Op-ed: 

Betraying America...Part Two                                                          By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots / Right Side Patriots Radio

The article posted here is the authors opinion alone, and does not necessarily represent the views of blogspot.com or Google  

  

...while the principal of “presumptively” does certainly apply to sitting presidents, sometimes former presidents are not “absolutely immune” from what is considered to be criminal liability as former presidents do not...I repeat do not...have “immunity” for their “unofficial acts” committed while president. Simply, what Obama tried to do during his second term as president was first try to stop Trump from getting elected, and then stop him from holding office after being duly elected, acts which not now or have been deemed to be Constitutionally designated acts. Therefore, it's my belief that in the case of Obama, due to the fact that not only did he mastermind the conspiracy to make knowingly false accusations against President Trump and subvert “We the People” of our Constitutionally given right to a “free and fair election” via acts of “obstruction” both before and after the official election took place, but that, thankfully, there is no “statute of limitations” on prosecuting anyone for what I believe to be “treason” against the United States...Read entire article here.  

Op-ed:

Betraying America...Part Two

By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots / Right Side Patriots Radio

The article posted here is the authors opinion alone, and does not necessarily represent the views of blogspot.com or Google   

“All criminals should be arrested. Obama is no different. In fact, he once said no one is above the law. If he truly believes that then let justice be served.” -U.S. Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL)

Rep. Fine's comments came soon after National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, released the first round of declassified documents that “suggested” former president Barack Obama colluded with key Democrat players to accuse Russia of “meddling” in the 2016 Presidential election when they knew well that no such “meddling” took place. And this prompted Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Justice Department to assign a task force to look into what are serious allegations.

And look into it Bondi did for within days she announced with “utmost seriousness” the formation of a “Strike Force” to examine said allegations. But not to be forgotten is that there already were four separate criminal, counterintelligence, and watchdog probes between 2019 and 2023 regarding these very allegations with all concluding that Russia did interfere and did help Trump win in 2016. However, the caveat here is that said probes were all Democrat initiated with many of those same players now coming back into question. And this means that what Tulsi Gabbard did now was expose what was covered up and lied about back then...which I covered last week in“Betraying America...Part One.”

And so with Pam Bondi now tasked with the job of turning said into federally chargeable offenses..a not so easy task as presidential immunity, statutes of limitations, and acts of treason and subversion come into play...with this being the crux of, “Betraying America... Part Two.”

So here let's start with none other than Barack Obama himself, for if not for him and his revenge driven agenda revolving around Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump, Donald Trump's loss to Joe Biden in 2020 might have been a win instead. And with two serious allegations being made against Obama...that of treason and subversion...the question now being asked is does “presidential immunity” come into play. “Presidential immunity” typically covers actions taken while the president was performing “official duties” while in office, but does it apply to a criminal prosecution of a former president after he's left office... making this a truly convoluted question.

Simply, the President of these United States does have “absolute immunity” from civil lawsuits if the suit arose due to actions the president took within his designated Constitutional authority. However, there are limits to what constitutes “official acts,” and presidents are not “absolutely immune” from all lawsuits, like those that involve actions they took before taking office or those they took “outside of their Constitutional authority.” And it's these last five words, “outside of their Constitutional authority,” which might or might not come into play in the DOJ making a case against Obama. How so...because the Constitution does not give the president the right to interfere with what are supposed to be “free and fair” elections.

“Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution” clearly states what are actions related to ones official presidential duties, as in their giving a State of the Union address to Congress; recommending measures to Congress; receiving foreign ambassadors and public ministers; taking care that the laws are faithfully executed; and commissioning all officers of the United States. However, “presidential immunity” generally does not extend to unofficial conduct (as in conduct that does not relate to their aforementioned duties), or conduct that occurred before the president took office.

And while presidents also have “absolute immunity” for actions taken within the so called ”outer perimeter” of their duties, trying to “fix an election” or trying to negate or overthrow a duly elected president does not fall into that or any category. According to the SCOTUS “outer perimeters,” encompasses actions which arose from a president’s “unofficial conduct”  while in office, or which arose from actions taken before he took office. 

 

Simply, the judiciary can hold a president...either past or present...liable for private actions taken, just like they can for anyone else. And in Barack Obama's case regarding “election collusion,” said actions were both secretive and private in nature.

However, when it comes to criminal liability for a former president...which would be the case with Obama...while it gets a bit murky, the fact is that word semantics does come into play via the word “presumptively.” How so? While the Supreme Court’s 6 to 3 decision in the 2024 case of “Trump v. United States,” that sitting presidents are “presumptively” immune from criminal prosecutions with “immunity” in regards to official acts they took as president, the ruling left the door open to the possibility that the government can challenge the word “presumptively” by proving that prosecuting the president would not “pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

And this is key, while the principal of “presumptively” does certainly apply to sitting presidents, sometimes former presidents are not “absolutely immune” from what is considered to be criminal liability as former presidents do not...I repeat do not...have “immunity” for their “unofficial acts” committed while president. Simply, what Obama tried to do during his second term as president was first try to stop Trump from getting elected, and then stop him from holding office after being duly elected, acts which not now or have been deemed to be Constitutionally designated acts. Therefore, it's my belief that in the case of Obama, due to the fact that not only did he mastermind the conspiracy to make knowingly false accusations against President Trump and subvert “We the People” of our Constitutionally given right to a “free and fair election” via acts of “obstruction” both before and after the official election took place, but that, thankfully, there is no “statute of limitations” on prosecuting anyone for what I believe to be “treason” against the United States.

And with “treason” being officially defined in the Constitution as “levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,” I think it's quite possible that a case for “treason” can be leveled against Obama because the actual meaning of the word “war” is not spelled out in the Constitution. Remember, while the word“war” is most commonly defined as “an armed conflict between political groups involving hostilities of considerable duration and magnitude,” know that is not the only definition of “war” as the word itself also encompasses nonphysical “acts of war” as well. For example there are economic wars, sanctions, cyber attacks, cold wars, and political wars of words fought between once political friends now turned adversaries, all examples of wars with no blood shed.

In the case of the 2016 presidential election the word “war” could then legally be applied to mean that in Obama's “colluding” with his political cronies...most of whom were his national security cabinet members....they knowingly manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a political “witch hunt”...a non violent “coup” if you will...against a now sitting U.S. president. Remember again that Obama and crew first tried to prevent Trump from winning the 2016 election, and when that failed they tried to prevent Trump from assuming the office he was duly elected to hold, thus Obama did declare “war” on what the Constitution calls the right to “free and fair elections,” by his trying to overturn the voice of “We the People.”

Again, “war” is not always defined by physical violence or by blood lost, but that sometimes “war” is about an opposing political party using “under the radar” tactics to try and overthrow the sitting government simply via “subversion” from within. And that folks is exactly what Barack Obama and those loyal to him and his would be puppet Hillary Clinton tried to do. And that surely is an “act of war” even in the broadest of senses, and thus astute attorneys would most probably be able to legally override even the “outer perimeters” of what is “presumptive presidential immunity” especially when “subversion” is thrown into the mix. Why so...because what Obama orchestrated, via his working “from within,” was a systemic attempt to both undermine an election and, if need be, to possibly try to overthrow the new Trump government.  

So with the very definition of “subversion” now also in play, the aforementioned word “intrusion” might not only be overridden, but there well could then be a charge of “treason” being leveled against Obama. How so...because Obama knowingly and willingly “colluded” against a political rival,..technically a private citizen at the time...and then subversively tried to overthrow the government of newly elected President Donald Trump. And Obama's reason was to get Hillary into power thus completing his “transformation of America”...the very antithesis of not only our Constitutional republic, but the erroneously claimed democracy many believe us to be.

And yet even with the possibilities I've just stated many still believe that Barack Obama will not be charged with “treason” let alone be charged with anything out of fear that in bringing charges against America's “supposed” first black president...he's actually “mixed race”...could lead to what I call “the element” to again start “acting badly.” Fear relating to politics, especially when aided by the media, is a powerful tool used to help keep the party faithful in line, but sometimes fear must take a backseat to doing what is right not just for some but for the sum of our country.

So as it stands now, as I write this, recently released emails pertaining to the now declassified annex of the “Durham Report” show that right from its inception the FBI, the Obama administration, and George Soros'  infamous“Open Society Foundation” were working in tandem on the development of the “Russia Collusion Hoax.” And this means that in the case of Obama, the aforementioned question of “intrusion” can now be overridden by his having committed, what I believe to be, an act of “treason” for knowingly and willingly “colluding” against Donald Trump, in order to get Hillary into office. To Obama and his ilk, completing the “transformation of America”...the very antithesis of our Constitutional republic...was worth all risks taken especially when they thought they'd never be caught let alone ever be charged with anything.

But here I must say that whether charges against Obama can or cannot...will or will not...be brought someone must be called to task for to sweep all under the rug means that collusion of the most dangerous kind can and will happen again with the victims being both “We the People” and the Constitution's rule of law...for without the law we are not the nation our “Founders and Framers” designed us to be.

So if not Obama...if his skin color, the media, and the “element” are able to shield him once again,..who then will become the Democrats much needed “fall guy?” Remember, even the Democrat hierarchy has to know that trouble lies ahead what with DNI Gabbard's continuing to release intelligence reports showing that top Obama officials perjured themselves before Congress regarding their made-up Trump/Russia “witch hunt.” In fact, word has it that the CIA and the DOJ are still working together to declassify more documents that could lead to serious legal consequences for Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan, and former NI Director James Clapper.

In fact, in the last document release as I was writing this, materials from a long-classified appendix to the Durham Report showed that the then still loyal to Obama FBI was involved in promoting a scheme concocted by none other than Hillary herself, with Obama's knowledge of course, to help “frame” Donald Trump as being a Russian “asset.” And current CIA Director John Ratcliffe echoed this sentiment by stating that this “directly implicates Hillary Clinton.”

So with Hillary's name now being floated as a possible “fall guy” to help keep Obama off the hook and out of jail, there's another more plausible and likely name that comes to mind as being the one to take a hit for “the Obama team”...and that is former CIA Director John Brennan. Why so...because he did lie to Congress and he would not be protected against perjury charges if the statute of limitations has not run out.

But the bottom line does remain that someone or many someones must be held accountable for not only the damages to our country they caused, but they must be made examples of not only legally, but in the court of public opinion as well. Not to do so makes a mockery of our Constitutional rule of law, while also sending a message that some are indeed above the rule of law. And if that be the case America's 250th birthday might well be our Constitutional Republic's last.

And with that I say there might still be a “Betraying America...Part Three” for sometimes it takes someone thinking outside the “proverbial box” to see something even the experts missed, so case not closed.

Copyright © 2025 Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / All rights reserved.  

************************************************************************************************** 
For more political commentary please visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner Craig Andresen's blog The National Patriot to read his latest article, Liberal Media Complicit In Collusion.

************************************************************************************************** 
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!                                                  Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 29th from 7 to 8:30pm EST, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss 'Betraying America...Part Two'; 'Liberal Media Complicit In Collusion'; and important news of the day. Hope you can tune in to RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on https://rspradio1.com Click 'LISTEN LIVE' starting at 6:50pm EST, show begins at 7pm EST.

 

Op-ed:
Betraying America...Part One
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots / Right Side Patriots Radio         The article posted here is the authors opinion alone, and does not necessarily represent the views of blogspot.com or Google  

...But why did Obama and his minions go to the great lengths that they did to try and bring Donald Trump down? Mainly it's because Hillary was supposed to win the 2016 presidency and be but a surrogate for Obama's third term in office, thus seeing his socialist driven “Transformation of America” objectives reach fruition...but she wasn't able to deliver what Obama and others thought would be an easy win. So, it's possible that some form of “face-saving” was needed to not just weaken the scope of Trump's overwhelming win over Hillary Clinton, but at the same time would help to keep the party faithful in line thus preventing a fracture within the Democrat party itself.

And not unlike a lover scorned, the payback for Trump's taking away Obama's dream had to be more than just a routine “bitch slap” across Trump's face. And so, a plan was set into motion, which included payback against “We the People” as well, for it was “We the People” who dared not only to elect Donald Trump president, but to take from Obama his intention of shaking the very foundation of the “Constitutional Republic” we were born to be. And he did so with help from his and the Democrats bought and paid for media shills who knowingly and willingly helped to push the...Read entire article and see video here.

Op-ed: 

Betraying America...Part One 

By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots / Right Side Patriots Radio

The article posted here is the authors opinion alone, and does not necessarily represent the views of blogspot.com or Google  

 

“Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people.” 

-Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence

On the morning of Friday, July 18th, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard released “declassified documents” garnered from the intelligence community proving, without a shadow of a doubt, the existence of what was called “manufactured and politicized intelligence” relating to 2016's “Russia Hoax.” You remember the infamous “hoax” where Democrat party loyalists and operatives tried to “subvert” not only Donald Trump’s lawfully won election, but tried to destroy the man himself, his family, and to undermine what was to be his presidency.

And they did so even though Obama and those in his administration knew well that the narrative they were putting out about Trump working in tandem with Russia to win the election was but a maliciously fabricated lie. In fact, as per the released documents, there exists “overwhelming evidence” that these folks knew all along that there was no threat whatsoever of Russia “directly manipulating the vote count in 2016” via a cyber attack or by any other means, and that Russia would not be able to shift the outcome of any U.S. election or vote no matter who wanted it done. And the nonsense about Vladimir Putin wanting to help Trump “win the election” was nowhere to be found simply because it did not exist, yet it was being reported as fact in the liberal mainstream media.

“The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was an effort at the highest levels of government to subvert the will of the American people.” So said Tulsi Gabbard right before she released 114 pages of what, at times, was a slew of somewhat heavily redacted and sometimes completely blocked out information. And yet when read, said findings were able to prove to those who read the report in full, which of course I did, that not only was there a blatant abuse of power committed by those loyal to Obama, but that the deliberate undermining of our country had at its core from which all revolved around the very man whom, I still believe, is responsible for all the problems we as a country face today. And who is that man but none other than Barack Hussein Obama himself... who with his “Transformation of America” agenda in hand, did knowingly, willingly, and with malicious intent set the stage for the “weaponization” of our intelligence community against ”We the People,” with Donald Trump being the conduit by which to do so.

Remember, “collusion” has always proven to run deep between DHS, FBI, CIA, NSA, and those whose loyalties were then and still are today to Obama...the very man who appointed most of them to the positions they held.

“The implications of this are frankly nothing short of historic.”

So said Tulsi Gabbard on Fox's 'Sunday Morning Futures' a week ago.

 

But why did Obama and his minions go to the great lengths that they did to try and bring Donald Trump down? Mainly it's because Hillary was supposed to win the 2016 presidency and be but a surrogate for Obama's third term in office, thus seeing his socialist driven “Transformation of America” objectives reach fruition...but she wasn't able to deliver what Obama and others thought would be an easy win. So, it's possible that some form of “face-saving” was needed to not just weaken the scope of Trump's overwhelming win over Hillary Clinton, but at the same time would help to keep the party faithful in line thus preventing a fracture within the Democrat party itself.

And not unlike a lover scorned, the payback for Trump's taking away Obama's dream had to be more than just a routine “bitch slap” across Trump's face. And so, a plan was set into motion, which included payback against “We the People” as well, for it was “We the People” who dared not only to elect Donald Trump president, but to take from Obama his intention of shaking the very foundation of the “Constitutional Republic” we were born to be. And he did so with help from his and the Democrats bought and paid for media shills who knowingly and willingly helped to push the now proven to be false Russia narrative down the collective throats of “We the American people.”

“This was politicized intelligence that was used as the basis for countless smears seeking to delegitimize President Trump’s victory, the years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened US-Russia tensions and more.” - Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence

And to Tulsi's statement I say, no truer words spoken for the Obama administration was so riddled with corruption that included in the released report was a key document sent to top intelligence officials very soon after Hillary's overwhelming loss to Trump that tasked said officials with creating an assessment as “per the President’s request ” ...meaning Obama...about the “tools Moscow used and actions it took to influence the 2016 election,” even while knowing that absolutely nothing of the sort had occurred.

Cleverly orchestrated “collusion” plain and simple, and every person involved in trying to take down duly elected President Donald J. Trump...including then President Obama's former Secretary of State and Trump's opponent Hillary Clinton (whose campaign helped to fund the research needed), then Mr. “Steele Dossier” himself aka Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then FBI Director James Comey (whom I believe also deliberately “mishandled” the investigation into Hillary's email server), then CIA Director John Brennan, and then National Security Adviser Susan Rice...must all not only be investigated but must be criminally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Why so...because with such nastiness and what I believe amounts to “subversion” against the U.S. government now definitely proven to have happened back in 2016, there remains a possibility that if left unchecked it could happen again in 2028 unless certain guilty individuals are the recipients of much needed legal punishment. And this, in my opinion, includes all the aforementioned individuals being charged with “treason: for not doing so is the willful covering up of a crime committed,

But why do I believe that “treason” has entered into the mix? The answer is because it was key members of the Obama administration who, on his orders...written orders...deliberately and with malice intended tried to “fix” the 2016 election by both “manipulating and withholding” key intelligence information relating to the knowingly aforementioned false narrative of Russian interference in said election. In other words, and thanks to the now declassified documents having been released, Barack Obama...the man who seems to think that the law does not apply to him...along with his minions actions or lack thereof...constitutes, in my opinion, as being “acts of treason” in the sense of their having not only willfully betrayed the allegiance they are Constitutionally“presumed to owe” to the United States, but that they have, as per “18 USC Ch. 115” as it applies to“Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities” …conspired together to “fix” the 2016 presidential election by willfully subverting our election process via their manufacturing and deliberately promoting a knowingly false narrative that Russia was interfering in said election.

Simply, Obama and his minions named in the disclosed document must now be called to task for not to do so means that the rule of law only applies to some but not to all. And with Director Gabbard having publicly and rightfully stating that this issue should be of concern to all Americans regardless of party affiliation, along with the fact that all documents collected are now in the hands of both AG Pam Bondi...who has discretion regarding what to do with said “criminal referrals”...and the FBI...Tulsi's words “to deliver the accountability that President Donald Trump, his family, and the American people deserve”...show's it's the morally right thing to do. Also, not only will it help to set the record straight as to the truth about the Democrats having deliberately manufactured evidence to sabotage the Trump presidency, but it will prove to all that no one...including Barack Obama...is above the rule of law.

And while the public's reaction to the document's release was fast in coming the Democrats, of course, tried to downplay its findings including Barack Obama himself who, courtesy of a spokesperson, issued a statement a few days after the documents release that,“Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,” but that, “these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.” A distraction to some but, in my opinion, Obama's words are but a distraction trying to mask what will surely be yet another attempt at a cover-up.

Why so...because the truth must never be deemed a distraction, and that Barack Obama's words are just another in a sure to come series of what is expected to be just more in an ongoing series of “divert and deflect ploys”... “ploys” encompassing his hoped for continued indoctrination of the party faithful.

And as for President Trump's reaction to what was the first documents release, Trump stated that Obama and several senior intelligence officials still involved in the ongoing 2016 investigation, “may face prosecution” due to the declassification of new documents having revealed their knowledge of the “collusion narrative’s falsehood.” Truth simply stated...truth that payback could rightfully be a bitch for“They tried to rig the election, and they got caught. And there should be very severe consequences for that.” Simple words, truthful words, words that I hope are not somehow swept under the proverbial “political rug.”

In fact, in the scope things revealed, what Tulsi Gabbard released on July 18th makes both Nixon's “Watergate scandal” and the Clinton's “Whitewater scandal' seem like a mere walk in the park

What Obama and his loyalists did to Donald Trump was not only try to rig and then falsify the 2016 presidential election results, but to then ruin his presidency and his reputation after he, surprisingly to them, won. And this after the fact “collusion” aspect itself took place in a secret December 9, 2016 meeting where the previously folks gathered together to make-up lies and innuendos, and pass them off as “truth.” And to add to Obama's now woes, last week President Trump “formally cautioned” Obama against meddling in current U.S. foreign policy matters, warning him that doing so could involve possible “Hatch Act” violations being leveled against him. So Obama best mind his “p and q's” for again payback would surely not be pretty.

So as we now wait to see how this all plays out...especially in regards to Obama hopefully being formally charged...all I can say is, “case not yet closed.” 

________________________________________________________________ 

Footnote: 

'Betraying America...Part Two' will be published on Monday, August 4, 2025, and deal with the issue of presidential immunity and the statute of limitations as it pertains or doesn't pertain to Obama. 

Copyright © 2025 Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / All rights reserved. 

************************************************************************************************** 
For more political commentary please visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner Craig Andresen's blog The National Patriot to read his latest article, The Media Circus Tent is Collapsing.

************************************************************************************************** 

RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!                                                   Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 29th from 7 to 8:30pm EST, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss 'Betraying America...Part One'; 'The Media Circus Tent is Collapsing'; and important news of the day. Hope you can tune in to RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on https://rspradio1.com Click 'LISTEN LIVE' starting at 6:50pm EST, show begins at 7pm EST.

Op-ed:
A Report Tainted With Political Bias
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” - F.B.I Attorney Lisa Page's question...F.B.I. Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok's* reply

Sounds like a threat to me...maybe even a threat of violence...or was it just more rhetoric spewed in an effort to “fix' the election...either way the two parties involved need some serious jail time. And so does former F.B.I. Director James Comey who in last Thursday's Inspector General's report** was basically found "guilty" only of breaking F.B.I. protocol and using “poor judgment” during the 2016 election, while finding no evidence at all that showed his decisions regarding the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails were “improperly influenced by political bias.”

No "political bias" it seems no matter that James Comey decided two months before interviewing Hillary Clinton regarding her emails and private server that he would not be referring her to the D.O.J. for criminal prosecution for her what he called a simple case of “mishandling” classified information. No "political bias" found even though Comey “inappropriately” went outside of the chain of command and “botched” the discovery of Clinton's emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop or that he used a personal gmail account to conduct official F.B.I. business.

No "political bias" even though then F.B.I. Director James Comey took it upon himself to hold a July 2016 nationally televised news conference and basically announce to the nation that he had found Hillary Clinton “innocent” of breaching the Espionage Act in regards to her handling of classified information...which we all know she is indeed guilty of. And while this “watchdog report” did find Comey personally “insubordinate” and that his actions taken were “inconsistent” with Department policy as well as having violated long-standing “Department practice and protocol” when he criticized what was then and still is Hillary's “uncharged conduct.” Saying that no charges would be forthcoming...it seems even that did not reach the standard of "political bias" no matter the fact that it's solely up to the Department of Justice not the F.B.I. to make “charging” decisions.

Very odd indeed because James Comey actually went over the head of then Attorney General Loretta Lynch to hold said news conference, and he went over her head again in an October 2016 letter to Congress where he disclosed that agents were “scrutinizing new evidence” in the Clinton case. And in a side note, the report also found that Loretta Lynch herself exhibited “bad judgement”in regards to her infamous tarmac meeting with Billy-Boy Clinton...the very meeting that within days saw Comey exonerating Hillary of criminal wrongdoing on national television...but hey...no "political bias" was found there either even though Lynch acceded to Comey's wishes during the most "controversial moments" of the Hillary investigation.

Yet even with all this, the so long-awaited "watchdog" report...A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation...still did not find evidence that "political bias" or “improper influence” impacted any of the decisions James Comey made in regards to the Hillary email investigation, including his above stated decision not to level charges against her. Amazing isn't it...and yet there's still more.

More as in there was no "political bias" found nor were there even questions raised by the Inspector General concerning Barack HUSSEIN Obama's lying about his claim that he only learned about Hillary's private email server when seeing it reported on the news even though he had been sending emails to Hillary on the very server in question for quite some time, and doing so while using a phony name.

And of course the Inspector General would only say regarding the above mentioned Lisa Page and Peter Strzok that their actions were "indicative of a biased state of mind"...with “indicative” obviously not being the same as definitively. And while in this report the Inspector General “suggested” that Peter Strzok may have intentionally “slow-rolled” the review of emails connected to the Clinton investigation...emails discovered after the initial probe was closed...“suggesting” something is not a statement of fact as this most certainly should have been.

But before I go on, what I want to know is why did Republicans allow this particular man...one Michael E. Horowitz...Inspector General of the Justice Department alone...one of but 73 Inspector Generals each related to a specific governmental agency...why did they allow him to even become part of the investigation let alone allow him to lead the investigation knowing his background? After all, there are quite few other channels in which this investigation could have been handled...handled in a more timely manner as well.

