We have a new class of citizen - law abiding crooked liars! (See 1 and 1a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the last several weeks it is evident Obama was correct about the JV terrorists. They are rapidly losing territory and for every foot lost they seem to kill all over the world.
With a few more victories we should be able to go back to sleep. (See 2 below.)
===
One of my closest friends, who also happens to be a great, ethical local attorney, always said Hillary would go free and this morning he reminded me. I thought we had made a bet of some kind and I asked him his thoughts about Comey's decision and this is what he e mailed back: "You owe me nothing. Smug satisfaction is sufficient recompense.
Of course Comey was wrong. The schmuck lays out the perfect case for criminal prosecution, and then has the chutzpah to say that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute. Every first year law student knows that you prove intent by showing grossly negligent, willful or reckless conduct—exactly what the statute proscribes. What was he expecting—a confession that she intended to harm national security? A---"
(As those who know me and read my memos, I too went to law school but never practiced so when something bizarre happens, in a legal sense, I question my own sanity.
If what Comey is telling us is when you aim a gun , shoot and miss you are simply careless not criminal? Comey opted for incompetence over criminality.
Based on Comey's ruling, Nixon would have remained in office.
As for Trump and his inability to bring sanity to Republicans and to raise money he should focus on the money disparity and point out that Hillary believes she can buy the election.
If Trump stays on message and plays his cards systematically the Comey pardon can backfire on Hillary.
I would put to Comey the question Counselor Welch put to Sen. McCarthy: "Have you no shame sir?")
===
Dick++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
Take James Comey At His Word. Just Try It.
Try a thought experiment. Just try it. Take James Comey, the FBI Director, at his word about Hillary Clinton. I do realize I’m asking you to take at his word the man who presides over the FBI, which interviewed the Orlando terrorist twice and concluded there was nothing wrong there either. But still, take him at his word as a thought experiment.
"I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways.
That’s not what Hillary Clinton said. She said she had just one email server and she had one device. This directly contradicts her.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.…With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.
That is not what Hillary Clinton said. She said she had neither received nor sent any emails that were classified or top secret. In fact, Clinton said all those emails marked classified or top secret were so marked after being sent. This is again directly contradicted by what James Comey reports.
The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.
Again, Hillary Clinton said she turned over all her emails. That is not supported by the evidence.
Now consider these details from James Comey:
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Then there is this really damning bit:
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
Now, again, as a thought experiment, take James Comey at his word. “[A]ny reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.” But he is not recommending an indictment despite that.
About the only thing we can conclude is that Hillary Clinton lacks mental capacity. She did all the things that no reasonable person would do, according to the FBI Director. She held a press conference and made statements that directly contradict the truth. She lied to the American people or, if we stay consistent with James Comey’s position, Hillary Clinton had no idea whatsoever what she was doing.
The FBI Director is making the case that Clinton does not even meet a threshold by which a reasonable person operates. And the Democrats want this person to be President of the United States. She surrounded herself with people who knew or should have known and they did not behave as reasonable people either.
If we are to conclude, based on the facts found by the FBI, that Hillary Clinton was not grossly negligent in dealing with classified information, we are left to conclude that Hillary Clinton is utterly clueless and surrounded herself with sycophants who are equally utterly clueless.
A person like that does not have the judgment to be President of the United States. She has disqualified herself. The only thing she has going for her is that the Republican nominee will most likely be Donald Trump so many Americans would rather vote for her, even knowing what they know about her, than vote for that guy.
Either way, what we must ultimately conclude by taking James Comey at his own words, is that this investigation is a damning indictment against the American people who support Hillary Clinton and against Barack Obama who claims her to be the most qualified person to ever stand for election to the Presidency.
We are nation of laws no more and the American people have done that to themselves.
1a)What About the Clinton Foundation Investigation?
The investigation into the Clinton Foundation didn't come up at all during FBI Director James Comey's press conference Tuesday, prompting pundits like Fox News national security analyst K.T. McFarland to ask why.
Fox News reported Tuesday evening that despite the FBI's ruling on her emails, "Hillary Clinton may not be completely in the clear. "
"The Clinton Foundation may still be the subject of its own investigation," Megyn Kelly reported Tuesday evening on The Kelly File. "Director Comey made no mention of the foundation today or whether the FBI is investigating it, at all."
According to Chief Intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge, Republican Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Jason Chaffetz pressed Comey after his statement at FBI headquarters about whether there would be charges against Clinton's aides, and whether the entire investigation was closed.
"I specifically asked him what about the other people -- what about the IT guy, what about the inner circle, what about the other things. And he quickly said, 'I can't tell you about that yet.'" Chaffetz explained on Special Report.
As Fox News reported back in January, the FBI expanded its investigation into Clinton's emails to include the possible intersection of State Department business and the Clinton Foundation and whether public corruption laws were violated (as chronicled in Peter Schweizer's book "Clinton Cash").
Herridge noted that it wasn't typical for Comey to not take questions after making a statement. "He seemed to anticipate the backlash," she said.
Back in May, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the former chairman of the Oversight Committee, said that he believed that the FBI wouldn't finish the public corruption track of the investigation until after the election.
"I believe they are going to have to make a summary finding as to her violation of the national records act, her taking of the documents, and of course a classified portion," said Issa who wielded subpoena power and oversaw an investigative staff while he chaired the Oversight Committee.
"They're going to have to leave the ... coordinating her activities and President Clinton's activities and Chelsea's activities in the Clinton Foundation, they're probably going to have to leave that until after the election," Issa said.
Meanwhile, Department of Justice officials filed a motion in federal court last week"seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch."
If the court permits the delay, the public won’t be able to read the communications until October 2018, about 22 months into her prospective first term as President. The four senior Clinton aides involved were Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, Ambassador-At-Large Melanne Verveer, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin.
The State Department originally estimated that 6,000 emails and other documents were exchanged by the aides with the Clinton Foundation. But a series of “errors” the department told the court about Wednesday evening now mean the total has grown to “34,116 potentially responsive documents.”During Clinton’s four years as America’s chief foreign diplomat, her aides communicated with officials at the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings where Bill Clinton was formerly both a client and paid consultant, on the average of 700 times each month, according to the Justice Department filing.
David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United, which requested the documents under the Freedom of Information Act, called the delay “totally unacceptable” and charged that “the State Department is using taxpayer dollars to protect their candidate, Hillary Clinton.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Jihad in Saudi Arabia
Bombers target Medina, and Islam’s second-holiest site.
State-linked Saudi news websites reported an explosion Monday near one of Islam's holiest sites in the city of Medina, as two suicide bombers struck in different cities.
Global jihad extended its streak of near-daily attacks on Monday with a trio of bombings in Saudi Arabia. The attack on the Kingdom can hardly be thought of as incidental. Islamic State and other jihadist groups would like nothing more than to destroy the pro-American House of Saud and seize Islam’s holiest cities for themselves.
The attacks claimed fewer victims than recent atrocities in Orlando, Istanbul, Dhaka and Baghdad, though the potential for carnage was great. A bomber at the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina killed four security guards, while another one at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah only managed to blow himself up. A third attack, on a Shiite mosque in the eastern city of Qatif, also killed only the bombers.
No group had claimed responsibility for the attacks as we went to print, though the choice of targets suggests Islamic State; al Qaeda generally frowns on indiscriminate attacks on Muslims, including Shiites. Most alarming is the attack on the Prophet’s Mosque, which is said to be the place where Muhammad is buried. Saudi legitimacy rests on securing Islam’s holy sites, and a successful bombing could call Saudi competence into question and prompt a backlash against its modernizing Deputy Crown Prince, Mohammad bin Salman, who is trying to moderate the role of religion in everyday life.
All of this means Riyadh will have to redouble its antiterror efforts, which it could enhance by ending its longstanding support for extremist Islamic preachers and religious schools inside the Kingdom and abroad. But it also will require close coordination with, and support from, the U.S., which has a vital interest in seeing a reforming House of Saud remain in power. Repairing the damage the Obama Administration has inflicted on this relationship will be a priority for the next U.S. President.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment