Friday, September 30, 2016

James Madison Was Correct. Lynch To The Supreme Court?

The only thing that makes supporting Trump defensible is that Hillary is such a nasty human being, is a horrible choice for president, an unmitigated liar and has a record of accomplishments built on a pyre of one failure after the other.  As for Trump, I wish he was able to retrain himself from proving how dumb he can be by allowing himself to be sucker punched by Hillary.

This from a dear friend, a fellow memo reader who, like myself, is conflicted. (See 1and 1a below.)


I used to think. (See 1b below)
Obama's 8 years in office proves James Madison was correct when he said our constitution would protect us from the "tyranny of the majority." This is why Obama , during his time in office, sought to thwart the constitution at every turn.
Will Hillary appoint Lynch to The Supreme Court should she be elected president?  Stay tuned and if she does you have my permission to barf. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1) "Dick,
I know that you spend hours on the computer daily and that you do not need long diatribes from your faithful readers.  But here goes anyway...simply because I have to get this off my chest.
This upcoming election literally has me going nuts.  I have not missed an election since 1960 and will not miss this one.  But my vote this time is one I simply hate.
Donald Trump simply has no business being president of the USA.  All the reasons not to support are out there and I need not list them.  But there is simply ONE reason to vote for him and that is to oppose Hillary who in my opinion, is, along with her pig of a husband, despicable.  The mere thought of them living in the White House again keeps me up at night.  How she can even think of sitting in the oval office behind the desk where her husband received oral sex is mind boggling.  A more disgusting duo in the White House cannot be imagined.
So I will hold my nose, close my eyes, not even breath and cast a vote for Donald...and hope that if he is elected, there will be enough wise folks entering govt. with him to keep him at bay.
Happy New Year to you and your family.  Ina and I wish you all the very best.


The Clinton Chaos State Department

Hillary Clinton’s supporters are about as interested in her email scandal as Donald Trump’s fans are in the details of his tax returns. But anyone who is wondering about what a prospective Clinton administration would be like would be well advised to read Politico’s detailed analysis of the notes released last week by the FBI from their investigation of the former secretary of state’s cavalier use of emails.
While the notes, which were dumped on the public late on a Friday in a manner in that made it plain that the Justice Department is complicit in trying to divert attention from her credibility problems, are missing a lot of pertinent information but they do give us some fascinating insights into the dysfunctional nature of the Clinton State Department.
The Politico deep dive into the FBI notes gives us a lot of information on Clinton’s management style or, to be more accurate, how her inner circle manages her. The stories about her technophobia aren’t by themselves disqualifying but they do illustrate how oddly out of touch she is not only with technology but how information is transmitted in the Internet era. The back and forth as her top aides maneuver around her whims and play fast and loose with secrets shows what the FBI points out was already a State Department that had a culture that treated keeping secrets that seemed more in keeping with the 19th century when gentlemen assumed that other gentlemen didn’t read each other’s mail than the 21st.
What also comes across is that how Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan simply didn’t think they should be prevented from doing things because of rules. Their sense of self-importance — the hubris that often seems to go along with government power — mixed in with the Clinton’s characteristic belief that their self-proclaimed good intentions allowed them to do as they liked. These are people who think they are so important that they should not be constrained but such minor considerations as the possibility that stepping outside the government’s secure system compromises American security.
The notes also make plain that others in the State Department were aware of how dangerous the Clinton gang’s approach to security had become. One State Department official said it was “business as usual” for the secretary and her cronies to communicate sensitive matters via the government’s unclassified email system. One interpretation of the facts is that her staff wasn’t “actively covering up Clinton’s paper trail” but that, distracted by the press of events and duties, they were just “uninterested in the details” of record-keeping that would keep them in compliance with the law. But given the care they all took to avoid being held accountable, that generous explanation that seemed to be the guiding principle of the investigation is hard to swallow.
But while the Politico story does provide a riveting blow-by-blow of the investigation and a lot of the details it uncovered, the problem is that what it omits from the story of the email scandal is just as if not more important. The explanations about why Clinton chose to shield her emails given by aides fall flat. Left out is the well-known Clinton passion for secrecy and the need to avoid transparency. Also missing is the connection between Clinton Foundation business and donors and the same people being investigated. Nor does this document dump tell us about the tens of thousands of deleted emails or why the Clinton gang got away with destroying evidence that was under subpoena from the House of Representatives. We also don’t know why the investigation was carried out in a way that is different from any normal criminal probe in which Clinton was interviewed last and allowed to bring a key witness — Mills — with her. Nor are there explanations for the offers of immunity.
But leaving aside every other consideration, what the FBI has given us is an idea of how these same people — the out of touch boss and the self-important aides — will function when they all move into the West Wing next January in the event that Clinton defeats Donald Trump. Of course, Trump’s staff — or lack thereof — and the byzantine doings of Trump Tower would probably provide reading that is just as scary. But what we do know from all of this is that a Hillary Clinton administration will probably be flying by the seats of their pantsuits when it comes to security. No matter what you think of Trump, that’s a sobering thought.

1b) I used to think I was just a regular person, but…I was born white, which now, whether I like it or not, makes me a racist.   I am a fiscal and moral conservative, which by today’s standards, makes me a fascist.    I am heterosexual, which according to gay folks, now makes me a homophobe.   I am non-union, which makes me a traitor to the working class and an ally of big business.   I am a Christian, which now labels me as an infidel.   I believe in the 2nd Amendment, which now makes me a member of the vast gun lobby.   I am older than 70 and retired, which makes me a useless old person.   I think and I reason, therefore I doubt much that the main stream media tells me, which must make me a reactionary.    I am proud of my heritage and our inclusive American culture, which makes me a xenophobe.   I value my safety and that of my family and I appreciate the police and the legal system, which makes me a right-wing extremist.   I believe in hard work, fair play, and fair compensation according to each individual's merits, which today makes me an anti-socialist.   I (and most of the folks I know), acquired a fair education without student loans (it’s called work) and no debt at graduation, which makes me some kind of an odd underachiever.   I believe in the defense and protection of the homeland for and by all citizens, which now makes me a militant.  Now, a sick old woman is calling me and my friends a basket of deplorables.


Oh My: Is Hillary Planning to Put Loretta Lynch on The Supreme Court?

By Katie Pavlich

Earlier this year when President Obama was searching for late Justice Antonin Scalia's replacement on the Supreme Court, Attorney General Loretta Lynch was reportedly on his short list of potential nominees. During the process, in which it quickly became clear whoever was nominated would not get a vote in the Senate before the election, Lynch withdrew her name from selection. 
Attorney General Loretta Lynch has asked not to be nominated to the Supreme Court, a Department of Justice spokeswoman said Tuesday.
"The Attorney General determined that the limitations inherent in the nomination process would curtail her effectiveness in her current role," DOJ spokeswoman Melanie Newman said in a statement.
But now with the election just 39 days away, the rumor mill is swirling with chatter Democrat Hillary Clinton is planning to consider Lynch for the Supreme Court should she win the White House. 
There’s been some speculation that Loretta Lynch, the attorney general of the Department of Justice, could be on Mrs. Clinton’s short-list. Mrs. Clinton already floated the idea to The New York Times in July, that she would like Ms. Lynch to stay on and serve in her administration. 
If Clinton were to nominate Lynch to the Supreme Court, it would only bolster accusations of corruption and would put the private, secret meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton on her private plane just days before the FBI announced a non-indictment over Hillary's email server in July, into a whole new perspective. 
Supreme Court aside, if Clinton wins she is reportedly planning to keep Lynch as Attorney General.

No comments: