Monday, October 17, 2016

Two Flawed Candidates But Sticking With Trump. Nuclear Thinking and Tinkering.

I would not be surprised if this election was actually
stolen.  This is not sour grapes it is just my cynical view of how The Clinton's, operate and we have plenty of evidence and corpses to raise suspicions.

If Hillary wins, by hook or crook, I will not be surprised and I hope she disproves my serious fears but her policies are wrong for this nation and she will be tested by Putin and China, N Korea and Iran and I doubt she has the ability and judgement to protect our interests.  Certainly Obama has blown it big time.

I will give Hillary the benefit of doubt that perhaps she, at least, actually cares about America and, for me and her history, that is a big leap of faith. To do that I have to forgive her of her recent remarks about over half of those voting for Trump and then believe her private comments do not reflect her true feelings and those of her "creep like" lieutenants with whom she continues to surround herself.

As for Trump, should he lose, he owns much of the blame . He did not have to demean Mexican illegals while bringing the matter of our failed immigration enforcement front and center.

His other vulgarities were not necessary to emphasize some of the legitimate points he has made. Attacking JEB for low energy was clever and effective and Crooked Hillary is a legitimate accusation but he went overboard to attack where it was uncalled for and to demean when it simply showed him to be overly petulant and immature.

Should Trump win, I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt until he proves me wrong, because I still believe his policies are better than Hillary's and the people he will surround himself with are more to my liking and trust.

No matter who wins, I still believe America loses because neither Hillary nor Donald are suitable for the problems we face and the challenges going forward.

Nevertheless,between the two, I still am voting for Trump. (See 1 below.)
Long but well worth reading because this is where we are likely to be heading.  (See 2 and 2a below.)
Erick Erickson throws in the towel? (See 3 below.)

So you believe it is not rigged? Ever hear of a "left wing conspiracy?" and firebombing your opponent's campaign headquarters? You decide. (See 3a, 3b and 3c below.)
Now let's hear it from the hypocrite who lives in the nation's home: "

Hey Michelle ..... Remember this past April when you invited rapper Rick Ross to the White House ? Remember when his ankle monitor went off because he's a convicted felon ? (assault and kidnapping). I wonder if you were "shaken to the core" when you listened to his song ?

“U.O.E.N.O.” when he sang, “Put molly all in her champagne/ She ain’t even know it / I took her home and I enjoyed that/ She ain’t even know it.”
How 'bout some of those other "artist" that you invited to the White House such as Nicki Minaj, Ludacris, Kendrick Lamar and Lonnie Rashid Lynn, Jr., AKA “Common.”  
You're so offended by the words of Donald Trump but you expose your daughters and you provide a National platform to people who sell vulgarity and the promotion of violence to the Youth of our once Great Nation ? 

Michelle Obama you are the very definition of a hypocrite .... You should be ashamed of yourself ..... The Mainstream Media may sing your praises and protect you .... But the truth is the truth.... So please spare me your Righteous indignation !!!!"

Trump and the Emasculated Voter

There’s only one way to protect the nation from Hillary Clinton, and that is to vote for Donald Trump.

The Republican nominee on Wednesday at a rally in Lakeland, Fla.ENLARGE
The Republican nominee on Wednesday at a rally in Lakeland, Fla. PHOTO: REUTERS
Some conservatives have watched their evaluations of Donald Trump’s character drop so low in recent days that on this vital question they no longer see a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Accordingly, they are forced back onto politics and policy; and naturally Mr. Trump wins in a walk. If conservatives who argue that Mr. Trump is worse than Mrs. Clinton had a case, it would be a relief to vote for Mrs. Clinton or for no one. But they don’t, and one is therefore forced for the good of the nation to vote for Mr. Trump.
In his Mr. Nauseating video of last weekend, Mr. Trump showed us that he had all the class and cool of a misbegotten 12-year-old boy. Yet the video taught us nothing; no one had ever mistaken him for anything but an infantile vulgarian. This week’s allegations of actual abuse are different. If these stories are true (and I don’t know why they shouldn’t be), there is nothing to be said for Mr. Trump. Unfortunately, there is nothing to be said for Mrs. Clinton either. If we don’t take both facts into account, we are not morally serious.
Mrs. Clinton has nothing on Mr. Trump when it comes to character. She lies (“Wipe? Like with a cloth?”—cute and charming Mrs. C.) the way basketball stars shoot baskets—constantly, nonstop, because it’s the one thing she is best at and (naturally) it gives her pleasure to hear herself lie—swish!—right onto the evening news. And her specialist talent of all is the verbal kick in the groin of a Secret Service man or state trooper who has the nerve to talk to her as if she were merely human. She is no mere rock star; she is Hillary the Queen. She is so big, and you are so small, she can barely even see you from up there. What are you? A macromolecule?
I’ll vote for Mr. Trump—grimly. But there is no alternative, no shadow of a responsible alternative.
Mr. Trump’s candidacy is a message from the voters. He is the empty gin bottle they have chosen to toss through the window. The message begins with the fact that voters hear what the leaders and pundits don’t: the profound contempt for America and Americans that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama share and their frightening lack of emotional connection to this nation and its people.
Mr. Obama is arch, patronizing, so magnificently weary of having to explain it all, again and again, to the dummies surrounding him. Mrs. Clinton has told us proudly how thoroughly she prepared for the first debate and has prepared to be president. For her, it is all a matter of learning your lines. Her whole life has been memorized in advance. Mr. Obama is at least sincere. Mrs. Clinton is as phony as a three-dollar bill, as a Clinton Global Initiative.
Mr. Obama has governed like a third-rate tyrant. He’s been a stern baby sitter to an American public that is increasingly getting on his nerves. ObamaCare and the Iran treaty are his big achievements. That the public has always disliked them, and hates them worse as it knows them better, strikes him as so unspeakably irrelevant; he doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Do you ask 6-year-olds if they like going to school? Luckily, a few grown-ups have been set over the public to keep it in line.
Mrs. Clinton couldn’t agree more. Policy is for smart people, who are people of the left by definition—leftists having scored all those big successes over the years in foreign policy, race relations, policing, restarting wounded economies, making unsecured loans, running school systems and so on. On topics from Keystone to Guantanamo, Mr. Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t give a damn what people think—he no longer even tries to explain to the citizenry. Do your homework! Understand?
Yes, leadership sometimes requires that you take an unpopular position and make it popular. We are told that Mr. Obama is working on his “legacy” instead, as if that makes him farsighted instead of irresponsible and insanely vain. Presidents are supposed to run the country, not worry about their reputation in coming centuries.
Trump voters have noticed that, not just over Mr. Obama’s term but in recent decades, their own opinions have grown increasingly irrelevant. It’s something you feel, like encroaching numbness. Since when has the American public endorsed affirmative action? Yet it’s a major factor in the lives of every student and many workers. Since when did we decide that men and women are interchangeable in hand-to-hand combat on the front lines? Why do we insist on women in combat but not in the NFL? Because we take football seriously. That’s no joke; it’s the sad truth.
Did we invite the federal bureaucracy to take charge of school bathrooms? I guess I missed that meeting. The schools are corrupt and the universities rotten to the core, and everyone has known it since the 1980s. But the Democrats are owned by the teachers unions, and Republicans have made only small-scale corrections to a system that needs to be ripped out and carefully disposed of, like poison ivy.
The Emasculated Voter to whom no one pays any attention is the story of modern democracy. Instead of putting voters in charge, we tell them they’re in charge, and it’s just as good. That’s the Establishment’s great discovery in the Lois Lerner Age.
Enter Mr. Trump. People say he became a star because he just happened to mention an issue that just happened to catch on. But immigration is the central issue of our time. Trump voters zeroed in because they saw what most intellectuals didn’t. What is our nation and what will it be? Will America go on being America or turn into something else? That depends on who lives here—especially given our schools, which no longer condescend to teach Americanism.
The liberal theory is that, other things being equal, all human beings have an equal right to settle in America. For liberals this is too obvious to spell out. But it is also too ludicrous to defend. Does all mankind have a right to camp in your backyard, eat in your kitchen, work at your office and borrow your best jogging outfit? We fail in our duty if we don’t think carefully whom we want in this country, who would be best for America.
Furthermore, we know that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But that’s got nothing to do with immigration; freedom of religion means freedom for American citizens—what else could it possibly mean? We must not tamper with Americans’ religious life. We must not admit, as possible future citizens, anyone we don’t choose to; anyone we don’t think will be good for America. Not to admit Muslims is bad policy but it does not violate freedom of religion and the American people have a perfect right to discuss and debate it.
Hold on, some of my fellow conservatives say. Never mind Hillary. Trump would be dangerous. He would further endanger our national security and world position. He might start unnecessary wars. He might even push the nuclear button. These are important objections, but after thinking them through I’m unable to take them seriously, either in political terms or psychological ones.
Mrs. Clinton is right at home in the Oval Office and thinks she owns it. She holds herself entitled to supreme power, as her friends are entitled to fancy positions with enormous salaries and her followers to secure government jobs or ample government funds, as the case may be.
But forget psychology. Ordinary politics says that Mr. Trump will not do crazy things or go off half-cocked, because Republicans in Congress will be eager to impeach him and putMike Pence in charge. That was the subtext of the vice-presidential debate, though Mr. Pence himself (probably) didn’t intend it. When it’s my turn, you can all relax. Democrats, obviously, will be eager to help when the task is removing a Republican.
Impeachment is Trump-voters’ ace in the hole. It’s an abnormal measure, but this is an abnormal year. Impeachment has temporarily dropped out of sight because of special circumstances. Republicans impeached Bill Clinton but got burned in the process; Mr. Obama, as the first black president, was impeachment-proof. Any other president would have encountered serious impeachment talk on several occasions, especially when he ignored Congress and the Constitution and made his own personal treaty-in-all-but-name with Iran.
But Mr. Trump will not have Mr. Obama’s advantages—to say the least. Mr. Trump will be impeachment bait. So will Mrs. Clinton. Even some Democrats have had enough.
Nothing can stop Mr. Trump from shooting off his mouth, but that’s all right. I want America’s enemies off-balance and guessing. For eight years it’s been Humiliate America season—buzz our ships, capture and embarrass our men, murder an American ambassador—a resoundingly successful attempt to spit in our faces and tell each one of us to drop dead. Thanks, Mr. President. Enough is enough. You know that Hillary is Obama Part III. We can’t let that happen. Parts I and II have brought us close enough to catastrophe.
That is the problem for those whose integrity or nobility won’t allow them to vote for Mr. Trump despite their dislike of Mrs. Clinton. There is only one way to take part in protecting this nation from Hillary Clinton, and that is to vote for Donald Trump. A vote for anyone else or for no one might be an honest, admirable gesture in principle, but we don’t need conscientious objectors in this war for the country’s international standing and hence for the safety of the world and the American way of life. It’s too bad one has to vote for Mr. Trump. It will be an unhappy moment at best. Some people will feel dirty, or pained, or outright disgraced.
But when all is said and done, it’s no big deal of a sacrifice for your country. I can think of bigger ones.


Staying focused on history, culture, and geometry: Prof. Louis René Beres suggests core recommendations for Israel's strategic future and explains why the Israel Defense Forces planners must devise a refined correlation of forces paradigm

IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot during a drill (Photo: IDF)
“Every culture and every period has its own way of regarding history. There is no such thing as history in itself.” (Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West)
History takes no sharp corners. Despite daily changes in the specific areas of immediate concern, certain core security issues and principles of war remain essentially unchanged. For Israel, this means, among other things, an obligation to maintain clear focus on still-underlying existential challenges.
While it is plain that there will be constant, unexpected, and distinctly palpable shifts in the prevailing hierarchy of particular threats to the Jewish State, these shifts must always be understood within the broader explanatory background of strategic theory. Without such a needed context, Israel's strategic policies could never rise to required thresholds of coherence and comprehensiveness. Without this background, Israel's strategic policies could become unacceptably disjointed or disconnected.
There is, therefore, no compelling argument for examining particular threats to Israel's survival (e.g., Iran's still-advancing nuclearization; ISIS in Syria and Iraq; Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood; Hezbollah operations in Lebanon and the Syrian Golan Heights; Syrian air defense collaborations with Russia; Hamas operations in Gaza, etc.) as if each were somehow singular and unique. Rather, there are always foreseeable interactions between individual catastrophic harms, so-called synergies, that could render potentially existential risks more pressing.
These must be acknowledged.
Since the 17th century, our anarchic world can best be described as a system. What happens in any one part of this world, necessarily affects what happens in some, or all, of the other parts.  When a deterioration is marked, and begins to spread from one nation to another, the effects can undermine regional and/or international stability. When this deterioration is rapid and catastrophic, as it would be following the start of any unconventional war and/or unconventional terrorism, the corollary effects would be correspondingly immediate and overwhelming.
The specific triggering mechanism of our disassembling world’s descent into chaos could originate from a variety of mass-casualty attacks against Israel, and/or from similar attacks against other western democracies. Alternatively, it could draw nurturance from the belligerent use of nuclear weapons in other, seemingly distant and unrelated regions. For example, if the first military use of nuclear weapons after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were initiated by North Korea or Pakistan, even Israel's nuclear survival strategy would plausibly have to be re-considered and modified.
The “spillover” impact on Israel of any nuclear weapons use by North Korea or Pakistan would depend, in part, upon the specific combatants involved, expected rationality or irrationality of these combatants, the yields and ranges of the nuclear weapons actually fired, and the prompt aggregate calculation of civilian and military harms suffered in the affected areas.
Recalling Carl von Clausewitz (On War), because of the “friction” generated by nuclear weapons use outside the Middle East, Israel might need to move beyond “deliberate nuclear ambiguity” sooner than was originally planned. Any such shift would also have substantial implications for Israel's strategic nuclear deployments, its nuclear targeting doctrine, its cyber-defenses, and also its ballistic missile defenses. All of this suggests that Israel's nuclear strategy must now be shaped not only by assorted expectations of a direct attack upon the Jewish State, but also by certain nuclear developments that lies outside its own immediate region.
In the identifiable hierarchy of significant threats to Israel, Iranian nuclearization – even after the 14 July 2015 Vienna Pact – still looms largest. But there are also other critical hazards on the strategic horizon, several with distinctly synergistic qualities. Oddly, perhaps because it is still unrecognized by so many well-meaning Israelis, the most serious such hazard is the parallel or coinciding creation of a Palestinian state.       
There is more. Facing a broader and more synergistic variety of existential threats than ever before, threats from both state and sub-state adversaries, Israel must consciously undertake more complex correlation of forces assessments. IDF planners must, in this search, seek more than a traditionally “objective” yardstick for the “order of battle” measurement of opposing forces. Although defense strategists in Tel Aviv routinely compare all available data concerning both the numerical and qualitative characteristics of relevant units, including personnel, weaponry and equipment, IDF field commanders will now also need to cultivate some newly “subjective” kinds of understanding. This unorthodox recommendation may appear to fly in the face of the more usual military emphases on facts, but – in war as well as in peace – these “facts” are often the result of substantially personal interpretations.
In exploiting a suitably improved concept of a correlation of forces, Israel’s senior planners will seemingly have to reject a basic axiom of “geometry.” Here, they will need to recognize that certain critical force measurements must not only remain imprecise, but that the unavoidable imprecision may itself include important forms of military understanding. For example, a particular enemy’s consuming dedication to certain presumed religious expectations, his utterly uncompromising strength of will, may sometime resist more traditional sorts of measurement, but may still be determinative.
In certain military assessments, as in judgments of human psychology, there are ascertainable variables that are refractory to measurement, but may still be of considerable importance.
Looking ahead, Israeli planners must take careful account of enemy leaders' intentions as well as capabilities. Such an accounting is always more subjective than any more traditional assessments of personnel, weapons, and logistic data. But such an accounting will also need to be thoughtful and nuanced, despite relying less on tangible scientific modeling, than upon behaviorally informed profiles.
Any suitably refined correlation of forces concept will have to take very close account of enemy leaders' rationality. Any adversary that does not conform to the presumed rules of rational behavior in world politics (an increasingly probable scenario) might not be deterred by any Israeli threats, military or otherwise. This is the case even where Israel would actually possess both the capacity and resolve to make good on its pertinent deterrent threats.
IDF planning assessments will continually need to consider the organization of changing enemy state units; their training standards; their morale; their reconnaissance capabilities; their battle experience; and their expected suitability and adaptability to the prospective battlefield. Traditionally, these sorts of assessment are quite ordinary, and not exceedingly difficult to make or innovate on an individual or piecemeal basis. But now, creative IDF planners will be those who are able to conceptualize such ordinarily diverse factors together, in their entirety.
IDF assessments must consider the cumulative capabilities and intentions of Israel's nonstate enemies; that is, the entire configuration of anti‑Israel terrorist groups. In the future, such assessments must begin to offer more than a simple group-by-group consideration. The groups in question should also be considered collectively, that is, as they may interrelate with one another vis-à-vis Israel.
There is certainly nothing new about the concept of “asymmetric warfare,” but today, especially in the Middle East, the really crucial asymmetry lies not in particular force structures or ratios, but rather in determination and strength of will. In a similar vein, Clausewitz, in his Principles of War (1812), spoke of a genuine need for “audacity.” This quality represents yet another crucial variable for IDF planners; it must inevitably elude any kind of precise or tangible measurement.
Regarding synergies, the IDF will also need to consider and seek new “force multipliers.” This will now include well-integrated components of cyber-warfare, and also a reciprocal capacity to prevent or blunt incoming cyber-attacks.
The overriding objective of IDF correlation of forces war planning must be to inform leadership decisions about two complementary matters: (1) perceived vulnerabilities of Israel; and (2) perceived vulnerabilities of enemy states and non-states. For the IDF Intelligence Branch in particular, this means gathering and assessing crucial information; for example, information concerning the expected persuasiveness of the country’s still-undisclosed nuclear deterrence posture. To endure well into the uncertain future, such information, and not a series of unfounded hopes, must be at the core of its structured orientation to a regional correlation of forces.
Conceptually, IDF correlation of forces planning should include (1) recognizing enemy force multipliers; (2) challenging and undermining enemy force multipliers; and (3) developing and refining its own force multipliers. Regarding number (3), this means a particularly heavy IDF emphasis on air superiority; communications; intelligence; and surprise.
An immediate task for Israel must be to so strengthen its nuclear deterrent such that any enemy state will always calculate that a first-strike would be irrational. This means taking all proper steps to convince these enemy states that the costs of such a strike will always exceed the benefits. To accomplish this objective, Israel must convince prospective attackers that it maintains both the willingness and the capacity to retaliate with its pertinent nuclear weapons.
Should an enemy state considering an attack upon Israel be unconvinced about either one or both of these essential components of nuclear deterrence, it might choose to strike first, depending upon the particular value or “utility” that it places on the expected consequences of such an attack.
Going forward, a major focus of IDF strategic planning will have to be the nuclear posture of deliberate ambiguity, or the so-called “bomb in the basement.” Prime Minister Netanyahu surely understands that adequate nuclear deterrence of increasingly formidable enemies could soon require less nuclear secrecy. What will soon need to be determined by IDF planners concerned with an improved correlation of forces will be the precise extent and subtlety with which Israel should begin to communicate tangible elements of its nuclear positions, intentions, and capabilities to these enemies.
To protect itself against certain enemy strikes, particularly those attacks that could carry intolerable costs, IDF defense planners will need to prepare to exploit every relevant aspect and function of Israel’s own nuclear arsenal. The success of Israel’s effort here will depend not only upon its particular choice of targeting doctrine (“counterforce” or “counter value”), but also upon the extent to which this choice is made known in advance to certain enemy states, and to their sub-state surrogates. Before such enemies can be suitably deterred from launching first strikes against Israel, and before they can be deterred from launching retaliatory attacks following any Israeli preemptions, it may not be enough for them to know only that Israel has the bomb. These enemies may also need to recognize that Israeli nuclear weapons are sufficiently invulnerable to such attacks, and that they are pointed directly at high-value population targets.
IDF planners working on an improved strategic paradigm will need to understand the following: Removing the bomb from Israel’s “basement” could enhance Israel’s nuclear deterrent to the extent that it would enlarge enemy perceptions of secure and capable Israeli nuclear forces. Such a calculated end to deliberate ambiguity could also underscore Israel’s willingness to use these nuclear forces in reprisal for certain enemy first-strike and retaliatory attacks. From the standpoint of successful Israeli nuclear deterrence, IDF planners must proceed on the assumption that perceived willingness is always just as important as perceived capability. This, again, may bring to mind the counter intuitively presumed advantages for Israel of sometimes appearing less than fully rational.   
There are certain circumstances in which a correlation of forces paradigm will necessarily lead IDF planners to consider certain preemption options. This is because there will surely be circumstances in which the existential risks to Israel of continuing to rely upon some combination of nuclear deterrence and active defenses will simply be too great. In these circumstances, Israeli decision-makers will need to determine whether such essential defensive strikes, known jurisprudentially as expressions of “anticipatory self-defense would be cost-effective. Here, their judgments would depend upon a number of very critical factors, including: (a) expected probability of enemy first-strikes; (b) expected cost (disutility) of enemy first-strikes; (c) expected schedule of enemy unconventional weapons deployments; (d) expected efficiency of enemy active defenses over time; (e) expected efficiency of Israeli active defenses over time; (f) expected efficiency of Israeli hard-target counterforce operations over time; (g) expected reactions of unaffected regional enemies; and (h) expected United States and world community reactions to Israeli preemptions.
IDF planners will no doubt note that Israel’s rational inclinations to strike preemptively in certain circumstances will be affected by the particular steps taken by prospective target states (e.g., Iran) to guard against any Israeli preemption. Should Israel refrain too long (for any reason) from striking first defensively, certain enemy states could begin to implement protective measures that would pose substantial additional obstacles and hazards for Israel. These measures could include the attachment of certain automated launch mechanisms to certain nuclear weapons, and/or the adoption of “launch-on-warning” policies.
IDF planners must presume that such policies might call for the retaliatory launch of bombers and/or missiles upon receipt of warning that an Israeli attack is underway. By requiring launch before the attacking Israeli warheads actually reached their intended targets, any enemy reliance of launch-on-warning could carry very grave risks of error.
The single most important factor in IDF correlation of forces planning judgments on the preemption option will be the expected rationality of certain enemy decision-makers. If, after all, these leaders could be expected to strike at Israel with unconventional forces irrespective of anticipated Israeli counterstrikes, deterrence would cease to work. This means that certain enemy strikes could be expected even if the enemy leaders fully understood that Israel had “successfully” deployed its own nuclear weapons in completely survivable modes; that Israel’s nuclear weapons were believed to be entirely capable of penetrating the enemy’s active defenses; and that Israel’s leaders were altogether willing to retaliate.
Now, facing new forms of regional chaotic disintegration, it is time for Israel to go beyond even its already-expanded paradigm of numerical military assessments to certain additional and “softer” considerations. Within this wider and more self-consciously qualitative strategic paradigm, IDF planners should focus, among other areas, upon the cumulative and interpenetrating importance of unconventional weapons, and low-intensity warfare in the region.
In certain circumstances, critical strategies and tactics will be both indispensable and infeasible. For the Jewish State, this will have the apparent makings of an unbearable and irremediable dilemma. Yet, truth can sometimes emerge through paradox, and a suitably improved “correlation of forces” focus could soon uncover unforeseen, but purposeful, strategic options.
The Middle East is characterized by very specific and consequential changes in power and threat-dynamics, but the underlying forces of anarchy and chaos still retain a discernible and potentially instructive form. It follows that Israel's strategic thinkers and planners should stay focused on identifying critical recurrent core patterns within this ascertainable “geometry.”
Then, in their own informed way of “regarding history,” they will best be able to deduce appropriately precise and promising policy recommendations from geometry's unchanging axioms.
Louis René Beres is Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue. He lectures and publishes widely on matters of Israeli security and nuclear strategy.


