Inexcusable


In Shakespeare's play, 'Henry VI', the famous line "The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers." exists. Clearly, had modern day journalists been operational back then, he may have had a different object in mind. (And, yes, I am aware that this line did not meant what the words convey!!!) However, . . .

The above is in relation to the recent tragedy in San Bernardino, CA. For those who have kept abreast of the story, we know that the FBI allowed reporters to ransack the shooters' house prior to all the potential evidence having been collected.

As all know, even reporters, one of the first rules in investigating a crime is to not contaminate the evidence nor the crime scene.

But, in fact, reporters (who should know better) did exactly that. As stupid as their actions were, it is not they who are to suffer the greater blame. It is the FBI for allowing them to do so.

But, why would the FBI violate such a basic of investigation? A reasonable question to ponder, for sure. The FBI is highly trained in criminal investigation techniques, after all.

Was the FBI "ordered" to allow the contamination? Since allowing contamination of a crime scene is such a basic tenet of crime scene investigation, let's for a moment assume that ordered they were. But, to what aim would such an order be relayed to the agents "on the ground"?

To provide a possible answer to the question, let's first recognize some basic facts:

The FBI reports to the Attorney General of the United States who, in turn, reports to the president. Got it? OK.

Now, the president has been incessant in his refusal to identify terrorists as based in Islamic radicalism. He repeatedly has made public statements that are contrary to known facts to support his narrative. Any set of facts that contradict the president's narrative would be politically not acceptable to him. We see this over and over and he always has the same excuse. His repeated answer makes no logical sense. And why obscure the obvious? That is an ongoing question in the minds of many.

The media was quick to report that the two shooters in this incident were Muslim. But, were they found to be Islamic terrorists, this would be a fact not well received by the president.

So, is it too unreasonable to postulate that the president ordered the Attorney General to order the FBI agents to allow the contamination of the crime scene? Not to me, anyway. And, as we should all be aware, this Attorney General seemingly does little to uphold her sworn oath or to do the job for which we pay her good money. She appears to be wholly subservient to the president and his wishes.

So, by allowing the crime scene to be fully contaminated, any evidence positively linking the San Bernardino shooters to ISIS, al Qaeda, or the like would not be viable evidence. Thus, the president could continue his narrative - which almost no one today, Republican or Democrat, believes.

In fact, the Director of the FBI, James Comey, in a way alluded to the credibility of my above suspicision in his news offering several days after the shooting.

Even if I am only partially correct in my thesis, Comey should resign (and, should have resigned) rather than put the political agendas of someone above the security of our Nation and its people. Especially, one who seemingly has the well being of Islamics ahead of the well being of the American people.