Sunday, February 11, 2024

Was the UN's cal for a cease fire in Gaza an attempt to hide it's support of Hamas?

Double Exposure

Every day the Israeli Defense Forces find more proof of the perfidy of the UN and UNRWA. Did you guess that the UN’s demand for a quick ceasefire was intended to conceal this? If so, you guessed right. This week, among other things, the IDF discovered Hamas's Intelligence Headquarters and an enormous tunnel beneath UNRWA HQ in Gaza, equipped with a huge server and data farm which was receiving its electricity from UNRWA sources. I’d hate to prejudge the honesty of the UNRWA officials who claim they’d no idea what was going on under their feet -- I mean, they might have thought there were giant hordes of very big moles under their HQ. Still, their denials strain credulity. Indeed, tunnels and tunnel entrances and weaponry and sometimes even terrorists have been found in every UNRWA facility in Gaza. Hamas (and certainly UNRWA) believed that these were the safest places to plot, hide themselves, store their weapons and surveillance equipment, and then bleat that they were immune from attack by the Hamas victims. 

And then there are those who wanted us to believe that the stumbling, incoherent president was sharp as a tack despite two life-threatening brain aneurisms and advanced age. This week, the special counsel revealed your skepticism about Biden’s mental capacity was not misplaced. Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report, released by Attorney General Merrick Garland, reveals your concern was well-warranted. He found that Biden had removed classified information, mishandled it, disclosed it to someone not authorized to see it, and left it unsecured in “the garage, offices, and basement den in Mr. Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware, home.”

 He found evidence that President Joe Biden “willfully” retained and shared highly classified materials when he was a private citizen, including documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan. The report nevertheless concluded that criminal charges were not warranted.

Similar charges were leveled by another special counsel against former president Trump, who asserts that he, with full authority to do so, had declassified them, kept them in secure storage with Secret Service personnel on the premises. No action will be had against Biden -- who, when he removed them, had no authority to declassify anything and broke every law involving classified material. Among the reasons for not prosecuting Biden is this:

“We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory,” the report states. “Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt.”

“It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him -- by then a former president well into his eighties -- of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.”

Numerous Democrats have rushed to his defense, indicating that Biden is not in the least bit mentally impaired. The question then becomes, if that’s the case, should the prosecution begin? Alternatively, if he is too mentally impaired to be prosecuted, should he remain commander in chief? It seems hard to avoid these responses, but the Democrats are trying.

The first attack is, naturally, on Hur’s integrity. Those with memories longer than a week or so recall with amusement Nancy Pelosi’s response to those who questioned Special Counsel Robert Mueller. She indicated that any questioning of him was shameless and undermined both the judicial system and the constitutional checks and balances provisions.

Unlike regular prosecutors, special counsels (and independent counsels before them) are obligated to write reports justifying their decisions on whether or not to prosecute. You may recall what happened with Hillary Clinton during the Ken Starr investigation. His predecessor Robert Ray indicated he would not seek criminal charges against her even though, contrary to her statements under oath, she had “ultimately influenced” the removal of the travel office personnel. However, “the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury [in the District of Columbia] beyond a reasonable doubt that any of Mrs. Clinton’s statements and testimony regarding her involvement in the travel office firings were knowingly false.”

Since prosecutors have ethical restraints against bringing cases they know have no reasonable likelihood of producing a guilty verdict, Democratic officeholders basically have a get out of prosecution ticket in a venue -- the District of Columbia -- which no prosecutor believes would convict them.

No comments: