Parts 1-3 detailed malfeasance outlining how our government colluded with the HRC Campaign from July 2016 on into November 2016 to smear President Trump. Now the HRC smear campaign obviously started well before that and it sure as hell continued after that-but I wanted to characterize this period speeecifically since it exposes egregious actions by the principal Trump hoaxers representing choreographed actions to grease the path for HRC to slide past this problem known as the HRC email scandal. In Part 4 I took somewhat of a step back to discuss how and why I came to the belief that these efforts were coordinated-as a “whole of government effort” led by and through the White House-by President Obama. Part 5 continues somewhat of the “see spot run” laydown of why our government accountability process supports my belief.
Leaders have a number of resources available to run their agencies in addition to the experienced leadership team they inherit from their predecessor and the ones they bring in and build over time as a reflection of their leadership style. A best practice in many organizations is the use of an ombudsmen to help facilitate communications and resolve employee problems, specializing in conflict resolution. We implemented such an office after conducting an offsite where we reviewed government best practices and considered mitigation options.
But most agencies-by statute-rely on their agency inspector general for muscle in compliance and accountability, a position that by charter is an independent and empowered investigator of any matter that arises that merits investigation. The last several decades we’ve heard an awful lot about them (this is an extract from a few sources, the worst of which is the tainted Wikipedia):
In the United States, the office of inspector general (OIG) is a generic term for the oversight division of a federal or state agency focused on investigating program execution and a wide variety of other matters aimed at preventing inefficient or unlawful operations within their parent agency. Such offices are attached to many federal executive departments, independent federal agencies, as well as state and local governments. Each office includes an inspector general (or I.G.) and employees charged with identifying, auditing, and investigating fraud, waste, abuse, embezzlement and mismanagement of any kind within the executive department.
A best practice with OIG positions is growing them within the system-in the legal department, military staff judge advocate corps, contract shop (contract law,) etc., so they gain requisite expertise in the communities in which they serve, and they get to know the organization mission, and people-the workforce-culture and traditions, history and experience. By doing so you grow experienced, dedicated civil servants who do the job in the Joe Friday manner (explained to President Obama in this clip.) There may be some “political” decisions reached by agency heads and executive committees-and we are talking the “inside the agency baseball” level politics-vice local, state, federal or national-but the bottom line is the OIG report on any matter details and summarizes the facts and makes recommendations based on the “big picture” analysis.
Each agency has some version of a personnel review board, often led by the director of human resources under the agency Chief of Staff, that the director has designated “action agent” as the recipient of the OIG investigation, expected to conduct a process review and make final disposition recommendations to the agency leadership to complete the process. Often, a well-respected senior leader within the organization is somewhat “deputized” to run this process-much like a board or equivalent Article 32 or courts martial type hearing conducted in the military.
This process takes quite a bit of time to run its course. Many (well, me) joke about the fact that you can’t fire government civilians, but that is tongue in cheek because there is a process, it is used sparingly but each time when warranted. It identifies bad behavior and dispositions a course of action recommendation to the agency director through a process, and it is a government best practice when initiated and informed by an impartial OIG. This reference outlines the FBI Office of Personnel Responsibility as their version of the above described process, and while a dated reference, there is a good description of the tenets of this process-at the time-by the OIG.
The above is why we don’t need the LSMBTG’s help to defend and carry water for somebody like McCabe, who IG Horowitz investigated and determined that he lied in the conduct of official business multiple times, including his leaking of official information-unauthorized leaks-to the LSMBTG, as well as lying and being combative with OIG investigators trying to perform due diligence in the investigation of the allegations. The equivalent of the above human resource process I described above was conducted, albeit in perhaps an abbreviated form. The OIG report is out there available for those interested in the facts. It isn’t or wasn’t IG Horowitz job to decide a punishment and fate for McCabe’s lying: the OIG is not judge and jury.
The question of whether the DOJ and FBI had time to complete McCabe’s process as described above is a question: no matter how much he lied or how many scummy things he did, he was entitled to a process where he gets to present his side of the story. The FBI could have suspended his clearances, sent him home, put him on administrative leave, started the process-deferred his retirement paperwork-and allowed the process to work. He was entitled to all the resources and protections that all government employees have available.
We do a disservice when leaders undercut their own best practice implemented processes to expedite desired outcomes. DJT did not help in this regard by weighing-in on something that he had no business commenting on in a way that distracted from McCabe’s malfeasance and detracted from-and muddied the waters on-the scrupulous job done by the OIG. These comments undermined to ill-effect one of the tools a president has in place at these agencies as watchdogs and oversight. DJT unwittingly-although some believe he thrives on chaos, deliberately stirring the pot-elevated sentiment for a government bureaucrat who violated his oath of office and undermined the credibility of his agency at an important time in history. Causing many to question the DOJ OIG’s methods, but more importantly his motivation in how the process unfolded and why the decisions were reached. Public comments in these cases by government officials can be unsavory-beneath the dignity of their office and the process-misguided-and inappropriate: no matter how true they may be.
The requisite boss is supposed to deal with these actions as they occur. With somebody like Comey, who is either a total incompetent and inept-given his cringe-worthy SGT Schultz performance with oversight on multiple occasions, who also lied repeatedly in performing official functions and knowingly shirked his duties and responsibilities or misused his office when and if it suited him (like the FBI interview of LTG Michael Flynn, or the failure to timely secure the Southern District of New York discovered HRC Weiner laptop emails-unquestionably known to have classified emails on it, an inconvenient thing if there ever was one,) or he is just a total dumb arse-which we know he is not.
The sad reality is that in an ethically challenged Obama administration command climate evidenced by scores of problems, the more likely answer is that Comey-and his peers-were being rewarded for playing things fast and loose to keep up with a boss who projected that manner of doing business as okay. A boss who thinks it’s okay for his direct reports to totally waste the people’s representative’s time by prevaricating, stonewalling, playing hide the baloney and facts and being “cute” during testimony to oversight: almost like sport.
The same goes for the previously covered actions of John Brennan, given his complete lack of evidence or proof that the Russians were intervening on behalf of DJT: they did not favor him over HRC. That did not stop him from spreading the story that he wanted to, focused on tainting and smearing DJT without regard to the facts. He will likely never be held to account for his reported adding of detail that Russia favored DJT in the President Obama directed rush to judgement Russia Election Interference 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment.
We can’t forget that all these bad actors-to a person-gave sworn testimony behind closed doors acknowledging that none of them had seen or-had in their possession-any information that corroborated the accusations and charges they publicly made against DJT: none. This list includes the top level of our government National Security and IC team-all of them. Submitting such testimony behind closed doors-under oath-did not stop them from dripping from the lip and smearing DJT when the doors were open-and they weren’t under oath.
Pollyanna and Peter Pan would submit that these are not the droids we were looking for: government civilian servants-by nature of the oaths they take and the fealty they pledge to our constitution-because of the trust we put in them in terms of the expenditure of our tax dollars and the concomitant responsibility that goes with such trust-can’t get away with acts like this-or the system breaks down at all levels.
All of this unseemly activity and these actions can be placed at the feet of one person-responsible for setting the leadership tone of the administration-responsible for everything the people he led and supervised throughout the administration and all the agencies-across the US government-did or failed to do: and that’s President Obama. Notwithstanding that some view that he is not bound by such an oath, having executed what in his mind was truly a ceremonial oath to our constitution (see above second reference, a different view:) else it would be otherwise.
I’ve kind of gone a little preachy in this article. I think it is important background information, but also somewhat of the Joe Friday approach. I mentioned him earlier-and while it was satire-tongue in cheek-he and his partner remind us of many of the tenets that form the basis of the warrior ethos part of the military business, distilled and shared as required knowledge passed down from generation to generation through words, acts and deeds. Including subjects like Worth’s Battalion Orders penned by Brevet Major William Jenkens Worth: “But an officer on duty knows no one...” What will be thought of him who exacts from his friends that which disgraces him…?” and Major General John M. Schofield’s Definition of Discipline: “The discipline which makes the soldiers of a free country in battle is not to be gained by harsh or tyrannical treatment…,” that serves as common ground for the force. When you see a Cadet who thinks it is OK to have longish hair and display socialist communist propaganda-while in uniform-it makes you wonder if they don’t issue soap and blankets anymore (but I digress.) Of course, in today’s correct society these would be classified as violent thoughts or intentions, but I would opine it is never too late to impart lessons that should have been taught at home.
To close out the preachy article in the series, the breakdown and degradation of the US government functions is a direct outcome of this malfeasance evidenced across these agencies by their leaders and encouraged by the boss turning a blind eye to it. The loss of proper function, decorum, performance and accountability in our government is akin to that feared by those familiar with the reality of gateway drugs, the path to alcoholism, the “broken windows theory” in law enforcement credited with resuscitating New York City at one time (although many believe it was the presence of a 35K strong police force,) or any seemingly desultory outcome that starts toward ruination with small steps.
Max Dribbler
28 February 2022
Follow AFNN:
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAz…
Twitter: @AFNNUSA
GETTR: @AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Patriot.Online: @AFNN