Pages

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Clinton's mock attack on the FBI

So the FBI found a private laptop from a former Congressman, which contained nine "secret" email chains between the Secretary of State and an Aide who was married to that former Congressman.

By all technical, legal, and otherwise logical reasoning, having such material on a non-secured device is against the law.

But the reaction of the Clinton team is telling:
"The unsealed filings regarding Huma's emails reveals Comey's intrusion on the election was as utterly unjustified as we suspected at time. There was nothing in search warrant filing to controvert Comey's statements from July and truly establish probable cause of a crime. On day when new election data freshly suggests decisive impact of Comey letter, it is salt in the wound to see FBI rationale was this flimsy."
The fact of the matter, is that because Hillary Clinton was not charged for having classified documents on "her" private server, that any idea that having classified documents on a third party laptop being considered criminal is "flimsy".

In other words... we got away with it once, we should be able to get away with it as many times as it comes up? Hillary Clinton actually owes her entire campaign to James Comey. Had Comey done his job as an independent law enforcement officer, he would have followed his own logic and recommended indictment against her. The fact that he didn't recommend indictment allowed her to continue.

If the Democrats want to place blame for the 2016 election loss on Comey, then so be it. But do it for the right reasons. Had he done the right thing, Hillary would have been replaced on the ticket and there would be no October surprises regarding her criminal investigation. Had Comey done the right thing, her replacement might have won.

Otherwise, if Democrats want to blame someone for the last minute reopen of the criminal investigation into Clinton's handling of classified information... they should look in the mirror. Maybe accept the fact that is was more than just a little stupid to nominate someone under criminal investigation as your candidate for President.

Bottom line: Outside of California, New York, and a few selected coastal and urban areas... the American public overwhelmingly didn't want Hillary Clinton to be President. They did not want her to be President so badly, that they favored business Icon, and reality television show star Donald Trump.

30 comments:

wphamilton said...

We have to ask "Why?". She isn't ever going to be President, nor likely hold any political office. Their pull in the Democratic party is slipping away, and dwelling on her criminal investigation isn't helping that any. So why the political attacks even now?

I think that both Clinton's are deeply afraid of the continuing investigations. Their only feasible defense is the one that has worked so far: attack the accusers, attack the investigators, and frame it as political.

It's the same reason that Bill Clinton has for his petty squabble with Trump. If they can provoke a response, and make it appear that there is a personal conflict now, then they can later shift that to a broader political perspective and defend against the politics rather than a legal indictment. It won't ever stop until the Clinton wing is purged from Party leadership positions leaving them no base of political strength to fight from.

Myballs said...

Bill sees himself as still relevant, even if hillary is not.

Roger Amick said...

It was a headline on The Drudge Report.

That's why.

Commonsense said...

So if it wasn't for the truth coming out, Hillary would be the president-elect.

Right Roger?

caliphate4vr said...

''The outgoing US president has spawned a callow, cowardly series of leadership miscarriages that bullied friends and empowered enemies.''

Former US president George W. Bush’s great foreign policy misfire was unintentional: failing to execute effectively; Obama’s foreign policy crimes were premeditated: failing to see clearly and lead crisply because he disdains American power, sapping American confidence while distorting America’s ethical vision, reducing us all to moral midgets rationalizing the weakness of our musclebound giant. America withdrew – and evil festered.

Even as Democrats mock Donald Trump, justifiably, for minimizing Vladimir Putin’s culpability in the leaked Democratic Party emails that helped derail Hillary Clinton’s campaign, they should criticize the Democratic Party’s titular leader – Obama – for tolerating this intolerable assault against his own party.

Even the New York Times reported in its investigation of Russian cyberwarfare that “Mr. Obama was briefed regularly on all this, but he made a decision that many in the White House now regret: He did not name Russians publicly, or issue sanctions.

There was always a reason: fear of escalating a cyberwar, and concern that the United States needed Russia’s cooperation in negotiations over Syria.”

Obama’s craven admission on Friday that he feared further escalations was a Carteresque cave-in that would be like Abraham Lincoln surrendering Gettysburg out of fear the South might attack Washington DC.

The weaker Obama feels, the more this Harvardian’s eloquent language descends into schoolboy clumsiness.

“Our goal continues to be to send a clear message to Russia or others not to do this to us because we can do stuff to you,” he said.

Roger Amick said...

The most hypocritical belief in the history of the United States Of America is practiced by the Republicans.

The preamble of the United States Constitution is the following:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,

The Republicans of this era do not believe it justice.

Justice is not supporting an electoral system that gives the power of a few, sparsely populated states, to impose their will upon a majority of Americans.

The man who just months before, that said the Electoral college, was proof that the system is corrupt and rigged Now has been very vocal about how wonderful it is, even if he lost by almost three million votes. Now he enthusiastically supports a system that imposes the will of a few states upon the majority of Americans. The electoral college was established to get the slavery states to support the constitution. Note that most of the slave states enthusiastically support Trump.

Domestic tranquility under the Trump administration is going to be every thing but tranquil. A minority of Americans are going to impose their will upon the majority of Americans. His cabinet appointees already reflect that philosophy.

The next four years of the Twitter President are going to be a disaster.

I sincerely hope that I'm wrong, but I'm afraid that I'm going to be proven correct.





rrb said...


"because we can do stuff to you"



like what? give them cooties?

good God, what a fucking asshole.

rrb said...



where'd you rip that off from alky?

wphamilton said...

Roger, you are quoting the Constitution to prove that the Constitution is unconstitutional. It doesn't really work that way.