Can America Trust Its Aging Nuclear Arsenal?

The U.S. must reinvest in its nuclear-arms complex

Master Sgt. Tad Wagner with an inert Minuteman III missile, Minot Air Force Base, N.D., June 25, 2014.
Master Sgt. Tad Wagner with an inert Minuteman III missile, Minot Air Force Base, N.D., June 25, 2014. PHOTO: CHARLIE RIEDEL/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Much talk during this election cycle has focused, understandably, on the fitness of the presidential candidates to command the formidable nuclear arsenal of the United States. What has been lost in this heated debate is a more fundamental issue: the condition of our nuclear weapons and their reliability in the years ahead.
To ensure future deterrence, the U.S. needs to have a well-maintained nuclear-weapons “complex,” as we in the field call it—that is, the array of laboratories and specialized industrial plants within the Department of Energy that keep our nuclear arsenal in working condition. That complex faces serious challenges today and could begin to break down within the next decade, with dire ramifications for the security of the U.S. and the world.
I started to learn about nuclear weapons in 1972 as a 20-year-old graduate student working at Los Alamos National Laboratory. What struck me most, upon first seeing a nuclear weapon up close, is how small it is. The basic physics of the device packs tremendous energy into a compact space: A conventional explosion compresses plutonium to a critical mass, a chain reaction amplifies the energy 100,000 times, and then there’s another 10- to 100-fold amplification as the X-rays produced cause additional nuclear reactions. It is a tightly linked chain of amplification, and if any one of the stages fails, the weapon fizzles.
Engineering plays an important role. Nuclear explosives must work in a range of extreme conditions, must not go off unintentionally and must be secure, making a weapon inoperable were it to fall into the wrong hands. The design of these devices is very sophisticated, and small modifications can make a big difference in the amplification chain.
But much has changed since my days as a graduate student. It has been 25 years since we last performed a nuclear test, the newest designs in our stockpile date from 40 years ago, and some of our key research and maintenance facilities are now more than 60 years old. The crucial question today is what it will take for us to continue to have confidence in these systems.
Since 1992, when the U.S. adopted a moratorium on nuclear testing, the challenge has been to assure that weapons in the stockpile can sit for decades—their metal parts corroding and plastic parts degrading—and still perform as expected. I have watched (and occasionally advised) as our nuclear-weapons complex has worked to establish confidence in our arsenal based on a detailed scientific understanding of how a weapon functions and ages rather than on nuclear testing. We have developed experimental facilities to study materials under extreme conditions, simulate a nuclear explosion with sophisticated computer hardware and software, and detect any significant changes in our aging stockpile.
There also have been innovations in the way that we assemble and disassemble weapons and replace or refurbish their parts, since many old manufacturing methods have been lost or are no longer environmentally permissible. New methods such as 3-D printing have helped.
So far, this science-based approach has allowed lab personnel, independent review panels and military leaders to continue to have confidence in our weapons. It has let us make our weapons safer (with less sensitive explosives) and more secure (with the superior safeguards made possible by modern electronics).
That success has not come without cost. Funding for weapons activities and infrastructure was $9.2 billion in 2016, and the president has requested $9.7 billion for 2017. The Department of Energy estimates that an additional $1.3 billion per year will be needed over the next five years to meet established goals.
Even with that level of funding, however, many of us familiar with the country’s nuclear-weapons complex are concerned about its stability and continued success. One big worry is maintaining the small and largely closed community of scientists and engineers with specialized knowledge and experience in dealing with nuclear weapons. Difficult technical assessments and decisions demand robust debate among experts, but there are now fewer than 50 designers qualified to assess our weapons, and the number with nuclear-test experience is diminishing rapidly. Younger would-be stewards of our arsenal are constantly tempted away by more lucrative opportunities doing more conventional work.
Retaining specialized weapons expertise is necessary not just to ensure that our own weapons are safe and effective. The U.S. also needs to be able to understand developments in other nations’ nuclear programs (think North Korea, Iran, India and Pakistan), to avoid being surprised by new technologies (such as a better way to enrich uranium or the invention of a new kind of weapon) and to deal with any nuclear device smuggled into our country.
Our weapons facilities need serious attention, too. Years of delays in replacing shuttered plants have left us without the ability to produce key weapons components. It will be at least a decade, for example, before plutonium parts can be fabricated at the rate required for future stockpile maintenance, and any visitor to Los Alamos or the Y-12 uranium facility in Tennessee can see the crumbling concrete and leaking roofs. These and other facilities are being refurbished, but it will take at least a decade to work through an estimated $3.5 billion in deferred infrastructure costs. As our weapons age beyond their intended lifetimes, we must also continually update and improve the experimental and computational facilities used for assessing them.
Inconsistent management and funding are perhaps the most serious threat to the complex. It takes a decade or more to refurbish all of the weapons of a particular type and almost as long to train an expert in weapons physics and engineering. Unfortunately, these programs are often caught up in the vagaries of the budget and political cycle. It is expensive to stop and start a complex processing line for a weapon. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, for example, recently recruited some one hundred staff to work on a new cruise missile as part of the Obama administration’s commitment to modernizing our nuclear forces. But it is now unclear whether that program has the political support to proceed. Such unpredictability not only erodes workforce morale and retention; it also draws into question the commitment of our nation’s leadership to maintaining a credible deterrent.
There is also plenty of work to do to reform the country’s nuclear-weapons complex from within and to make it accountable for its important mission. Numerous studies in recent decades have identified problems in how these far-flung programs are managed and how they spend their budgeted funds. Congress has recognized that the Department of Energy needs to do more to integrate the various parts of the complex and to ensure that it takes a comprehensive view of weapons technology and maintenance. An oversight panel has begun monitoring these needed changes.
The goal should be a long-term strategic view of managing our nuclear-weapons complex and investing in it. Otherwise, the question of who can be entrusted with the nuclear “button” will eventually give way to concerns about whether, in that awful eventuality, the button is connected to anything that actually works.
Objectively: It’s Over
By Erick Erickson

