Has someone taken Pat’s place?

Pat Robertson has suggested that some natural disasters are God’s wrath for various sins. Well, with the arrival of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, he’s making those pronouncements again.

Or is he? Listen and see if you recognize who it is.

James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton of any prosecution over her private email server.  But was the fix in months before the press conference when he officially announced that? Yup.

To donate to hurricanes Harvey and Irma relief, click here to find out how to donate to the Salvation Army disaster services, or call 1-800-SAL-ARMY (1-800-725-2769).

Mentioned links:

Jennifer Lawrence: ‘Mother Nature’s Rage’ Directed at U.S. Because of Trump

Comey Decided He Wasn’t Going to Refer Hillary For Prosecution Long Before FBI Investigation Was Over

It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s

Episode 147: The Law Is Dead. Long Live The King.

Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks!

On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes.

If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts.

Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it.

Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and Player.fm.

And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it.

I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience.

Show transcript

The Reverend Pat Robertson is a guy that the media love to go to for a quote or three when they want to paint Christians as crazy. Of course, anyone who has their own show and is on for hundreds of hours a year is bound to say something weird at some point, but indeed some of what he has said is way out there.

For example, when hurricane Katrina hit back in 2005, he suggested that perhaps it was God’s anger over abortion; punishment for shedding innocent blood. I believe abortion is a serious moral issue as well, but I think it best we not try to tie things like natural disasters or terrorist attacks to a specific issue, or try to read the mind of God. Anyway, Pat really got reamed for that statement.

Now it’s 2017, and we have another active hurricane season.

(Just as an aside, have you noticed that the first real active hurricane season since 2005 has renewed calls to blame them on climate change? If this season “proves” the effects of climate change, what did 12 years of no major hurricanes hitting the US “prove”? Anyway…)

So now Harvey and Irma hit us with a 1-2 punch. (Actually, with the strength of these, perhaps it’s a 2-4 punch.) And now Robertson has come down out of the attic to lay blame again.

[Jennifer Lawrence audio]

Now wait a minute, did that sound like Pat Robertson to you? Or maybe it was an interview with Jennifer Lawrence promoting her latest movie, and the interviewer decided to work politics into the discussion. Yeah, the latter.

The irony here is that those are words that you can imagine Robertson saying. Now, you can’t really blame Lawrence, because she was only 15 when Robertson talked about Katrina, right? Well yes, actually you can. Is there any doubt that she or any member of the Hollywood Left would reject a similar pronouncement by a Christian? Well no, there isn’t.

With all the news about hurricanes lately, there is a story that you might not have heard about. This is about the Hillary Clinton email server investigation while James Comey was head of the FBI. No, I’m not going to re-litigate that issue, but that’s because it was never litigated in the first place.

At the end of August, 2017, a letter came out that was written by Comey to the current director, Christopher Wray. In it, we find out that in April or early May of 2016, Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was months before FBI agents had finished their work.  Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership.

In the podcast episode I released after the press conference where Comey recounted all the laws she broke, and then said she wouldn’t be prosecuted for them, the law is dead. I said that based on what I heard in that press conference. But Andrew McCarthy, writing at National Review, says that the news about this letter about the intent to exonerate her is not really news. He’d been paying close attention the story and saw it coming a mile away.

He notes that back in April of 2016 that Obama had come to Clinton’s defense, saying that she did not endanger national security. Thing is, that wasn’t part of the criminal charges against her. Fast forward to July of that year, where Comey basically said the same thing; that she didn’t intend to endanger national security by mishandling classified material. It’s almost as if Obama setup the straw man specifically in order for Comey to knock it down. (By the way, I spoke of the Straw Man fallacy last episode. It’s a good idea to be familiar with the different fallacy types.)

McCarthy continues to build the case that the Obama Justice Department was in on this as well, leaking to the Washington Post the same thing; that Clinton wouldn’t be indicted for malicious intent in the handling of the emails. Again, this was a deliberate misdirect from the actual criminal charges. McCarthy builds a solid case against the idea that Comey made “his” decision months early. Instead, Comey was just parroting what Obama and his Justice Department wanted him to say. McCarthy sums it up this way.

Bottom line: In April, President Obama and his Justice Department adopted a Hillary Clinton defense strategy of concocting a crime no one was claiming Clinton had committed: to wit, transmitting classified information with an intent to harm the United States. With media-Democrat complex help, they peddled the narrative that she could not be convicted absent this “malicious intent,” in a desperate effort to make the publicly known evidence seem weak. Meanwhile, they quietly hamstrung FBI case investigators in order to frustrate the evidence-gathering process. When damning proof nevertheless mounted, the Obama administration dismissed the whole debacle by rewriting the statute (to impose an imaginary intent standard) and by offering absurd rationalizations for not applying the statute as written.

The link in the show notes is to his column, which itself has links to his previous column and news stories to back up his assertions. It looks like the Comey firing was a good thing in more ways than many of us even knew at the time.

Filed under: ElectionsGovernmentLaw EnforcementPartisanshipReligion