Republicans Better Off Losing by Landslide, George Will Says

ABC News

George Will, a Pulitzer Prize–winning conservative journalist who ripped up his Republican card this year after Donald Trump's nomination, says a narrow GOP defeat would be "the worst conceivable outcome" for the party.

FBI Director James Comey's announcement of the discovery of possibly new Hillary Clinton emails last Friday appears to have shaken up national polls, narrowing the gap between the two candidates. But Will said a narrow defeat would fuel "the old stab-in-the-back theory," with party members blaming Trump dissenters like House Speaker Paul Ryan and Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse for dividing Republicans.

Will, a columnist for The Washington Post, argued that a landslide win for Clinton would help Republicans by giving the party room to distance itself from divisive candidates and from the "indignation industry," as he dubbed it, of talk radio and cable personalities.

Speaking to ABC News' Jonathan Karl and Rick Klein on the "Powerhouse Politics" podcast today, Will said he was doubtful of a Republican win, barring fundamental changes in the party, starting with how Republican radio and talk show hosts speak about certain issues and groups.

"Until the Republican Party gets right with minorities in this country," Will said, "it's never going to win another presidential election."

He said, "The party has to look at its nominating process. It must never again have debates with 12 people onstage at a time."

"I don't know what you do to erect a kind of filter to keep a certain kind of candidate off the stage, but they have to work on their nominating process," he added.

Known for referring to baseball in his columns, Will said of the 23 percent chance that FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver estimates both Trump and the Chicago Cubs have of winning this year, "I think he's underestimating the Cubs and overestimating Donald Trump."

Will said Comey's announcement about the review of possibly new Clinton emails was reckless, arguing that he broke FBI protocol for the wrong reasons.

"He sends this letter to Congress, saying emails of unknown content and unknown prominence might be 'pertinent' — that's a word to watch for here — to the prior Clinton investigation," Will said. "Something can be pertinent without being significant. That is, it could be pertinent in the sense that it's redundant evidence of what we already know, which was that she was, in Comey's language, 'extremely careless' in handling sensitive materials."

"This is not news people can use," Will continued. "It's of no help to voters. And it's of no help to anyone, so far as I can see."

"It's an old saying our grandmothers told us — don't talk unless you can improve the silence," he added. "I don't think he did."[...]

Women imprison male and publicize him as pedophile

Arutz 7

Police arrested two women residents of Lod on Tuesday on suspicion of spreading text messages about a male resident of the city whom they claimed was a pedophile and dangerous sex offender. They also imprisoned him in a house and hit him.

Police suspect that one of the women discovered that the person she had befriended and asked to teach her son Torah was a sex offender, under supervision after having served a prison sentence.

The woman invited the man to the business she owns in Lod, and when he arrived, she locked the door and hit him together with a friend using her hands and a chair. After he succeeded in escaping from the place the two allegedly publicized his picture together with a warning to the public that he is a "convicted pedophile and dangerous criminal who has come to live in Lod."

The suspects were located and arrested by Israel Police and were interrogated on suspicion of attacking, unlawful imprisonment, threats, plotting to commit a crime, publicizing information causing the public to panic and publicizing harmful slander. The two women were remanded and their investigation continues.

Father confesses to drugging, raping teenage daughter

Times of Israel

Police said Wednesday they had arrested a man after his daughter filed a complaint saying he drugged and repeatedly raped her over a two-year period when she was a teenager.

An investigation was launched after the woman, 23, told police earlier in the week that she could no longer remain silent over the assaults, which she says began when she was just 15.

The man, a resident of Beit Shemesh in his fifties, was detained Tuesday and confessed to at least 15 incidents of sexual assault and rape that he remembered.

He allegedly used sleeping pills to drug his daughter before she went to bed and then assaulted her.

The woman told investigators that she would go to sleep and vaguely remember her father coming into the room and committing sex acts against her.

A search of the suspect’s home uncovered over a dozen packages of sleeping pills of the same kind that he allegedly used to drug his daughter by putting them in her food and drink.

The man has another daughter; however, he is currently not thought to have assaulted her. His wife told investigators that she noticed her husband paying special attention to one of their daughters, but claimed to have no knowledge of his crimes, Channel 2 reported.[...]

Rav Avigdor Miller would say not to vote for either Trump or Clinton

Washington Post

USA Today

Trump’s bizarre claim that the Clinton email controversy is ‘bigger than Watergate’

Washington Post

“This is bigger than Watergate. This is bigger than Watergate. In my opinion. This is bigger than Watergate.”

— Donald Trump, campaign rally, Oct. 28

Trump has claimed that the Hillary Clinton email controversy is the biggest political scandal “since” Watergate, but now he flatly says it is “bigger” than Watergate. His campaign is now using this line:

There are a lot of unknowns about the Clinton investigation (see our Q&A here) right now, but we know a lot about the Watergate scandal. And the basic facts of both cases right now just don’t compare. Let’s take a look.

