Senator Ted Cruz’s Powerful Response to the FBI’s Decision Regarding Clinton’s Email Scandal

As a Constitutional lawyer, Texas Senator Ted Cruz knows a thing or two about the law.

As a conservative senator, he knows what a tank of sharks Washington, D.C. can be.

After today’s announcement by FBI Director James Comey that Hillary Clinton would skate on charges of wrongdoing, in regards to her hiding, destroying, and total mishandling of sensitive emails, Senator Cruz made a strong statement.

While I have tremendous respect for the dedicated men and women of the FBI, I have serious concerns about the integrity of Director Comey’s decision, and how it threatens the rule of law.

Director Comey has rewritten a clearly worded federal criminal statute. In so doing, he has come dangerously close to saying that grossly negligent handling of classified information should not result in serious consequences for high-level officials. In a nation where the rule of law is supposed to matter, this is troubling.

Yesterday, Americans celebrated the 240th birthday of our Republic. We honored not only those who fought and died to defend our way of life, but the constitutional Republic for which they sacrificed. If we are to remain a beacon of hope and freedom for the rest of the world, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we remain a nation of laws, and that our laws apply equally and fairly to us all. Under President Obama, we have seen the most politicized Department of Justice in history; I very much hope that politicization has not similarly corrupted the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I join my Senate Judiciary colleagues, including Chairman Grassley, in calling for public transparency of, and full access to, all the information that the FBI used to come to today’s dubious decision.

I dare say, unless you have a transcript of the “chance” meeting between Hillary’s lecherous, corrupt husband, and the equally corrupt Attorney General Loretta Lynch from last week, you won’t get the whole story.

I’ll go further and say that Clinton’s recent suggestion that she may keep Lynch on as AG, once she rousts her pal, Trump, in the general election, doesn’t seem like a “You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” scenario, at all!

Senator Geary: Uh, Mr. Chairman, I would like to verify the witness’s statement. For years now a growing number of my constituents have been of Italian decent, and I’ve come to know them well. They have honored me with their support and with their friendship. Indeed, I can proudly say that some of my very best friends are Italian-Americans. However, Mr. Chairman, at this time, very unfortunately, I have to leave these proceedings in order to preside over a very important committee, my own committee. But before I leave I do want to say this: that these hearings on the Mafia are in no way whatsoever a slur upon the great Italian people. Because I can state from my own knowledge and experience that Italian-Americans are among the most loyal, most law-abiding, patriotic, hard working American citizens in this land. And it would be a shame, Mr. Chairman, if we allowed a few rotten apples to give a bad name to the whole barrel. Because from the time of the great Christopher Columbus up through the time of Enrico Fermi right up until the present day, Italian-Americans have been pioneers in building and defending our great nation. They are the salt of the earth, and they’re one of the backbones of this country.

Committee Chairman: I’m sure we all agree with our esteemed college. Now, Mr. Corleone you have been advised as to your legal rights. We have testimony from a witness — a previous witness — one Willie Cicci. He has stated that you are head of the most powerful Mafia family in this country. Are you?

Michael Corleone: No, I’m not.

Committee Chairman: The witness has testified that you are personally responsible for the murder of a New York City police Caption in 1947 and with him a man named Virgil Sollozzo. You deny this?

Michael Corleone: Yes, I do.

Committee Chairman: Is it true that in — in the year 1950 you devised the murder of the heads of the so-called “five families” in New York to assume and consolidate your nefarious power?

Michael Corleone: That’s a complete falsehood.

As a Constitutional lawyer, Texas Senator Ted Cruz knows a thing or two about the law.

One would think, at least.

As a conservative senator, he knows what a tank of sharks Washington, D.C. can be.

Er, what exactly is he conserving?
It's certainly not the conventional understanding of the Constitution, or even its integrity, considering that his Presidential run was actively eroding the intent of the Constitution WRT the natural born citizen clause. -- To put it simply, if we applied the known, public standard of his circumstances (that of being born outside of the US to at most one US citizen parent [without regard to paternal lineage]) then the NBC clause becomes meaningless, both in form and intent:

John Jay wrote this to the constitutional convention:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
They changed the presidential requirement of citizenship to that of natural born citizen without objection or comment in the convention.
If Mr. Cruz's situation did fulfill the NBC requirement then the following could occur:
1. A citizen could move to England.
2. That citizen could marry into the royal house, say the crown princess.
3. A child of this union would be a natural born citizen.
4. That selfsame child would also be in-line for the throne of England.
Because #3 makes #2 completely defeated in the sense of #1, we must conclude that this is not a true, legitimate construction of the NBC requirement.
QED (Proof by contradiction, albeit informal.)

These facts alone make Mr. Cruz's statement seem rather hypocritical — but this is actually a rather wide-spread problem, in the recent decision WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. HELLERSTEDT the dissent essentially points out that the supreme court is now making judgements apart from law but rather on the outcomes that it wants. (John Wright wrote a good article on it.)

So, let us examine what he's said here:

While I have tremendous respect for the dedicated men and women of the FBI, I have serious concerns about the integrity of Director Comey’s decision, and how it threatens the rule of law.

Director Comey has rewritten a clearly worded federal criminal statute. In so doing, he has come dangerously close to saying that grossly negligent handling of classified information should not result in serious consequences for high-level officials. In a nation where the rule of law is supposed to matter, this is troubling.

Yesterday, Americans celebrated the 240th birthday of our Republic. We honored not only those who fought and died to defend our way of life, but the constitutional Republic for which they sacrificed. If we are to remain a beacon of hope and freedom for the rest of the world, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we remain a nation of laws, and that our laws apply equally and fairly to us all. Under President Obama, we have seen the most politicized Department of Justice in history; I very much hope that politicization has not similarly corrupted the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I join my Senate Judiciary colleagues, including Chairman Grassley, in calling for public transparency of, and full access to, all the information that the FBI used to come to today’s dubious decision.

Well, the first sentence/paragraph is amusing, considering the aforementioned facts that his run endangered Rule of Law as well.

The Second paragraph is true.

It's the third paragraph that's telling: he glosses over the aforementioned Supreme Court overreach, he glosses over actual hanged-by-the-neck-until-dead Treason as defined by the Constitution recently committed by the Senate (proof/reasoning), he fails to mention the NSA's SOP which is a direct and continual violation of the Fourth Amendment (domestic espionage); moreover, he fails to address a key issue when talking about the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that is this: Why should we trust that committee? — Didn't they show how much they valued justice when they allowed no repercussions to the blatantly politically-motivated actions of the IRS?

It seems to me to be another case of all talk and no action.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.