So why do I ask these questions...for two reasons. The first is because as the Inspector General, Michael E. Horowitz's duty is to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct in D.O.J. programs and personnel, as well as to promote economy and efficiency within Department operations. And it's my opinion that this entire investigation and subsequent report, in its taking over a year and a half to be completed and then published, is the epitome of wasteful spending of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. And it's a waste because this report exposed little that we already didn't know. In other words it's just another rehash of the same old, same old stuff with a few new questionings thrown in for good measure. And besides, we knew its conclusion before one word was even put to paper...as in Hillary Clinton gets away with treason yet again, and that while James Comey walks away a defeated man he does so with but a mere slap on the wrist.

Now as to the second reason why I believe Michael E. Horowitz should never have been tasked with this investigation and it's a reason the media is hushing up... as in this man is the epitome of Democratic "political bias" in action. Being first a "career" attorney in Ronald Reagan’s then non-politicized Office of Management and Budget sector, Horowitz turned on Reagan and "upended his ability to conduct foreign policy in the national interest to crush communist uprisings in South America." Horowitz then moved on to work in the Department of Justice from 1991 to 2002...the majority of which was during the Bill-Boy Clinton years...ain't that a not so happy coincidence...where in his capacity as an Assistant U.S. Attorney from 1991 to to 1993 Horowitz actually worked for...yes for...James Comey who was then Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division in the Southern District of New York.

And dare I say that this very same man...Michael E. Horowitz...was nominated for the position of D.O.J. Inspector General by none other than President Barack HUSSEIN Obama himself back in 2011 and conformed in 2012, after which he went on to serve under than AG Eric Holder. And it was Horowitz who, in a 514-page report on 'Fast and Furious,' wrote that while he recommended that the D.O.J. "review the actions" of 14 officials and to consider whether disciplinary action was warranted, he basically gave Eric Holder a "pass" on any direct involvement in that government fiasco.

And even while Horowitz had a few disagreements with Obama especially in regards to the Inspectors General Empowerment Act...an act Horowitz championed in an effort to further affirm the independent authority of Inspector Generals...talk about a Democratic operative...talk about a "politically biased" man with a giant 'D' after his name writing a potentially "politically biased" report.

And so we see one not so happy coincidence after another involving a man who, if he was at all honorable, would have recused himself completely from this investigation or should never been tasked with it in the first place. No one with the ties he has to all the key person's being investigated had any business whatsoever being involved, and yet Michael E. Horowitz sat as the head honcho of it all simply because his job description deemed it to be so...no matter that exceptions to the rule happen every day in the swamp that is Washington D.C.

So what exactly did Inspector Horowitz spew forth in his 500-pages of what I consider to be without question of a doubt a "politically biased" report?

Besides the report mentioning its personal condemnation of former F.B.I. Director James Comey, Horowitz's report did raise a few new questions about the role of F.B.I. Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok's texting F.B.I. lawyer Lisa Page, and that the Inspector General "might be willing" to take official action to see whether any such actions actually did “impact” Trump's electoral prospects.

Also found was “bias” pertaining to text messages and instant messages sent between three other F.B.I. employees...messages sent and received using F.B.I. mobile devices and computers...messages that expressed “hostility” toward then-candidate Donald Trump coupled with words of support for then-candidate Hillary Clinton. In fact, as per the report, some of these text and instant messages mixed political commentary with discussions about the “Midyear investigation,” and raised concerns that "political bias may have impacted" F.B.I. investigative decisions...but “may have impacted" unfortunately does not go far enough in saying that it did impact decisions...which was indeed the case.

So the bottom line regarding the report itself is this... finding "bias," alluding to "bias," and raising concerns is vastly different than acting upon said "bias" and concerns for nowhere in his report did Inspector General Horowitz say whether any criminal referrals stemming from the report had been or would be made. Nor did Horowitz even “challenge” Comey's out-of-line decision that Hillary should not and would not be prosecuted because his investigators uncovered no proof that political opinions at the F.B.I. influenced the 2016 presidential election outcome.

“We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations,” Horowitz stated adding that all conclusions were “based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law and past department practice.”

In other words, like I said before, this entire investigation has been a waste of time and our taxpayer dollars except in one area alone...the report actually vindicates President Trump's firing of James Comey over his mishandling of the Hillary investigation and well as its saying that former F.B.I. Deputy Director Andrew G. McCabe had indeed been dishonest about his contacts with the news media regarding Hillary Clinton.

So with overtly "biased" Inspector General Horowitz now alluding that another report specifically addressing all the leaks that seem to have become D.C.'s new norm will soon be released, and that he is “separately reviewing” some aspects of the Russia investigation concerning allegations that the F.B.I. “spied” on the Trump campaign for “political purposes”...both issues not covered in last week's report...both issues that also will most likely be tempered down...what did President Trump have to say about this now "officially” exposed anti-Trump "bias" and what amounts to F.B.I. "institutional self-interest" most especially on the part of James Comey and Peter Strzok? And what did President Trump...the target of all this hate...have to say about no "political bias" being found on any of the key players parts when the entire report itself just reeks of "political bias?"

Acknowledging that the Inspector General's findings are a “total disaster” for the bureau, and while the report did vindicate his May 2017 firing of then F.B.I. Director James Comey, President Trump tweeted out...and rightfully so... that he has to "beat a phony Witch Hunt and all of the dishonest people covered in the IG Report," and that “Comey will now officially go down as the worst leader, by far, in the history of the FBI. I did a great service to the people in firing him. Good Instincts. Christopher Wray will bring it proudly back!”

And Trump added in another tweet...again rightfully so...that “FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who headed the Clinton & Russia investigations, texted to his lover Lisa Page, in the IG Report, that “we’ll stop” candidate Trump from becoming President. Doesn’t get any lower than that!” And with those words President Trump said what we've all been thinking since day one...when it comes to venomous Democrats who still grovel at the feet of Hillary Clinton while longing for what might have been...venomous Democrats who truly will stop at nothing to get their way...it really does not get any lower than that.
_________________________________________________
Update:
* Yesterday morning disgraced F.B.I. Agent Peter Strzok said he's open to testifying before Congress about his actions as he "wants the chance to clear his name and tell his story." ...as per attorney Aitan Goelman in an interview with the Washington Post. Should be interesting if it actually happens.

** The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the IG report late yesterday afternoon...more on that in a later article.

Copyright @ 2018 Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / All Rights Reserved.

*************************************************************
For more political commentary please visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner Craig Andresen's blog The National Patriot to read his latest article Freedom of Speech – The Bane Liberal Existence

************************************************************************
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!

Today, Tuesday, June 19th from 7 to 9pm EST on American Political Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss ' A Report Tainted with Political Bias'; 'Freedom of Speech - The Bane of Us All'; and important news of the day.

Hope you can tune in at: http://listen.samcloud.com/w/73891/American-Political-Radio#history

Op-ed:

As the Election Dust Settles

By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio bit.ly/2cpXuRd

"Pardon before conviction might be necessary in order to obtain the testimony of accomplices." 

– James Wilson at the Convention of States

On the night of the election as the election was starting to turn in favor of the Trump/Pence ticket, Hillary Clinton made history in her own right as she shunned her supporters gathered at campaign headquarters. In a sad display by a cowardly and now so beaten woman, Hillary sent Mr. Email himself...John Podesta…out to address the crowd and to send them home refusing to concede as she begged the media to try and find a way for her to win…after all the presidency was ‘owed’ to her…they promised it to her… they had ‘anointed’ her as Obama’s third term in office.

And thankfully for ‘We the People’ and our beloved America they failed her.

And while in a show of self-serving bravado…in one last grand hurrah…there Hillary appeared the next morning with Billy-Boy…her ever-cheating sham of a husband… standing by her side in a pre-arranged press conference to finally concede and thank her supporters for a job now seen as not well done. Dressed in purple to try and get us to believe that by wearing purple she is symbolizing the melding of red and blue states into one unified country, what Hillary wants us to forget is that purple has long been the color of royalty...and we all know that the Clinton’s see themselves as and believe themselves to be America's royalty...when in actually it was a final slap in the face to those of us who did not vote for her and her socialistic, freebies for all, islamic-condoning agenda.

So what happens next now that the 2016 election is one for the history books…Obama’s pardon for Hillary for all crimes committed is soon to come…after all if he does not he risks her spilling the beans on him.

And know that legally Obama can and will pardon Hillary as per the Constitution of these United States. Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” And the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that not only does the President have the power to grant pardons and conditional pardons, but also to commute and conditionally commute sentences, and to address remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.

But…and this is where it gets sticky if you will for the fact is that the President can only issue said pardon to prevent further prosecution and/or punishment for federal crimes committed within the boundaries of these United States. And not known by most is that the governors of most of these 50 states have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for offenses under their state’s criminal law. And in those states where the governor does not have that power said power is then adjudicated to an appointed agency or board, or to a board where they and the governor merge together with that of the state’s parole board.

And what does this mean in relation to Hilary being pardoned…it means that there still might be a way to hold her accountable for her treasonous and murderous actions with an Obama pardon being negated to some degree. 

Let me explain.

While most believe that one has to be convicted of a crime in order to be pardoned nothing is further from the truth for the fact is that a presidential pardon can be issued dating from the time an actual offense is committed all the way up to the time a full sentence has been served. However, a pardon cannot be granted before an offense has been committed.

Of note, Richard Nixon was granted what’s known as a ‘pre-emptive’ pardon by Gerald Ford thus absolving Nixon of "all offenses against the United States which he…has committed or may have committed or taken part in" while he served as President. And Ford did so before any charges against Nixon were filed thus preventing them from ever being done so. And while Nixon had been convicted in the court of public opinion, he did resign “for the good of the nation” over the Watergate scandal.

And this ability to issue a ‘pre-emptive’ pardon goes back to 1866 when the Supreme Court ruled in ‘Ex parte Garland’ that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment"…with the key words being “after its commission.”

So what does this mean in relation to Hillary Clinton and her many crimes committed…it means that even without an indictment being forthcoming Hillary can still be ‘pre-emptively’ pardoned by Obama in regards to the email scandal, her involvement in Benghazi, and for her hand in the ‘pay for play’ Clinton Foundation scenario, but there still remains a way for her to be prosecuted for all three even with an Obama pardon in place. But first a little side track as many believe that Obama can pardon himself with a swipe of his infamous pen for anything he has done that might be illegal, but the truth is he cannot because the Constitution and the general principles of the traditions of U.S. law leads to the conclusion that a self-pardon is indeed constitutionally not permissible as it would violate the standing principles that a man should not and must not be a judge in his own case…that the rule of law is supreme and that we are a nation of laws not men…and that the President is not above the law.

So with Obama out of the way on the issue of pardoning himself, and with the sure to come pardoning of Hillary Clinton soon on the way, thankfully even that particular pardon comes with a major caveat and a loophole, if you will, that might allow any Obama issued pardon of Hillary to be negated to some important degree. First, in regards to Benghazi…it’s important you remember what I stated previously, that Obama’s pardon powers extend only to crimes Hillary may have committed within the boundaries of the U.S. And while it now appears that Benghazi was indeed orchestrated here by Hillary while in her position as Secretary of State, the actual crime itself (the illegal guns and weapons running and the targeted kill of Ambassador Stevens) was committed in a foreign country (Libya). 

Therefore, I believe, Hillary might still legally be able to be prosecuted in any other country involved in the happenings at Benghazi (Saudi Arabia for instance as they funded the attacks via monetary contributions to al-Qaeda, the 17 Martyrs Brigade, and Ansar al-Sharia) thus stripping Obama’s sure to come pardon of its legal teeth if…with the key word being ‘if’…if Saudi Arabia prosecutes Hillary to protect their own interests.

Now as for a pardon for the emails and the ‘pay for play’ actions of the Clinton Foundation…while again those actual incidents occurred within U.S. boundaries via the use of U.S, owned computers and with monies donated deposited into U.S. banks, there is in FBI hands Hillary initiated emails, folders and correspondences that she had with individuals in foreign countries concerning both of these incidents, and those country’s governments where those receiving individuals reside can if they so choose prosecute Hillary on their own for her tying them into what has become…thanks to the WikiLeaks ‘dumps’…provable criminal actions on Hillary’s part… criminal actions Obama is sure to pardon her for just to protect his own sorry self.

Now you might ask why would any foreign government prosecute Hillary Clinton after an Obama pardon…simply because with a Trump administration coming in and with the need to get on the new president’s ‘better side’ if you will…coupled with the fact that Obama cannot pardon himself and with Hillary now not being able to pardon him…they know no retaliation will be done to them if they do decide to prosecute Hillary or even Obama for that matter. That leaves the question of will a now President Trump prosecute a now former President Obama for Benghazi and for his knowledge of the illegalities of the email scandal and the Clinton Foundation? And if he does so is there a legal right to negate or throw out any of Obama’s pardons issued in the same way he can negate and throw out any or all of Obama’s Executive Orders issued? 

Some legal minds believe there is a possibly of negating a Hillary pardon that does not involve the incursion of foreign governments if said pardon was obtained through an act of fraud committed by Obama…which would then automatically render said pardon null and void. And what would allow for that specifically…if Obama when serving as President is proven in a court of law to have been as corrupt and in collusion with the very person he pardoned …in this case Hillary Clinton…or if the pardon was given to cover his own crimes…as in to prevent the possibility of his own criminal prosecution. Then any pardon given Hillary Clinton would be ruled an obstruction of justice and allow for the Supreme Court to officially declare the pardon to be invalid…yet another reason why it is so important that the High Court remain ‘red’…and allow for Hillary to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 

But know this…reversing or negating an Obama pardon can only be done if a Trump administration once in place brings formal charges against Barack HUSSEIN Obama…and hopefully they will if for no other reason than to seek justice for Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tryonne Woods.

So now as the kumbaya left is melting down because of the Trump win…as college students are crying like wee babies while sucking their collective thumbs…as folks in the Black Lives Matter movement riot and set fires yet again amid calls of racism against Obama and sexism against Hillary…know that a meeting took place in D.C. yesterday between Obama and Donald Trump to lay out the transition scenario that cannot come soon enough. And while the two men met new First Lady Melania Trump met with the national disgrace that is Michelle Obama…and how I would have liked to be a fly on that wall.

And as the election dust is finally starting to settle…as we as a country pick ourselves up and move on…we can now take a deep sigh of relief and prepare for a future given back to America with the Trump/Pence win. And all I can say is thank you to all who did the right thing by putting 'America First' before their own selfish consciences, but I truly hope that all who did put their conscience first will at least now give Donald Trump a chance for I think he will pleasantly surprise you and set right the Republican party again.

************************************************

RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!

Today, Friday, November 11th, from 7 to 9pm EST on American Political Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori will discuss the presidential election, Diane will explain how an Obama pardon of Hillary can be overturned, and Craig will give a snarky and oh so funny take on the election.

Hope you can tune in at: bit.ly/2cpXuRd