"The next four years of the Twitter President are going to be a disaster." Yeah probably, but he might surprise us. Not that he could suddenly transform into a different Trump than the one who campaigned, but sometimes bumblers succeed in spite of themselves. The "unpredictable crazy" sometimes works with foreign policy, and it might do some good domestically. It's a long shot, but wait and see.

Roger Amick said...

No wp, I oppose the Electoral college,

We know that it was imposed by the slave states.

It's time has passed.

Secondly, their second coming Elect said the same thing. So the hypocrisy is huge.

Since he won despite a three million loss. Their pathological hypocrisy is evident.

Roger Amick said...

I wrote it myself, word by word.

Nor did I get the idea from someone else. I'm fully capable of articulating my own ideas.

rrb said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
No wp, I oppose the Electoral college,
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

you do now.

for months before the election, and right up until election DAY you continuously crowed -

TRUMP HAS NO PATH TO 270
TRUMP HAS NO PATH TO 270
TRUMP HAS NO PATH TO 270.

suddenly you OPPOSE ANY PATH TO 270.



rrb said...

Secondly, their second coming Elect said the same thing. So the hypocrisy is huge.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

trump never said the electoral college is rigged. he said the "system" is rigged.

you're the hypocrite for being the EC's biggest fan...

right up until the shittiest candidate in the history of presidential elections LOST. and lost to a political amateur.

rrb said...



To better understand the brilliance of the Electoral College, one has only to look at where Trump won versus where Clinton won. There are 3,142 counties in the United States. In the 2016 election, as the election map by county shows, Trump won 2,623 to Hillary's 490. America is a sea of Republican red with densely populated pockets of Democrat blue in the major urban areas like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

In fact, if you take away Clinton's 4.3 million vote margin of victory in California, Trump wins the rest of the country by about 1.5 million votes.

And that is exactly why the Founders created the Electoral College; so that presidents would be forced to represent every American, and not just those in the major cities.

- The Patriot Post


rrb said...



i'll give you this much rog, granny did beat trump in the number of faithless electors she lost.

LOL.

"[It's] poetic justice that [Hillary] should set the indoor record for the most faithless electors. Look, it was a joke from the beginning. What we heard ... [is] it is our responsibility to stop a man who could be a demagogue, he could be a Manchurian candidate. The fact is that's why you have elections. That's why you have a year and half of campaigns. That's why you have one primary after another. And in the end, you count up the delegates and you get a nominee; in the end, you count up the votes and you get a winner. That's how it's done. You don't stop them after the game. After the game, the score is determined. I mean, this is simple."

—Charles Krauthammer

caliphate4vr said...

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

C.H. Truth said...

We know that it was imposed by the slave states.

It was revised last in 1804. At that time we had seventeen states. The original thirteen, plus Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio...

Not sure how you figure that these original seventeen states were "slave states".

But you sure know how to add bigotry and hate into the mix.

rrb said...

wphamilton said...

Roger, you are quoting the Constitution to prove that the Constitution is unconstitutional. It doesn't really work that way.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

one wonders which is more serious - the liver damage or the brain damage.

rrb said...

The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar



i love it when roger "vox"splains.

KD, CHT kicks the dumb shit off of the Mutt said...

We know that it was imposed by the slave states. " The Mutt, a special kind of stupid



It was revised last in 1804. At that time we had seventeen states. The original thirteen, plus Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio...

Not sure how you figure that these original seventeen states were "slave states". CHT

As you slap him down, be careful, he might spit up.

KD, LOL @ the Mutt said...

LOL @ The Mutt every day, now he blames slave states for defeating Hillary.


Keep going Mutt, you are pure bullshit, but entertaining.

Roger Amick said...

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter

Virginia emerged as the big winner—the California of the Founding era—with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

Roger Amick said...

I did not read the Vox story Jimmy. I had been thinking about the Electoral college, and checked into the facts before I wrote the piece.

Keep it up. You are pretty good at using other people's work. I don't need to that.

Roger Amick said...

Guess who agrees with me. I just read this.

American presidential voting system was designed by the framers both to give more influence to smaller states and to give more influence to states with lots of slaves.

Bill O'Reilly

Commonsense said...

Bill O'Reilly didn't say that Kevin Drum of Mother Jones said it.

This is actually what Bill O'Reilly said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0PFOgLHSVw

KD, The Mutt wrong and does not care he is just a idiot liberal said...

The Mutt told us he has been conducting exhaustive research on his own on the topic of the Electoral College, yet, he is wrong , wrong and does not care.

This is actually what Bill O'Reilly said

rrb said...

Bill O'Reilly didn't say that Kevin Drum of Mother Jones said it.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

one has to wonder what causes roger to lie as pathologically as he does.

rrb said...

Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

hilarious.

a purveyor of fake news now does fake history. let me guess... they source howard zinn and oliver stone for their content.

KD, LOL @ the Mutt Daily said...

one has to wonder what causes roger to lie as pathologically as he does." RRB

He does it because he has been trained, he is a liberal lapdog MUTT, look at how well lying worked for Bill the Rapist, Hillary the killer and Obama the failure.

Look at this hot mess:
"Obama: 'By Almost Every Measure, We Are Better Off Than When I Took Office'

By Curtis Kalin | July 9, 2014

The facts are not on his side, he knows it, but all the same, tell the MUTT's what they want to hear, forget about the election.

Issues
1, Jobs
2, Wage Increases
3, Illegal Immigration


Commonsense said...

one has to wonder what causes roger to lie as pathologically as he does.

What's amazing is that he's either stupid enough to think he can get away with it or he just doesn't care.