The Facts

FBI Director James B. Comey announced Friday that new emails had been found that might be relevant to the Hillary Clinton investigation. He wrote a cryptic letter to Congress that contained few details.

Law enforcement sources have told reporters that the emails were found on a computer that belonged to former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) and his estranged wife, Huma Abedin, who had been Clinton’s deputy chief of staff at the State Department. The emails surfaced during an underage sexting investigation into Weiner.

There is not enough information right now to know whether the new emails will lead to any other developments. It does not appear as if the FBI has yet examined them in depth, and Comey had said in the letter that the FBI “cannot yet assess whether the material may or may not be significant” or whether the emails contained classified information.

We don’t know if they were addressed to and from Clinton, or if they are emails that the FBI already had reviewed in the earlier investigation into her use of a private server.

No charges ever have been filed in the Clinton email case; Comey has said the FBI could not find evidence of “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information.” There is no way to know whether the new emails would change that. (For more, see all of our fact-checks on the Clinton email issue.)

On the other hand, we know a lot about the Watergate scandal from the 1970s, thanks to the dogged, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting of The Washington Post’s Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. The scandal began with a burglary of the Democratic National Committee office at the Watergate complex and led to the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon, and the criminal convictions and guilty pleas of dozens of people involved in the massive campaign of sabotage and espionage on behalf of Nixon’s reelection effort and the ensuing coverup.

The key here is that there were clear violations of law that led to criminal convictions of aides and co-conspirators. In total, 69 people were charged with crimes, and 48 people pleaded guilty.

Here’s a list of some of the major figures who were implicated in the Watergate scandal, including the 1972 burglary and the following coverup. All were found guilty except for Nixon, who was pardoned.

President Richard M. Nixon (Nixon resigned in disgrace while facing impeachment. A Watergate grand jury named Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator. One month after being sworn in as president, Gerald Ford granted a “full, free and absolute pardon” for all crimes that Nixon “committed or may have committed” when he was in the White House.)

John N. Mitchell, former attorney general and Nixon reelection campaign manager

H.R. Haldeman, White House chief of staff

John Ehrlichman, assistant to the president for domestic affairs

Charles W. Colson, White House counsel

John Dean, White House counsel

Kenneth Wells Parkinson, Nixon reelection committee

Gordon Creighton Strachan, White House aide

Fred C. LaRue, Nixon reelection committee

Jeb S. Magruder, Nixon reelection committee

Robert C. Mardian, Nixon reelection committee attorney (Mardian’s conviction of conspiracy to obstruct justice was overturned on appeal.)

Bernard L. Barker, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, James W. McCord Jr., Frank Sturgis; the burglars of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters

G. Gordon Liddy, Nixon aide

E. Howard Hunt, Jr., CIA agent and former White House aide

In response to Trump’s comments, Bernstein (who authored a biography of Hillary Clinton) tweeted that there is “no way” the Clinton emails are “bigger than Watergate” or close to it:

Nick Akerman, one of the prosecutors in the Watergate case, rejected Trump’s statement that the emails case is “bigger than Watergate,” according to mic.com political reporter Celeste Katz: “Donald Trump’s statement that this is bigger than Watergate is totally absurd. There is no evidence of any violation of law. For Trump to reach that conclusion based on a total lack of evidence is reminiscent of the innuendo spread by Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s.” [...]

The Trump campaign did not provide evidence of how the Clinton emails are “bigger than Watergate,” but issued this statement in response to our inquiry: “Hillary Clinton is one of the most corrupt candidates ever to run for president and she has enlisted the biased media to act as her campaign’s propaganda arm. Americans know that Clinton’s email scandal disqualifies her for the presidency and her candidacy will go down as one of the most unethical moments in political history.”

The Pinocchio Test

Trump says the Clinton email scandal is “bigger than Watergate,” given Comey’s letter to Congress about new emails that might be relevant to the Clinton email scandal. But there is not enough information available right now to know whether these emails will make a difference in the case. Comey’s letter said the FBI “cannot yet assess whether the material may or may not be significant.”

So far, there have been no criminal charges, and therefore no convictions or guilty pleas in the Clinton email scandal. That makes the Clinton emails fundamentally different from Watergate, where 48 people were found guilty. 

Trump earns Four more Pinocchios for this absurd comparison.

Analysis: Reality Check Shows Clinton's Path to 270 Is Stable

NBC News

There's plenty of hand wringing and stomach churning in Democratic households this week as polls show the presidential race tightening in its final days — and the Hillary Clinton campaign is making a series of moves that some see as panicked desperation.

A week out from the election, the campaign has started running ads in Colorado and Virginia, states it long ago felt comfortable leaving, and went on air for the first time in other, bluer states like New Mexico.

Meanwhile, campaign officials have seemed unusually agitated in a series of press calls and statements responding to FBI Director James Comey's bombshell on Clinton's email server. And after pledging to close the race on a positive note, the campaign rolled out a tough new ad highlighting women who claim Trump sexually assaulted them, while reintroduced former beauty queen Alicia Machado.

"Make no mistake, they are in panic," Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show Monday.

But the reality is that Clinton's chances of winning 270 electoral votes have hardly changed from last week. While Democrats' agitation is palpable, it's driven more by anger than panic at what they see as unprecedented and appalling meddling by outside forces in the election.

FiveThirtyEight's election forecast still gives Clinton a 71 percent chance of winning, while the New York Times' Upshot model gives her an 88 percent chance, and Princeton University's model pegs her likelihood at 97 percent.[...]

Team Clinton feels it's been stolen from them through unpredictable interventions they views as undemocratic and one-sided, both from Comey and the Russian hackers who allegedly stole thousands of sensitive emails from campaign chair John Podesta and released them online.

Meanwhile, Democrats are practically tearing their hair out over the fact that while they, again, take on water from an email scandal that has dogged them for more than a year and half, they're running against someone many Americans say is unqualified and who seems to have a new scandal every day.

One Democratic nervous operative said he's been trying to head the wise words of Luke Skywalker — or at least Mark Hamill the actor who played, him — who told followers: "Don't panic — VOTE!"[...]

Fact check: Comey's vague letter sparks partisan distortions - mainly from the Trump camp

USA Today

FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress regarding an unexpected development in his agency’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server was brief and vague, creating a vacuum that has been filled by distorted claims — mostly from the campaign of Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump:

• Trump strung together a series of debunked claims about Clinton’s use of a private server while secretary of State to conclude that “this is bigger than Watergate.”

• Trump also repeated his unsupported claim that Clinton’s “criminal action was willful, deliberate, intentional and purposeful.” The FBI found no evidence that Clinton “intended to violate laws” on classified information.

• Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate, claimed that Clinton “continues to refuse to turn over some 33,000 e-mails.” But Clinton’s non-work-related emails were deleted more than a year ago, so Clinton doesn’t have them to turn over.

• Clinton claimed that the FBI letter to Congress was “sent to Republican members of the House” and was “only going originally to Republican members of the House.” Both claims are false.

• Clinton’s campaign chairman claimed the FBI review of the new emails “might not be about [Clinton’s] server.” But the FBI has said it is reviewing the emails that “appear to be pertinent to the investigation” of Clinton’s “personal email server.”

On Oct. 28, the FBI director sent a three-paragraph letter to Congress that said FBI investigators, during the course of an unrelated investigation, found “the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent” to its prior investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of State. The letter said the FBI will review those emails “to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

Comey wrote that “the FBI cannot yet assess whether this material may be significant” or how long the review will take.

Multiple news reports, citing anonymous law enforcement officials, said emails were found on a computer owned by Anthony Weiner, who is the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide and former deputy chief of staff at the State Department.

The news came more than three months after Comey announced on July 5 that the FBI had completed its investigation and recommended that no charges be brought against Clinton or her aides for mishandling classified information.

The FBI’s review of potentially new evidence comes less than two weeks before Election Day. The lack of hard information and the timing of the FBI’s announcement have created conditions that are ripe for distortions.

Elokistim: The sect that believes it is permissible to eat pork and violate other halacha

YNET

צפו ב"אלוקיסטיות" - החסידות שמאמינות באכילת חזיר

בראשית הייתה חב"ד. מתוכה צמח פלג שמאמין שהרבי עודנו המשיח, למרות פטירתו. ומתוך אלה צמחו האלוקיסטיות: קבוצה של חסידות, וגם חסידים, שבטוחות שהרבי חי ושהגאולה כבר כאן. ואם המשיח איתנו אז אפשר לאכול חזיר, לא לצום ביום כיפור, וגם לא להקפיד על מראה צנוע. בחסידות מתנערים מהן בתוקף, אבל הן מאמינות לחלוטין בדרכן

תשעה באב. סביב שולחן מואר בנרות יושבים בני משפחה, כיפות לראשיהם. עד כאן תיאור של סיטואציה כמעט רגילה. רק שבני המשפחה הזאת שרים, מרימים כוסית וגם אוכלים. סעודת תשעה באב. הם לא עושים זאת כדי להכעיס והם גם לא רפורמים. הם, פלג קטנטן בחסידות חב"ד, לקחו את עניין הכתרתו כמשיח של הרבי האחרון של חב"ד, מנחם מנדל שניאורסון, צעד אחד רחוק יותר. יהיו שיאמרו רחוק מדי.

קוראים להם האלוקיסטים, ויש בהם כאלה שמאמינים שמצוות כאלה בטלות משום שהמשיח כבר כאן. שרה קנייבסקי, למשל, כבר הספיקה לטעום בשר חזיר – ולא שכחה לברך. היא גם אכלה ביום הכיפורים. ואדם מבחוץ שיראה אותה יתקשה להאמין שהיא משתייכת לחסידות חב"ד, כפי שהיא מגדירה את עצמה. גם יואל קראוס, שהעלה את סרטון סעודת תשעה באב שלו לרשת, מאמין באמונה שלמה שהמשיח כבר איתנו, ולכן הקודים הדתיים שהיו נהוגים במשך שנים כבר אינם מחייבים בהכרח.

