Friday, August 12, 2016

What's good for the gander...

So apparently there were not one, not two, but three different FBI field offices who (after reviewing Clinton emails) recommended opening up a criminal probe regarding the Clinton Foundation and ties to the Clinton Secretary of State.

The Department of Justice, run by Obama Political appointee Loretta Lynch, suggested that the request from the FBI could be seen as political given the timing of the damaging Email investigation, as well as Clinton's Presidential run. They offered that they had already looked into the allegations and deemed no further action was necessary.

(wouldn't actually answer the questions)

(legal experts say the State Dept privacy act does not, in fact, shield them from saying who was hired)

Of course, the substantive difference between the DOJ and the FBI probes on the matter would be that the DOJ did not have access to a bulk of the Clinton emails to make any real conclusion, where as the FBI request for a criminal probe was determined "from" looking through the emails in question.

Now the real issue isn't even whether or not the DOJ should have allowed or still should allow the FBI to investigate. The real issue is why the Attorney General is still involved at all in making these decisions, especially when they concede as part of their explanation that there is a political issue involved.

As a general rule of thumb within the executive branch (and what once was the law), anytime there is a possible criminal action that requires a probe, but could be seen as having political consequences, the Attorney General is supposed to appoint a Special Prosecutor to take over any such investigation... leaving all potential questions about politics and conflict of interests out of the equation.  The simple refusal to do so, along with the refusal to allow the FBI to investigate is enough evidence to show that the DOJ is attempting to stonewall any additional investigations into Clinton.

Meanwhile, much of the Press couldn't care less that the Department of Justice has stonewalled a second potential criminal probe into the Democratic nominee. It doesn't matter to them that such a probe was recommended by three individual FBI field offices. Doesn't matter that even if it wasn't criminal, it was certainly unethical, and a breach of the written agreement the Secretary made with the President when she took her oath of office.

What apparently is more important, is suggesting that Donald Trump was being "literal" when he said that Barack Obama is the "founder" of ISIS because his policies created the vacuum of power that allowed ISIS to flourish. I found it hard to believe, but some media outlets actually "fact checked" the claim. Not the claim that he was "the most valuable player due to his policies" (as Trump was quoted as saying) - but actual fact checks as to whether or not Obama truly took time off from his political career, went to the Middle East, recruited, and otherwise "founded" the Terror Group.

I wonder, have they actually fact checked whether or not Donald Trump really is Hitler as some have claimed? Sounds like that would be a similar use of their time.


James said...

Hate to tell you this, Ch, but Trump himself stated that he was being "literal" about his claim that Obama "founded" ISIS.

Conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt in a radio interview tried to give Trump an out, saying, "You mean that Obama created a vacuum, he lost the peace."

Trump replied, "No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS."

ISIS was founded in 1999 by a Jordanian radical while Obama was a state senator in Illinois and Hillary Clinton was First Lady.

Even you, obviously, find it difficult to defend so unqualified a nominee.

C.H. Truth said...

His quote to Hugh Hewitt:

"He was the founder. The way he got out of Iraq - that was the founding of ISIS"

Trump has not suggested to anyone, anywhere, that Obama went into the Middle East personally, and did any personal recruiting or actually gave any motivational speeches, or anything else.

Every and all details of his explanation for Obama being the "founder" of Isis have to do with his policies and the fact he left a vacuum in the Middle East.

But isn't it funny how you allow yourself to be caught up in a particular "word" to the point you lose all sense of logic and comprehension.

C.H. Truth said...

It'a also interesting, James...

That you refuse to acknowledge the story in question. Why the DOJ overruled the FBI and stonewalled another investigation into Clinton's activities while running the State Department.

I suspect that none of the usual liberal suspects will actually address the real story.

KD, Clinton'$ just follow the Money said...

His quote to Hugh Hewitt:

"He was the founder. The way he got out of Iraq - that was the founding of ISIS"

James never will understand, he is so inbed with O'Hillary.

The out right Cash + State Dept = Clinton'$ Family Trust

The above math is just to hard for those that will always believe O'Hillary.

Remember the Clinton'$ are for the little guy, yet, never created a job, never hire real workers and never give up the store$ of Ca$h for themselves. All of them live in million dollar plus homes.

James said...

Now, now Ch. You misquoted from the Hewitt-Trump interview. I just put the entire transcript of that portion of the interview on Roger's thread.

You are having the same problem Hewitt had:

Trying to put lipstick on a pig.

James said...

And by the way, Ch, it has just come to my attention that in 2007 Trump called for U.S troops to be brought out of Iraq, and that was years earlier than Obama brought them out.

Care to try to put lipstick on that?

C.H. Truth said...

Care to try to put lipstick on that?

Care to address the main topic of the thread?

Because there is not enough lipstick in the world to cover that pig!

Again James... you seem overwhelmed with semantic arguments (which you are so willing to engage) that for all practical purposes serve no purpose in determining who should be President. Semantics aside, Trump is putting the rise of ISIS on Obama. At the end of they day, the media forgets that whether or not Obama is the "literal founder" or just "responsible for the rise" is the "actual" subject of conversation here. Anyone who believes that people care about the semantics of what Trump says is being taken for a ride.

Meanwhile, the actions of Secretary Clinton when she was Secretary of State are certainly germane to that issue. The fact that she swore not only an oath to the office, but entered into specific agreements with the President, and then broke them... does lay bare issues about her general fitness for the Presidency.

Maybe you care more about how someone describes a criticism, but a responsible voter would care more about whether or not someone broke the law.

wphamilton said...

There had been some question remaining, in my mind at least, about whether the DOJ had whitewashed the Clinton Email investigation by political means. Maybe the FBI really did faithfully investigate and objectively determined that there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction, and maybe the DOJ accepted that at face value. The specious reasoning made it unlikely, but there was still a possibility that it really did come down the way the players said it did.

But refusing to allow an FBI investigation into this kind of situation removes all doubt that the previous outcome, and this decision, derives from the political imperative of protecting the Nominee at all costs.

How long can that go on before it's universally seen as a blatant cover-up?

James said...

Ch, I feel sorry for you. In your desire to defend the ridiculosness-es of Trump, you even go so far as to say that Trump only meant to say that Obama had "founded" ISIS in the sense that Obama withdrew our troops from Iraq too soon and thus created the vacuum that empowered ISIS.

Problem with this:
Trump himself called for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2007, and so if he had been president, he would have "founded" ISIS even sooner than Obama!!!

Here's a washrag: For the egg on your face.

C.H. Truth said...

James -

What I know is that Obama was not the literal "founder" of ISIS... but that as a matter of hyperbole he is being accused of such.

You want to argue semantics. Go do it on Roger's page. I am sure the two of you can have a wonderful circle jerk.

If you have nothing to actually say regarding the Department of Justice stonewalling a Criminal investigation... then don't bother commenting on this thread again.

James said...

Spoken like a true dictator who just lost an argument.

rrb said...

How long can that go on before it's universally seen as a blatant cover-up?

essentially forever when the media is complicit in the cover up.

they will either totally ignore the story, or spin it as a "nothing to see here, move along" vast right wing conspiracy distraction.

C.H. Truth said...

Spoken like a true dictator who just lost an argument.

Actually I am looking for a debate on the subject at hand.

Not a debate on the semantics of the word "literal". But I have to admit, the fact that the Clinton's can still distract and bewilder their fans by arguing what the definition of a word means, tells me that their fans are no smarter today than they were the first time around.

Truth is that there are not any liberals willing to take on the subject of the DOJ stonewalling an investigation. No putting lipstick on that pig.

rrb said...

there's no sense in taking on any subject that a compliant media is willing to smother until it's forgotten about by the next news cycle.