The Weiner Disclosures

     (Not a bad title for a Robert Ludlum novel, eh? A pity he’s dead.)

     The discovery that disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner (D, NY) had a batch of Hilary Clinton emails on his personal computer comes as little surprise to those of us familiar with the pervasive corruption and arrant carelessness of Democrat politicians. A Democrat’s first, last, and only thought about anything whatsoever is how it will affect him personally. Their mental horizons are the shortest known among “white collar” workers. In the case of Weiner, it’s no farther away than his jockstrap.

     The interesting aspects of the matter are two:

1. FBI Director James Comey’s willingness to reopen the investigation;
2. The response of the highly partisan main stream media to this development.

     In Comey’s case, the sudden, no-longer-concealable rise of Donald Trump’s chances on November 8 has imbued the FBI director with a need to “hedge his bets.” As long as Clinton looked indefeasible, he was firmly on her side, whether from fear his person or a mere desire for occupational security. But now that the race appears too close to call – several analysts have pegged it at even money; a couple are predicting a Trump landslide – Comey feels endangered from both directions. He must position himself in such a fashion that he can propitiate whoever wins. The “new” emails provide a way to do that:

• They justify reopening the investigation;
• If Trump wins, he can then reverse his recommendation against prosecuting Clinton;
• If Clinton wins, he can announce that the “new” material merely confirms his original decision.

     It’s a beautiful example of the “bureaucrat’s straddle,” a tactic appointed bureaucrats such as Comey, susceptible to being replaced by Congress, master early in their careers.

     The main stream media have taken a predictable tack about the disclosures. It’s a parallel to the old trial lawyer’s maxim:

     “If the facts are against you, pound the law. If the law is against you, pound the facts. If both are against you, pound the table.”

     Our highly partisan “journalists” replace the last part of that trichotomy with “Pound the Narrative.”

     The Democrats’ preferred Narrative in this matter is a simple one:

1. The emails were illicitly acquired, probably by Russia.
2. That makes them “inadmissible,” like evidence seized by the police without a warrant.
3. Therefore, any implications of the emails, including the very fact of their existence, are “fruit of a poisonous tree,” and must be excluded from all consideration.

     That might work with an audience composed entirely of lawyers, if the emails had been obtained by an unConstitutional search-and-seizure by some squad of rogue police. It’s not getting any traction with the American electorate. But at this point, with so few days remaining before Election Day, there’s inadequate time in which to redirect Americans’ attention onto some convenient distraction. So it’s all they’ve got...and you may rest assured they’ll pound it right through the crust and into the magma.

     Voters’ distaste for Hillary Clinton is rising toward a crest. Ten days from now we’ll see whether it’s peaked high enough to avert a second Clinton presidency. Stay tuned.