בחב"ד מזועזעים מהקבוצה הזאת. "אלו האלוקיסטיות", אמרו לי כשהגעתי לניו־יורק לפני כעשור ונתקלתי בהן לראשונה, לא רחוק מריכוז חב"ד בברוקלין, והשתתפתי בשיעור שהעבירה קנייבסקי. "אסור לך לדבר איתן. הרבנים בשכונה הורו להתעלם מהן". מאידך, קשה להתעלם מהעובדה שהן עצמן נולדו מתוך פלג משמעותי מאוד בחב"ד שמאמין שהרבי, אף שהלך לעולמו כבר ב־1994, הוא המשיח. אם תרצו, דוגמה להקצנה זוחלת כמו זו שיצרה באמצע המאה ה־17 את השבתאות, ששרידיה עדיין מתקיימים בטורקיה וכבר אינם נחשבים כלל חלק מהיהדות.

לאכול בצום בבית הכנסת

הרבי מלובאוויטש, המנהיג האחרון של חסידות חב"ד, עורר במשך שנים בקרב חסידיו את הציפייה והתשוקה לגאולה. בשנותיו האחרונות החליטו החסידים שהוא עצמו המשיח. מאז הסתלקותו לפני 22 שנים התפלגה החסידות לשני זרמים עיקריים: המתונים שבהם מצפים לגאולה ורואים בפטירת הרבי ניסיון אחרון לפני התגלותו כמלך המשיח, ואילו אנשי הפלג השני, הקיצוני יותר – המכונים "משיחיסטים" – מאמינים שהרבי לא נפטר אלא חי ממש וממשיך להנהיג אותם.

מתוך אלה קמה בעשור האחרון קבוצת האלוקיסטים, או האלוקיסטיות, שטוענים שעל-פי שיחותיו והוראותיו של הרבי הגאולה בעצם כבר התרחשה בפועל. מה זה אומר? שאפשר לשנות את המנהגים הכי בסיסיים של יהודי שומר תורה ומצוות, שהרי "מצוות בטלות לעתיד לבוא".

שרה היא אחת הנשים המרכזיות בקבוצה, שרוב אנשיה לא הסכימו להתראיין. חלקם סובלים מנידוי משפחתי, אחרים לא רוצים לעורר מחלוקת. שרה, לעומתם, מרגישה שנכון לה לדבר. היא רוצה שכל העולם יידע שהגאולה כבר כאן. "הכי היה לי קשה לאכול ביום כיפור, פחדתי ממש", היא נותנת את הדוגמה הקיצונית ביותר. "החזקתי חתיכת עוגה ביד ולא הצלחתי להכניס את היד לפה. אז פתחתי שוב את השיחה של הרבי וממנה הבנתי שהצום בטל. קראתי אותה, התבוננתי בתמונות של האדמו"רים שהיו תלויות לי כאן בסלון, ומהם קיבלתי את הכוח לאכול ביום כיפור".

כששרה מדברת על המצוות האלה, ארשת פניה רצינית. היא לא מתארת תחושת שחרור או פריקת עול אלא פחד, לצד אומץ להקריב את הערכים הכי בסיסיים ומהותיים עבורה כאישה חרדית, עבור האמונה והדרך שבחרה. אני נכנסת לביתה, לסלון אמריקני גדול, ומכל קיר ניבטת אליי תמונתו של הרבי מלובאוויטש. עיניי נחות על תמונה נוספת, של יהודי עטור זקן, בשחור־לבן. "זה אבא שלי", מספרת שרה. "הוא ישב בכלא הרוסי יחד עם אחיו 13 שנה בעוון הפצת היהדות".

היא נולדה בשם שטערנא שרה, על שם רעיית הרבי החמישי של חב"ד, למשפחה חסידית שורשית. יש לה שבעה ילדים, ועד לפני שנים אחדות היא עבדה כמורה בבית הספר של החסידות. "נולדתי בשכונה הזאת", היא אומרת. "אני זוכרת את הרבי מגיל ממש קטן. הייתי הולכת ל־770 (מקום משכנו – א"ש) בכל הזדמנות לשמוע ולראות אותו".

כמעט בכל משפט שלה נכנס הביטוי "הרבי מלך המשיח", וכשאני שואלת אותה איך הרגישה ביום פטירתו, ג' בתמוז, היא מתעלמת בקלילות. "אני ידעתי שהוא חי!" היא אומרת. "אני יודעת שזה רק ניסיון. לא הבנתי למה אנשים בוכים. רצתי לנקות את הבית והייתי בטוחה שמיד הרבי יתגלה כמשיח. היו עוד אנשים בלוויה שצעקו שהרבי חי ואפילו רקדו עם תופים".

מתי החלטת שהגאולה כבר כאן והתחלת להתנהג באופן שונה? 

"בתקופה של פינוי גוש קטיף. כל כך קיווינו שלא יפנו חלקים מארץ ישראל, ואז יצא צום י"ז תמוז בשבת פרשת בלק. למדתי את השיחה שהרבי אמר באותה שבת. הוא התייחס לזה שהצום דחוי, הביא ציטוט מהגמרא שמדבר על הבחירה אם לצום והסביר שמתקרבים יותר לזמן ששון ושמחה".

שרה פותחת ומראה לי את המסכת המדוברת. "גם רבי יהודה הנשיא ביטל את צום י"ז תמוז וניסה לבטל את צום תשעה באב, כי זו הייתה תקופה טובה לעם ישראל בתקופתו", היא אומרת, ומזכירה גם את ההסתייגות מהצומות של חכמי אותה תקופה. "את מבינה? ידעתי שאנחנו כבר בתקופת הגאולה, שהרי אין שעבוד מלכויות. אף אחד לא אוסר עלינו לקיים מצוות. אז בשביל להרגיש את הגאולה בפועל הלכתי ל־770 בצום ואכלתי גלידה דווקא שם".

אכלת בהתרסה בבית כנסת, ביום צום.

"גם ביום כיפור עשיתי את זה. באתי עם בשר, לחם וקולה שקניתי בדרך וישבתי בין הנשים המתפללות ואכלתי. היה לי קשה לעשות את זה, אבל הרגשתי שזה מה שנדרש ממני. שכולם יידעו שהגאולה כבר כאן והצומות בטלים".

 [...]

Former Attorney General Mukasey: Comey seriously erred and has saved Clinton from being charged for her email

Wall Street Journal by Former Attorney General Mukasey

We need not worry unduly about the factual void at the center of the FBI director’s announcement on Friday that the bureau had found emails—perhaps thousands—“pertinent” in some unspecified way to its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified emails while she was secretary of state.

True, we don’t know what is actually in the emails of Huma Abedin, Mrs. Clinton’s close aide, but we can nonetheless draw some conclusions about how FBI Director James Comey came to issue his Delphic notice to Congress, and what the near-term future course of this investigation will be. Regrettably, those conclusions do no credit to him, or to the leadership of the Justice Department, of which the FBI is a part.

Friday’s announcement had a history. Recall that Mr. Comey’s authority extends only to supervising the gathering of facts to be presented to Justice Department lawyers for their confidential determination of whether those facts justify a federal prosecution.

Nonetheless, in July he announced that “no reasonable prosecutor” would seek to charge her with a crime, although Mrs. Clinton had classified information on a private nonsecure server—at least a misdemeanor under one statute; and although she was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information such that it was exposed to hacking by hostile foreign nations—a felony under another statute; and apparently had caused the destruction of emails—a felony under two other statutes. He then told Congress repeatedly that the investigation into her handling of emails was closed.

Those decisions were not his to make, nor were the reasons he offered for making them at all tenable: that prosecutions for anything but mishandling large amounts of classified information, accompanied by false statements to investigators, were unprecedented; and that criminal prosecutions for gross negligence were constitutionally suspect.

Members of the military have been imprisoned and dishonorably discharged for mishandling far less information, and prosecutions for criminal negligence are commonplace and entirely permissible. Yet the attorney general, whose decisions they were, and who had available to her enough legal voltage to vaporize Mr. Comey’s flimsy reasons for inaction, told Congress she would simply defer to the director.[...]

When the FBI learned that two of the secretary’s staff members had classified information on their computers, rather than being handed grand-jury subpoenas demanding the surrender of those computers, the staff members received immunity in return for giving them up. In addition, they successfully insisted that the computers not be searched for any data following the date when Congress subpoenaed information relating to its own investigation, and that the computers be physically destroyed after relevant data within the stipulated period was extracted.

The technician who destroyed 30,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails after Congress directed that they be preserved lied to investigators even after receiving immunity. He then testified that Clinton aides requested before service of the subpoena that he destroy them, and that he destroyed them afterward on his own initiative.

Why would an FBI director, who at one time was an able and aggressive prosecutor, agree to such terms or accept such a fantastic story?

The search for clues brings us to an email to then-Secretary Clinton from President Obama, writing under a pseudonym, that the FBI showed to Ms. Abedin. That email, along with 21 others that passed between the president and Secretary Clinton, has been withheld by the administration from release on confidentiality grounds not specified but that could only be executive privilege.

After disclosure of those emails, the president said during an interview that he thought Mrs. Clinton should not be criminally charged because there was no evidence that she had intended to harm the nation’s security—a showing required under none of the relevant statutes. As indefensible as his legal reasoning may have been, his practical reasoning is apparent: If Mrs. Clinton was at criminal risk for communicating on her nonsecure system, so was he.

That presented the FBI director with a dilemma that was difficult, but not complex. It offered two choices. He could have tried to proceed along the course marked by the relevant laws. The FBI is powerless to present evidence to a grand jury, or to issue grand-jury subpoenas. That authority lies with the Justice Department, headed by an attorney general who serves, as her certificate of appointment recites, “during the pleasure of the President of the United States for the time being.”

However, the director could have urged the attorney general to allow the use of a grand jury. Grand juries sit continuously in all the districts where an investigation would have been conducted, and no grand jury need have been convened to deal with this case in particular. If she refused, he could have gone public with his request, and threatened to resign if it was not followed. If she had agreed, he would have been in the happy position last week of having discovered yet further evidence that could be offered in support of pending charges. If she had refused, he could have resigned.

There is precedent within the Justice Department for that course. During what came to be known as the Saturday night massacre in 1973, Attorney General Elliot Richardson and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, resigned rather than follow President Nixon’s order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Indeed, on his own telling, Mr. Comey threatened to resign as Deputy Attorney General unless the George W. Bush administration changed its electronic-surveillance program, although the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court later approved the feature to which he had objected.

Instead, Mr. Comey acceded to the apparent wish of President Obama that no charges be brought. There is precedent for that too—older and less honorable. It goes back to the 12th century when Henry II asked, “who will rid me of this troublesome priest?” The king’s eager subordinates duly proceeded to murder Archbishop Thomas Becket at the altar of Canterbury Cathedral. That choice—to follow the sovereign’s wish—left Mr. Comey facing only further dishonor if he did not disclose the newly discovered emails and they leaked after the election.

And what of the future? Mr. Comey reportedly wrote his letter to Congress over the objection of the attorney general and her deputy. Thus, regardless of what is in the newly discovered emails, the current Justice Department will not permit a grand jury to hear evidence in this case. And because only a grand jury can constitutionally bring charges, that means no charges will be brought.

Which is to say, we know enough to conclude that what we don’t know is of little immediate relevance to our current dismal situation.

The top cop who thought he was a prosecutor: The Clinton email probe

Washington Post

Beyond the precedent that the Justice Department, particularly the FBI, bends over backward not to interfere in a presidential election, there is yet another precedent, this one established during the Monica Lewinsky investigation: A holder of high office, under pressure from both Congress and the press, can lose his mind. The mind in question belonged to Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel, who back in the winter of 1997 signaled he had had more than enough of Bill Clinton, sex that wasn’t sex, a dress no longer suitable for a casual date, and other such matters and was quitting. He would repair to Pepperdine University, about as far from Washington as is continentally possible, and become dean of its law school. Then all hell broke loose.

Republican members of Congress denounced Starr for cutting and running. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a member of the all-important Judiciary Committee, asked Starr to reconsider. William Safire, then the biggest gun on the New York Times’s op-ed page, was less judicious. His column was titled “The Big Flinch.” He called Starr a wimp who had brought “shame on the legal profession” — as if such a thing were possible. It seemed it was, and Starr retracted his resignation, stayed in Washington, hounded Clinton into impeachment and, in general, soiled a promising legal career that once had him on some shortlists for the Supreme Court.

I tell you this sad tale of opportunity missed just to illustrate how political pressure and the braying of the media can addle the minds of otherwise smart people. This is what happened to Ken Starr, and it seems to have happened to James B. Comey, the director of the FBI, although maybe not for much longer. Twice now, he has lost his bearings, stepped out of his role as top cop and decided he was prosecutor instead. In July, he announced that the FBI had concluded its investigation into the Hillary Clinton email server and found nothing worth prosecuting. He did find that her handling of her emails had been “extremely careless,” which was true, but was the sort of judgment that pundits like me get to make, not lofty FBI directors whose personal — even professional — opinions should be saved for their memoirs.

For recommending against indictment, Comey was vilified by the right, particularly by Donald Trump. Others had a different criticism: Comey should have said nothing at all. The decision to prosecute is made by the Justice Department, not the FBI, and it was not his place to chastise Clinton, who, if I may be permitted an observation, certainly deserved it. Now Comey has announced that the investigation that seemed closed remains open. He announced this less than two weeks before Election Day, virtually reviving a dormant Trump campaign. “Bigger than Watergate,” Trump observed.

What’s going on? We don’t know. An astounding 650,000 emails were found by the FBI on the laptop belonging to Anthony Weiner, the now-estranged (and always strange) husband of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s No. 1 aide. This could be a device that Weiner allegedly used to send filthy pictures of himself to women both young and old, one purportedly a mere 15. It’s possible the emails are duplicates of what the FBI has already seen on Clinton’s private server or — G-men beware — maybe half a million Weiner selfies. (You cannot out-weird this story.)

From the very start, I’ve felt that this whole business of Clinton’s email server has been ridiculously hyped. She shouldn’t have done it. Granted. She’s hiding something. Granted. She’s even hiding that she’s hiding something. But she didn’t commit treason, and the nation’s security has not been endangered as far as we know, and all this mucking around in the personal emails of public figures has gone too far. If there’s no crime, let’s move on. The threat is not Clinton and her BlackBerry, but the Russians and their military-industrial-hacking complex.

But Comey, buffeted from both sides and possessed of a fiery moralism, has now possibly thrown the election into doubt. What’s this all about, Jim? We — the voters — need to know. (Actually, I can’t imagine learning anything that would get me to vote for Trump.) Still, some voters are undecided. Both candidates have the negative ratings of bill collectors. Now that Comey has broken established practice and intruded into the elections, he needs to say why — what did his agents glimpse in that laptop that made him throw both judgment and precedent to the wind? It better be good or else he should do what Starr in the end didn’t: quit.

Government backed bill to stop Internet Pornagraphy by blocking them by default

Haaretz

A ministerial panel on Sunday voted to give government backing to a bill that would require internet service providers to block access to pornographic websites, as well as other sites defined as offensive, by default.

To remove the block, a customer will be required to contact the internet provider. If approved, the bill would result in the creation of lists of internet users requesting access pornographic sites.

The bill is sponsored by 26 Knesset members from parties across the political divide. Only MKs from Meretz refused to support the proposed law.

The bill’s chief sponsor is MK Shuli Moalem-Refaeli (Habayit Hayehudi), along with MKs from the Zionist Union, Kulanu, Joint List, Yesh Atid, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Yisrael Beiteinu, Habayit Hayehudi and Likud.

The bill would require ISPs to supply a free-of-charge filter against offensive websites and content. Any customer wishing to remove the filter will be required to make a request in writing, by telephone or through the company’s website.

“The damaging influence of watching, and addiction to, pornographic and severe violence has been proven in many studies, with great harm to children. Today, it is easier for a child to consume harsh content on the internet than to buy an ice cream at the local kiosk,” said Moalem-Refaeli. “We must prevent such access by making the default of the internet provider to filter such content, unless the customer has asked to be exposed to it,” she added. [...]

Former Attorney Generals Gonzales, Holder and Mukasey slam FBI directories Email announcment

CNN  [this is dedicated to those who claim the criticism of Comey is a left wing conspiracy]

Alberto Gonzales

Republican former US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday slammed the FBI director's recent actions in the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server.

He called Comey's actions an "error in judgment" and said he is "somewhat perplexed about what the director was trying to accomplish here."

Gonzales said Comey's letter Friday informing lawmakers that the FBI is reviewing new emails potentially related to its investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state breaks from long-standing Justice Department practice. The protocol is not to comment on investigations and to stay silent on politically sensitive matters less than 60 days from an election.

"You don't comment on investigations because commenting on the investigation may jeopardize the investigation. And that's the box that he's put himself in, because people are now calling for more information -- for release of the emails," Gonzales told CNN's John Berman and Kate Bolduan on "At This Hour."

He was the third former attorney general to recently and publicly criticize Comey.

Gonzales, who served in the George W. Bush administration, said Comey wouldn't have been misleading voters by withholding the news until after November 8.[...]

Eric Holder

Former Attorney General Eric Holder also criticized Comey's decision Monday. Writing in The Washington Post on Monday, Holder called Comey's decision "incorrect."

Obama's first attorney general said Comey's letter to Congress announcing a review of the new emails was "a stunning breach" of law enforcement protocol and one that carried "potentially severe implications" during a presidential campaign.

"I served with Jim Comey, and I know him well. This is a very difficult piece for me to write. He is a man of integrity and honor. I respect him. But good men make mistakes. In this instance, he has committed a serious error with potentially severe implications," Holder wrote.

"It is incumbent upon him -- or the leadership of the department -- to dispel the uncertainty he has created before Election Day. It is up to the director to correct his mistake — not for the sake of a political candidate or campaign but in order to protect our system of justice and best serve the American people." [...]

Michael Mukasey

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey also slammed Comey's decision in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Mukasey, who served under George W. Bush after Gonzalez, called Comey's original decision in July not to indict the Democratic presidential candidate "unworthy." He described the decision as one to "accede to the apparent wish of Obama that no charges be brought against Clinton."

As such, he claimed this earlier move makes Comey's letter to Congress irrelevant.

"Regardless of what is in the newly discovered emails, the current Justice Department will not permit a grand jury to hear evidence in this case. And because only a grand jury can constitutionally bring charges, that means no charges will be brought," Mukasey wrote. "Which is to say, we know enough to conclude that what we don't know is of little immediate relevance to our current dismal situation."

On Clinton Emails, Did the F.B.I. Director Abuse His Power?

NY Times

THE F.B.I. is currently investigating the hacking of Americans’ computers by foreign governments. Russia is a prime suspect.

Imagine a possible connection between a candidate for president in the United States and the Russian computer hacking. Imagine the candidate has business dealings in Russia, and has publicly encouraged the Russians to hack the email of his opponent. It would not be surprising for the F.B.I. to include this candidate and his campaign staff in its confidential investigation of Russian computer hacking.

But it would be highly improper, and an abuse of power, for the F.B.I. to conduct such an investigation in the public eye, particularly on the eve of the election. It would be an abuse of power for the director of the F.B.I., absent compelling circumstances, to notify members of Congress that the candidate was under investigation. It would be an abuse of power if F.B.I. agents went so far as to obtain a search warrant and raid the candidate’s office tower, hauling out boxes of documents and computers in front of television cameras.

The F.B.I.’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election.

Such acts could also be prohibited under the Hatch Act, which bars the use of an official position to influence an election. That is why the F.B.I. presumably would keep those aspects of an investigation confidential until after the election. The usual penalty for a violation is termination of federal employment.

That is why, on Saturday, I filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics. I spent much of my career working on government and lawyers’ ethics, including as the chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week.

(For the sake of full disclosure, in this election I have supported Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton for president, in that order.)

On Friday, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, sent members of Congress a letter about developments in the agency’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, an investigation which supposedly was closed months ago. This letter, which was quickly posted on the internet, made highly unusual public statements about an F.B.I. investigation concerning a candidate in the election. The letter was sent in violation of a longstanding Justice Department policy of not discussing specifics about pending investigations with others, including members of Congress. According to some news reports, the letter was sent before the F.B.I. had even obtained the search warrant that it needed to look at the newly discovered emails. And it was sent days before the election, when many Americans are already voting.

Violations of the Hatch Act and of government ethics rules on misuse of official positions are not permissible in any circumstances, including in the case of an executive branch official acting under pressure from politically motivated members of Congress. Violations are of even greater concern when the agency is the F.B.I.

It is not clear whether Mr. Comey personally wanted to influence the outcome of the election, although his letter — which cast suspicion on Mrs. Clinton without revealing specifics — was concerning. Also concerning is the fact that Mr. Comey already made unusual public statements expressing his opinion about Mrs. Clinton’s actions, calling her handling of classified information “extremely careless,” when he announced this summer that the F.B.I. was concluding its investigation of her email without filing any charges.

But an official doesn’t need to have a specific intent — or desire — to influence an election to be in violation of the Hatch Act or government ethics rules. The rules are violated if it is obvious that the official’s actions could influence the election, there is no other good reason for taking those actions, and the official is acting under pressure from persons who obviously do want to influence the election.[...]

Chareidi boy attacked on Simchas Torah in Neve Yaakov by someone who appeared to be Chareidi

Kikar HaShabbat

בצהרי חג שמחת תורה: ילד חרדי נחטף והותקף באכזריות

ילד חרדי נחטף במהלך חג שמחה תורה בשכונת נווה יעקב בצפון ירושלים והותקף באכזריות על ידי גבר בעל חזות חרדית. התושבים החרדים בשכונה חוששים ממקרי תקיפה נוספים (חדשות, חרדים)

אימה בשכונת נווה יעקב: ילד חרדי נחטף במהלך חג שמחה תורה בשכונת נווה יעקב בצפון ירושלים, והותקף באכזריות על ידי גבר זר בעל חזות חרדית, התוקף טרם נתפס. כך נודע ל"כיכר השבת".

על פי הפרטים שנודעו ל"כיכר השבת", האירוע התרחש בצהרי החג. הילד, שעשה את דרכו לביתו, נתפס על ידי גבר שחבש כיפה כחולה ונעליים חומות. האחרון אחז את הילד בחוזקה, הרים אותו וגרר אותו לחצר בית שבעליו לא שהו בארץ.

לאחר שחטף אותו וסחב אותו לחצר, התוקף פגע בילד באכזריות ונמלט מהמקום. לאחר התקיפה, הילד פתח בריצה וברח לביתו, שם שיחזר בפני הוריו את התקיפה האכזרית.

ההורים מיהרו להתלונן במשטרה וחוקרי ילדים גבו עדות מהילד החרדי המותקף. יצוין כי עד כה התוקף טרם נעצר, אך בידי המשטרה ישנם קצי חוט באשר לזהות התוקף.

יצוין, כי בשנה האחרונה החלו תושבי נווה יעקב להתקין מצלמות אבטחה בחדרי מדרגות בכדי למנוע מקרים מסוג זה ולזהות תוקפים מסוכנים.

"יש פחד בשכונה" מספר אחד מתושביה: "יש לא מעט מקרים שילדים מותקפים, אבל עכשיו זה כבר משהו רציני, חטפו ילד בכוח בצהריי היום, תקפו אותו באכזריות רבה... נהיה מפחיד לשלוח את הילדים לבית כנסת, אנחנו מקווים שיתפסו את התוקף במהרה".