconduct.

Concluded Turely’s post: “How is that for precedent?”

There Turley and his cohorts go again, citing facts.

Sam Ross Jr., of Johnstown, is a freelance journalist and former staff member of The Tribune-Democrat.

Recommended for you