I’ve posted how a medical threat like Ebola isn’t necessarily going to be solved by a central medical authority. The CDC has already shown how it could be made worse. But the central government always pretends it has all the answers. It especially pretends that it alone can give us real justice—all “lower” institutions should simply submit to its will. Thus, we have the situation where the Feds are forcing lower standards of justice on colleges and universities.
But exactly what kind of justice do we actually get from the central government. We commonly get the kind that suits the purposes of those who hold office. They cover up for their friends and supporters in high places. Thus, Bob Allen posted not too long ago about how the White House covered up the involvement of its own staff in a prostitution scandal.
I suppose the people forcing new low standards for sexual accusations on college campuses will claim they are not the same people as the White House staff. True, but what is possible for one is also possible for the other. We don’t have any reason to trust any of the Feds to be angels.
Besides, all Feds look and sound alike to me.
And here’s another instance of cover-up, this one going directly to Hillary Clinton, who will soon be promising the most ethical administration in history for 2016. From the Daily Caller: “Report: Clinton State Department Played Favorites in Sex Inquiries.”
The inspector general reviewed eight internal investigations and found that in three of them “undue influence and favoritism by Department management” appeared to be at play.
Try to remember a famous sex scandal from back when Hillary Clinton occupied the White House before and ask yourself if the following report seems at all like familiar behavior:
In one case from May 2011, security staff at a U.S. Embassy believed they observed a U.S. ambassador soliciting a prostitute in a public park near the unnamed embassy.
Though an agent in the State Department began a preliminary investigation, “two days later, the agent was directed to stop further inquiry because of a decision by senior Department officials to treat the matter as a ‘management issue,’” the report reads.
In June 2011, the ambassador traveled back to Washington, D.C. and met with the under secretary of state for management and the chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton served in that capacity from Jan. 2009 until Feb. 2013.
“At the meeting, the Ambassador denied the allegations and was then permitted to return to post. The Department took no further action affecting the Ambassador,” the inspector general found.
Though the State Department said that it could not substantiate the allegations and that “no further investigation was possible,” the inspector general concluded that additional evidence could have been collected.
“For example, before the preliminary inquiry was halted, only one of multiple potential witnesses on the embassy’s security staff had been interviewed,” the report states.
State also never interviewed the ambassador. The agency also failed to document the case; no case number was assigned to the investigation nor were case files created.
The inspector general noted that the State Department does not have guidelines for what constitutes “management issues.”
The inspector general flagged another case of undue influence involving sexual misconduct allegations against a State Department asset.
In 2011, a regional security officer stationed overseas was accused of sexual misconduct and harassment. The officer’s behavior fit a pattern; he had been accused of similar behavior seven previous posts over the course of 10 years. In one case from 2006, the officer was suspended for five days.
The inspector general noted several failures, including an “undue delay” in beginning an investigation and a failure to remove the officer from posts where he “could potentially harm other employees.”
Despite gathering “overwhelming evidence” against the officer, State Department investigators experienced resistance from top brass who “had personal relationships” with the accused officer, the inspector general found.
During one interview with a State Department manager, who was also described as a friend of the officer, investigators claimed that the manager attempted to “intimidate” them. He also called the investigation into his friend a “witch hunt.”
The officer was not fired from the State Department until 2014, three years after the investigation began.
I remember awhile back Rand Paul spoke up at how Hillary Clinton was an enabler in an obvious sexual harassment case. He was sneered at in the media. But how is that not exactly what Hillary has done since then? She didn’t clean up the State Department. She let its dirt be swept under the rug.
So tell me again why anyone wants Hillary in the White House. And explain to me how the way to get justice in the nation is to give the Feds more power.