On October 17, 2012, the Real Clear Politics average had Barack Obama ahead of Mitt Romney by 0.4%. At the same time in 2008, Barack Obama led John McCain by 6.7% in the RCP average. As of today, Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 5.5%.
In 2008, Barack Obama ultimately beat John McCain by 7.2% and in 2012, Obama beat Romney by 3.9%. In both elections, the ultimate outcome was higher than the polling average. It will be that way again. In fact, in modern American history no candidate has come out of the convention season with a polling deficit and then won in November. Therein lies the rub for Donald Trump. He and his campaign have been convinced that the normal rules of politics do not apply anymore.
They still do.
Trump has provided no compelling, coherent message. He has shot himself in the foot repeatedly. His campaign was completely unprepared for the opposition research drummed up by the Democrats. His campaign put in no ground game, invested little in advertising dollars, and thought they could continue to rely on free, unquestioning media coverage.
None of that has worked for him.
The best his campaign can do now is scream that the election is being stolen. But the election will not be close enough to be stolen and his campaign has no evidence of it being stolen. All they have is fear possessing his supporters. They border on irrationality and will shrink from logic.
In defending Donald Trump against allegations of sexual assault, his supporters have become what they accuse Hillary Clinton of being. And now, by throwing around claims of stolen elections, Trump and his supporters devalue and debase a very real concern in the same way they claim the left devalues and debases charges of racism through overuse with no evidence.
The election is over. Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. Her election was confirmed the moment Donald Trump became the Republican nominee.
Instead of uniting the GOP, he has divided it. His supporters now yell and demand unity for their man after a year of telling us they would not vote unless he was the nominee. They can hardly now be surprised when others feel the same way about Donald Trump.
It was always madness to presume a man who only got 36% of the Republican Primary vote could unite the party. “But he got a record number of votes,” his supporters scream, oblivious to the fact that a record number of votes went to all the other candidates combined against Trump.
The sad truth is, however, that Donald Trump never had any intention of winning. His supporters are convinced he will win. They are desperate for him to win. But they have been conned by a gold plated fraud. This was all a branding exercise and he will go back to his gilded tower satisfied that if he could not get elected, at least his friend Hillary Clinton got elected.
The RNC now needs to focus on preserving the House, the Senate, and the several states.

3a) Voters Warned: You've Already Lost America! This Election is About Taking It Back in the Last Non-Violent Way Possible: At the Voting Booth

(NaturalNews) If you’re not following the flurry of email dumps now being released every 24 hours by Wikileaks, you’re missing out on the most damning revelations of systemic government corruption in the history of this nation.
The emails reveal unprecedented criminal collusion between the State Dept., the Clinton Foundation, the Obama White House, the FBI, the DNC, the leftist media and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
In essence, they are all conspiring to rig everything: Town hall questions are rigged, debate questions are rigged, the polls are rigged, the news coverage is rigged, the justice system is rigged and no doubt the election itself is going to be rigged (stolen) in order to make sure Hillary Clinton wins. The entire mainstream media, it turns out, is nothing but a collection of 'presstitutes' pretending to be journalists. In reality, they are all Clinton operatives who operate with eerie similarity to obedient Nazi party propaganda pushers.
I can’t possibly cover all the incredible revelations coming out of these emails, so I strongly recommend you read and to stay informed. is also carrying many of the revelations as they are being released.
Your country has already been overrun by criminals… if you love America, you’re going to have to take it back
The bottom line is that you’ve already lost America. It has been overrun by a criminal cartel of cheating, lying, murdering, woman-abusing, anti-American traitors who pretend to act as a representational government. The media dutifully covers up all their crimes while pretending to be engaged in the “news” business, and the FBI pretends to be engaged in law enforcement while actually granting blanket immunity to all the criminals running Washington. (Yes, James Comey is a criminal traitor to America and needs to be indicted and imprisoned for his collusion with the Clintons.)
Your country has already been overrun. You’ve already lost it. You’re now living in a Third World-style dictatorship that merely pretends to be a representational democracy, and if Hillary Clinton manages to lie, cheat or steal her way to the White House — because there’s no other way she can get there — then America will descend even more rapidly into a totalitarian dictatorship run by smirking anti-American elitists who seek total domination over all of us.
This election is the last non-violent opportunity to take your country back
This election on November 8th, is the last opportunity to take America back without having things descend into open revolt or civil war. If enough Americans vote against Hillary Clinton and the establishment, we have a slim but real chance of indicting and imprisoning the criminals running the power cartels in Washington. This is America’s last chance to avoid the kind of massive bloodshed that comes with open revolt, because I do not believe the armed American people will tolerate four more years of being ruled by a criminal cartel in Washington that systematically strips away their rights and freedoms.
I truly believe that if Hillary Clinton wins this election, things will inevitably unravel to the point of open armed revolt where tens of thousands of armed Americans march on Washington to occupy the government buildings and arrest the corrupt, treasonous bureaucrats running the corrupt government. In fact, I believe many elements of the military would join in such an effort, making it a combined citizen-military coup against corruption in Washington.
Open war coming to America’s streets if Hillary Clinton steals the White House
In this process, sadly, many American lives will be lost. Blood will be spilled in the streets, and many patriots will die before they manage to seize control of government buildings and arrest all the criminals for High Treason. As this is happening, I also see the possibility of armed patriots seizing key buildings of the leftist anti-American media, literally taking control of CNN and other media outlets that systematically lie to the American people to protect the corrupt, criminal regime in Washington.
Remarkably, it wouldn’t even take a very large number of armed citizens to achieve this. Just a few thousand people could achieve all this quite readily, as most members of the local police, National Guard and U.S. military will likely decide to stand down and allow it to happen. The real men and women of law enforcement in America already realize that Washington D.C. is a filthy cesspool of criminality and corruption that has to be cleaned out before America can be restored to a nation of law and order, after all.
Most police and military, of course, despite Hillary Clinton. And they know their lives will be put at grave risk by a Clinton presidency. If they get the chance, they will gladly join in an effort to overthrow the corrupt, criminal regime and call for new elections after the wholly dishonest leftist media has finally been prevented from constantly lying to the American people. (Yeah, imagine an election without the leftist media constantly colluding with one candidate to deceive the public…)
As all this is going down, you should fully expect violent, extremist leftist to be setting bombs all over the place, with funding for the bombs coming from George Soros, the key funding source of domestic terrorism in America. (Who do you think funded the Black Lives Matter assassinations of police officers?)
In all, you can expect widespread bloodshed and violence, mass chaos in the financial markets, extreme political instability, martial law and extreme dangers for citizens. This is the future for America if Hillary Clinton wins.
The best way to avoid all this is to vote against Hillary Clinton and halt the totalitarian march of the democrat regime in Washington.
Vote for Donald Trump or LOSE America forever
The best way to prevent any of this from unfolding is to vote against Hillary Clinton and HALT the march of the totalitarian democrats who seek to rule America forever.
Make no mistake: If they win this election, they will seek the complete destruction of the Republican party, the criminalization of conservative speech, the government seizure of websites that oppose democrats, the imprisoning of constitutional patriots, and of course the mass disarmament of the American people as a prelude tomass genocide.
Did I say genocide? You bet: It’s the “final solution” that’s always the end game of totalitarian regimes like the democrats are running today. Listen to the extreme hatred and bigotry of your average democrat today, and you’ll learn just how vigorously they seek to engage in the mass murder of anyone who opposes them. That’s where this is all headed. They want to take away your guns, then execute you by the millions so they can install a permanent communist regime in the White House.
If you don’t believe me, then you’re ignorant of human history, and you’d better get up to speed quickly so that you can help stop the genocidal totalitarianism of Hillary Clinton and the democrats.
The Second Amendment is America’s immune system against tyranny
If she wins this election, American patriots will realize they have no choice but to invoke the “Second Amendment immune system” for America. The Second Amendment immune system means that when government becomes so corrupt, so criminal and so lawless that you can no longer kick the tyrants out of office at the voting booths, the People must do so using kinetic instruments of national self-defense (i.e. rifles).
Because I don’t want to see America descend into violent revolution and open revolt, I urge you all to vote for Donald Trump this Nov. 8th, and then prepare to stand by him as the criminal leftist (fake) media attempts to destroy him from day one.
Be ready to defend your country by any means necessary. If you lay down and surrender like the RINOs in Washington, you will lose everything and will wind up dead in a ditch, with a government-issued bullet in your skull.
Don’t surrender to a tyrant like too many Jews did in the late 1930′s. They mistakenly thought if they all turned in their guns, they would contribute to a peaceful society with low crime and high government integrity. What they got instead was genocide, concentration camps and mass violence carried out by Big Government run amok.
Learn the lessons of history. Never, never, NEVER give up your rifles to any government, no matter what (and especially not a criminal government run by traitors). Always demand that those in power abide by the law and answer to the People. If they refuse to do so, vote them out of office as quickly as possible. If they rig the votes and steal the elections, then march on them and remove them from office using the tools at hand. Restore constitutional power to the People and the states. Demand open, honest elections and a fair media that isn’t part of the regime. Protect your national borders and founding documents.
Stand your ground and refuse to be enslaved. Only then can you really call yourself a “citizen.”


Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, accompanied by former Vice President Al Gore, right, attempts to quiet the crowd as a protester disrupts her speech during a rally at Miami Dade College in Miami, Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
The ongoing WikiLeaks dump of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails has exposed the corruption and cronyism of her campaign and time in office. Everyday there are more revelations of wrongdoing, so much so, it’s hard to keep up with. So here’s the top 10 double-dealing, dishonest discoveries uncovered thus far.
1. Mrs. Clinton had cozy and improper relationship with the mainstream media.
CNN contributor and then adviser of the Democratic National Committee Donna Brazile gave the Clinton campaign advanced notice of a CNN town hall question that she thought may give Mrs. Clinton pause. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign lauded a New York Times reporter for “teeing up” stories for them, and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos for hammering home their talking points. The Boston Globe helped Mrs. Clinton’s team maximize her presence in New England during the primaries and CNBC’s John Harwood bragged to them about dogging Donald Trump during a Republican primary debate he moderated.
2. The State Department paid special attention to “Friends of Bill.”
After the massive 2010 Haiti earthquake, a senior aide to then-Secretary of State Clinton repeatedly gave special attention to those identified by the abbreviations “FOB” (Friends of Bill) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs), referring to the former president. The emails show Mrs. Clinton’s State Department prioritized and benefited Mr. Clinton’s friends in the $10 billion recovery effort. The State Department also polled the popularity of Mr. Clinton in Haiti and shared the results with him.
3. Mrs. Clinton argued for “a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.”

Mrs. Clinton’s dream for America looks a lot like the European Union. She reportedly told investors in a paid speech to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that’s as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” Without borders, there are no countries, including the United States.
4. The Clinton campaign was in touch with Department of Justice officials regarding the release of her emails.
Brian Fallon, Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman and former Justice Department staffer, appeared to have discussions with sources inside the DOJ about ongoing open records lawsuits requesting access to her emails while serving as secretary of state. In an email from May 2015, Mr. Fallon said that “DOJ folks” had “informed” him about the upcoming status conference in one of the lawsuits.
5. The Clinton camp was tipped off to the release of the Benghazi emails.
In April 2015, Clinton campaign Deputy Communications Director Kristina Schake referred to a “tip” from a source regarding when the State Department planned to release Mrs. Clinton’s Benghazi emails. Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer Heather Samuelson followed up on the tip, writing: “Latest: Still aiming for Friday, but potential it gets delayed until early next week because still moving through interagency review process. Will check back tomorrow and keep you posted. Quick update on this — DOS says the release of the 300 will likely happen on Thurs or Friday. Will keep you posted as I hear anything further on my end. Thx.”
6. Mrs. Clinton admitted sometimes her public and private positions differ.
In a 2013 speech before the National Multi-Housing Council, Mrs. Clinton indicated her public positions may differ with her private positions, because politics is an ugly business.
“Politics is like sausage being made,” Mrs. Clinton said. “It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the backroom discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”
7. Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman mocked Catholics and evangelicals as “severely backwards.”
Hacked emails show Mrs. Clinton’s campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri and other Clinton allies openly talking about Catholics being “severely backwards” and charging that they don’t know “what the hell they’re talking about.” The April 2011 discussion between Ms. Palmieri and John Halpin, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, mocks media mogul Rupert Murdoch for raising his children in the Catholic Church and said that most “powerful elements” in the conservative movement are all Catholic.
8. Mrs. Clinton admitted she has a hard time relating to the struggles of the middle class.
In a 2014 speech for Goldman Sachs and BlackRock, Mrs. Clinton admitted her riches and public persona lifestyle isolated her from the financial struggles of most of the country, saying her memories of her childhood is how she connects now to everyday Americans.
“Obviously, I’m kind of far removed because the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy,” Mrs. Clinton said of relating to the middle class.
9. Mrs. Clinton campaign used Benghazi as a distraction from the email scandal.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign tried to make her email scandal disappear during the Benghazi probe by trying to conflate and confuse the two separate incidents. Mr. Podesta told aides in March 2015 to steer the media’s attention from the email scandal to the House Benghazi investigation, which they felt had already been painted in the media as a Republican witch hunt.
10. The Clinton team strategized on how to delay releasing emails, knowing it was against the law.
After receiving a subpoena for her emails, Clinton insider Phillipe Reines in March 2015 discussed strategies to use as an excuse not to release all of her emails. It appeared to constitute a conscious effort of the Clinton camp to frustrate and delay a congressional subpoena. Mr. Reines said of the emails: “Not flippantly, and maybe just from Nick’s [Merrill, Clinton spokesman] mouth — but rather than going around on how to release the 55k let’s just be for what’s happening and use this as an excuse. Because we can say even if State has equities, not providing them would put her in legal jeopardy OR we can say happy for them to have it, happy for them to have them as soon as State is comfortable.”

3c) Corruption: Clinton Underling Pressured FBI to Alter Email Classifications with 'Quid Pro Quo' Offers

By Guy Benson

Corruption: Clinton Underling Pressured FBI to Alter Email Classifications with 'Quid Pro Quo' Offers
The Clinton aide in question is Patrick Kennedy, whose name may ring a bell. He's the State Department official who allegedly helped rig the agency's internal investigation into the Benghazi attacks by packing the "independent" review board (which never bothered to interview Hillary) with Clinton allies. He's also been identified as one of the State Department higher-ups who denied requests for increased security resources in advance of that terrorist massacre.  He was one of the people specifically blamed by the Benghazi committee for failing to anticipate the grave risk of an attack.  Kennedy was also mentioned in a recent reportfrom Fox News' Catherine Herridge, which garnered the most attention for its revelation that two boxes of Clinton email evidence vanished during the FBI's investigation.  But later in the story, it was reported that Kennedy had attempted to change classification statuses on a number of Hillary's emails, in order to shield them form public release.  Via the FBI case files:
State Department witness also told the FBI there was a deliberate effort to change sensitive Clinton emails bearing the “B(1)” code -- used in the Freedom of Information Act review process to identify classified information -- to the category of “B-5.” That category covers Executive Branch deliberations, “interagency or intra-agency communications including attorney client privileges,” and makes material exempt from public release. Over five pages of the single-spaced summary notes, the witness, whose name is redacted, alleges Clinton’s team which included Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy played classification games to confuse and obfuscate the formal FOIA review process...In early May 2015, the witness reported, "… KENNEDY held a closed-door meeting with (redacted) and (redacted) DOJ's Office of Information Programs where KENNEDY pointedly asked (redacted) to change the FBI's classification determination regarding one of CLINTON's emails, which the FBI considered classified. The email was related to FBI counter-terrorism operations.”
And now, we have this:
There's that name again: Patrick Kennedy.  The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes broke this story over the weekend, in advance of the release of the documents that have since confirmed his reporting.  This is how he summarized Kennedy's attempts to manipulate the classification process, apparently dangling a quid pro quo offer -- ultimately denied -- to influence the FBI's decision-making process:
A senior State Department official repeatedly pressed the FBI to change the classification of emails stored on Hillary Clinton's private server, according to FBI interview summaries set to be released in the coming days. Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, discussed providing additional overseas slots for the FBI in exchange for revisions to classifications of the sensitive emails...Kennedy raised the possibility of keeping at least one Clinton email from public disclosure by obtaining a "B9" exemption under the Freedom of Information Act, a rarely used exemption that refers to "geological and geophysical information and data." One email in particular concerned Kennedy and, according to the FBI summary, providing a B9 exemption "would allow him to archive the document in the basement of the department of state never to be seen again." The FBI official told Kennedy that he would look into the email if Kennedy would authorize a pending request for additional FBI personnel in Iraq. A summary of an interview with the section chief of the FBI records management division provides further evidence of Kennedy's attempts to have the classification of some sensitive emails changed. The FBI records official, whose job includes making determinations on classification, told investigators that he was approached by his colleague in international operations after the initial discussion with Kennedy. The FBI records official says that his colleague "pressured" him to declassify an email "in exchange for a quid pro quo," according to the interview summary. "In exchange for making the email unclassified State would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more agents in countries where they are presently forbidden."
Hayes writes that this information was gleaned from 34 FBI interview summaries scheduled for release, while two additional reports -- known as 302's -- are "being withheld because they contain information classified at the Top Secret/SAP level."  Lo and behold, the now-released documents themselves bear out exactly what Hayes reported:
State realized that the sensitivity of multiple Clinton emails would destroy her "no classified material" lie -- which did, in fact, go down in flames. But in an effort to tip the scales beyond public scrutiny, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy tried to barter an and cajole his way to pressuring the FBI to change classification determinations after the fact. How else did powerful Clinton allies attempt to influence the criminal probe behind the scenes? Did they ever succeed? In his Saturday piece, Hayes also reports that Mrs. Clinton refused to comply with data security rules while she was at the State Department: "Clinton diplomatic security officials told the FBI they were frustrated by Clinton's unwillingness to abide by rules forbidding electronic equipment in 'Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities' or SCIFs. Clinton routinely brought her Blackberry and other electronic devices into the secure facilities despite prohibitions against doing so."  The FBI's files  back this up. This confirms what we already knew -- namely, that Hillary was specifically warned of her reckless conduct, yet she continued to engage in it anyway.  Clinton's disregard for SCIF security protocols has been well established at this point.  Despite all of this information, plus previously-released evidence, and numerous "false exculpatory statements," James Comey claims he could not prove intent on Mrs. Clinton's part, and therefore could not recommend criminal charges. A vast majority of agents and lawyers assigned to the case reportedly disagreed with this decision. I'll leave you with one more nugget about...that man again, Patrick Kennedy:
Kennedy "oversaw the hiring" of Bryan Pagliano, who reported directly to Kennedy. If Comey hasn't already granted Mr. Kennedy blanket immunity, he might want to consider doing so. We wouldn't want anyone to be held accountable for anything, now would we?

No comments: