Patterico's Pontifications


The Attack on Comey Continues: Open Letter from Eric Holder and Others

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:00 am

Last night, news broke on the campaign Web site of Hillary Clinton that several of her political supporters agree with her that James Comey is a big jerk for opening his mouth about the re-opened (that right, lefties, “re-opened”) Hillary email investigation. The twist: these particular political supporters used to work in the Department of Justice. Washington Times:

The Hillary Clinton campaign circulated Sunday night an open letter from former federal prosecutors and Justice Department officials criticizing FBI Director James Comey for his actions in recent days in the Clinton email investigation.

The Clinton campaign website posted the letter, which had more than 90 signatories, the most prominent being Eric H. Holder Jr., the Obama administration’s first attorney general.

First, it’s worth asking: who are these people? Big Media will tell you they are former Department of Justice officials . . . and that’s all Big Media will say. Is there anything else we should know about them? Well, Eric Holder was President Obama’s partisan hack Attorney General. Andrew McCarthy has a great piece on the letter which notes a couple of other names on the list: “Jamie Gorelick (President Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general) and Larry Thompson (Comey’s predecessor as President George W. Bush’s deputy attorney general and an outspoken opponent of Donald Trump).” Then there is Stuart Gerson, an acting Attorney General during the Clinton administration; James Cole, an Assistant A.G. appointed by Barack Obama, initially by a recess appointment; Donald Ayer, a Bush-era A.G. who signed a letter in August condemning Trump, and so forth.

Are you starting to see a pattern here? These people are not big fans of Donald Trump.

When you look at the arguments this partisan group makes, it quickly becomes apparent that they are filled with trickery, Hillary Clinton talking points (but I repeat myself), and internal contradictions. Take this key paragraph, for example:

It is out of our respect for such settled tenets of the United States Department of Justice that we are moved to express our concern with the recent letter issued by FBI Director James Comey to eight Congressional Committees. Many of us have worked with Director Comey; all of us respect him. But his unprecedented decision to publicly comment on evidence in what may be an ongoing inquiry just eleven days before a presidential election leaves us both astonished and perplexed. We cannot recall a prior instance where a senior Justice Department official—Republican or Democrat—has, on the eve of a major election, issued a public statement where the mere disclosure of information may impact the election’s outcome, yet the official acknowledges the information to be examined may not be significant or new.

There certainly are a lot of lawyerly qualifications in that sentence, aren’t there? Let me ask this question to these Trump haters: you say you never heard of an FBI official publicly commenting on evidence under these circumstances. Have you even heard of an FBI official withholding public comment under these circumstances? The answer is no, because they have so carefully circumscribed the description that it applies to this situation and this situation only.

Another relevant and related question: how often have we had a candidate for President under federal investigation in the final days of an election? See, Comey is having to make “unprecedented” decisions because he is in an unprecedented situation.

It’s also worth noting that it’s a situation that Comey contributed to himself — because of another unprecedented decision: his decision in July to publicly exonerate the target of an investigation (Hillary Clinton) before charges were ever submitted. And that decision, to all appearances, was prompted by another unprecedented action: Loretta Lynch chatting in a friendly manner with Bill Clinton, the spouse of the target of an investigation, before charges were submitted regarding that target. And, speaking of spouses, we have another unprecedented action here: the target of an investigation (Hillary Clinton) helping to raise half a million dollars for the campaign of the spouse of an FBI official who later supervised the investigation of the target.

So much unprecedented stuff going on there . . . and yet, I don’t recall reading a letter in July or since from these selfsame highly principled defenders of public integrity, complaining about any of these unprecedented actions. In fact, as we will see in the letter’s paragraph, they explicitly refuse to comment on the propriety of Comey’s comments in July. Hmmm. You know, the comments that benefited Hillary Clinton . . . by exonerating her of a crime when, under the language of the statute, she was clearly guilty.


What’s more, as you continue reading their letter, you see that right after complaining about Comey publicly commenting on evidence, these principled folks next complain that Comey is not commenting publicly in enough detail:

Director Comey’s letter is inconsistent with prevailing Department policy, and it breaks with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections. Moreover, setting aside whether Director Comey’s original statements in July were warranted, by failing to responsibly supplement the public record with any substantive, explanatory information, his letter begs the question that further commentary was necessary. For example, the letter provides no details regarding the content, source or recipient of the material; whether the newly-discovered evidence contains any classified or confidential information; whether the information duplicates material previously reviewed by the FBI; or even “whether or not [the] material may be significant.”

You can’t have it both ways, partisan hacks. You can’t whine about the fact that Comey is talking about this in the first place, and then complain that he is not saying enough.

Even if those do happen to be the exact talking points of the Hillary Clinton campaign (and they do), that alone does not mean that they make sense.

It’s a partisan hit job by former DoJ officials against a sitting FBI Director. And that in itself seems — say it with me now! — unprecedented.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

P.S. The FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation too.

150 Responses to “The Attack on Comey Continues: Open Letter from Eric Holder and Others”

  1. it’s unprecedented for former justice department trash to so overtly try to affect an election

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  2. Fast ‘n Furious Eric Holder is a criminal.

    jb (bd63ca)

  3. IRS Targetting conservatives.
    Eric Holder is a

    jb (bd63ca)

  4. Mind you this was what comet did to Gonzalez ten years ago, over the us atty and the nsa, more the pattern.

    narciso (d1f714)

  5. of course, it’s hypocritical, you track those fmr prosecutors are now ensconced and you’ll find out the real reason,

    narciso (d1f714)

  6. I noted the zelig of disaster’s part in this, larry thompson has some cushy gig, and sups with a long spoon,
    james cole, was a gitmo detainee mouthpiece, who had to be recessed appointed or some such,

    narciso (d1f714)

  7. From the looks of the outrage from Team illary, me thinks that she wasn’t just hiding emails about yoga class!

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  8. technically the late prince nayef was interior minister, grand inquisitor, like grandduke tolstoy,

    narciso (d1f714)

  9. You can’t have it both ways, partisan hacks. You can’t whine about the fact that Comey is talking about this in the first place, and then complain that he is not saying enough.

    I don’t think they (or rather the Clinton people who came up withh these arguments) care about the contradiction, because both arguments won’t be quoted in the same soundbyte.

    I could say that what they want is Comey to say “Nothing to see here, move on” but in reality, they know that he won’t, and can’t say anything more, and if he, or anyone else in the government did say something, it would NOT be “”Nothing to see here.”

    But that’s the whole reason for saying he isn’t saying enough. QWHAT THEY WANT IS TTo get across thw idea that more would be to her benefit. When it is almost certainly the exact opposite of the truth.

    To make sure nobody says anything, we have Harry Reid’s letter, and Richard Painter’s complaints to the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of Government Ethics. (you didn’t find out about that one yet. Richard Painter is a Republican – Geoerge W. Bush’s chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007 no less – who was, successfully, he says, foR Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton. He’s the frontman in an ethics complaint, and wrote one of the 3 op-ed pieces published today in the new York times about how bad a thing it was what James Comey did. I unclude Paul Krugman’s regular column which was about that.)

    The message that will go out is:

    Anybody working for he federal government who leaks anything contradicting anything Hillary and her defenders say, is trying to influence the election and violating the Hatch Act.

    And, it goes without saying, will be investigated and punished if they say anything and Hillary Clinton is elected president.

    Then, with everyone’s lips shut tight, she can imply, or let other people imply and say, the reason nobody is saying anything is because, if the emails were released, or more was disclosed, they would show there’s nothing there, and Comey was and is trying to undermine her campaign by insinuating a problem where there isn’t one.

    . they jusyt want to use his refusal to comment further as proof that he is acting against Clinton and that, indeed, there i nothing to see here.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  10. This got sent by accident before I could more fully edit and proofread it.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  11. gorelick was more of the same, we later discovered her part in fannie mae,

    narciso (d1f714)

  12. as for ayer’s firm, it seems the opinion is split with some upholding gitmo like carvin and other at jones day, decidedly not,

    but comey’s inquiry isn’t even as profound as the walsh indictment, which had no foundation,

    narciso (d1f714)

  13. The FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation too.

    That is, probably the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, is. (not DOJ in Washington)

    I don’t see how he can in good conscience go after New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and New York State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos…

    …and leave the president-elect of the United States alone with worse corruption.

    Does rank, after all, have its privileges? Is there somebody who is, after all…

    “too big to jail?”

    There’s one person who said there wasn’t anyone:

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  14. Ah look who else signed on, to the previous letter, the rare unindicted republican gov from illinois.

    narciso (d1f714)

  15. Bastards – the Nation has a paywall more fierce than the WSJ, though I am not surprised. If Trump doesnt get it now, the GOPe is going to draw the wrong conclusions and nominate either of the Baker-Hogan-Rauner (Jim Thompson with a fat wallet) triumvirate.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  16. Unprecedented, my ass.

    Many Republicans claimed that the indictment made by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh against former Reagan-era Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger the weekend before the 1992 election cost Bush a second term. The indictment, later thrown out, challenged Bush’s claim that he did not know about a controversial arms-for-hostages deal that dogged the Reagan-Bush administration. (caution: autoplay)

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  17. And let’s not talk about more recent trash indictments of sitting GOP Senators or Governors.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  18. paywall more fierce than the WSJ

    The WSJ paywall is pretty weak. Just google the headline and clink through.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  19. narciso @14

    Were any of Dan Moldea’s books, honest? Or were they all dishonest, but some less so than others?

    Did he reveal things, but at the same time, hide things about other, maybe more important, people?

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  20. well ryan was a crook, even though fitz convicted him, the blago one, suggests certain prosecutorial discretion, not to move afield to larger game,

    narciso (d1f714)

  21. his first book on hoffa, ken starr thought the expose on mob involvement in football, interference, was solid enough that he took up moldea’s case, no good deed,

    narciso (d1f714)

  22. I imagine the actual panic is due to the lack of deposits in the Democrat early vote bank, especially by blacks. The cumulative early vote among blacks in North Carolina has dropped from 27% to 21% (a 22% drop). If the percentage holds through the election it would cut Clinton down by 4-5%, completely negating the increase in votes by additional women voting for the first female.

    It also raises hell with the turnout models used by pollsters relying upon 2012 exit polling to develop their models.

    Rick Ballard (bca473)

  23. To be honest, I’m bathing in Clinton’ tears and also lathering with some Clinton voter hypocrisy…

    “POLITICO’S GOTTA POLITICO: Trump camp basks in Clinton’s suffering.

    To be fair though, Politico has headlined Clinton basking in stuff, too.”

    Colonel Haiku (8583e2)

  24. Run for cover, Clinton voting swine!

    Colonel Haiku (8583e2)

  25. Those of you who see politics as about crying and seeing the other side cry are usually the ones on the crying side of things. Must be tough.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  26. But even with the paywall, WSJ at least allows partial reading of articles while engaged with the block-login-or subscribe page, and if you are quick you can get pretty far down in the article while in graying status. The Nation blocks the entire web window with its block page.

    Preet Bharara is the “right kind of Indian” (1/2 Hindu, 1/2 Sikh) that might be receptive to doing a solid for the incoming team, but perhaps in exchange for being a token Dem appointee in said administration.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  27. Colonel Haiku, there’s a pretty high percentage of illary supporters who will still vote for her even if the FBI finds the skeletal remains of Jimmy Hoffa or Jon Benet Ramsay in the Clinton basement.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  28. Run for cover, Clinton voting swine!

    Colonel Haiku

    Maybe we should try to elevate the conversation a little bit. You’re a guest here, just like me. Try persuading instead of acting like a rotten brat when you don’t get your way.

    By the way, I haven’t voted for Clinton and am not sure how I’m going to vote. And you’re a Trump voter. You’re voting for a guy who has endorsed Hillary. Your standard for me seems to be much higher than your standard for presidential candidate. This is called hypocrisy.

    Me, I’m just trying to vote for the most conservative choice. I’ll probably write in McMullin, even though I really don’t want to dilute my vote against Trump.

    Now, in advance, I do realize you have no interest in this blog being a nice place to discuss politics. But it never hurts to ask.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  29. Get a grip. It isn’t all about you, Dustin. You’ve assured readers you act in good faith.

    Colonel Haiku (8583e2)

  30. preeet wants the whole enchilada, he’s going after all of cuomo’s men, the rest of the angles are unclean,

    btw the election of 1824, shows how these schemes backfire,

    narciso (d1f714)

  31. 16.

    Many Republicans claimed that the indictment made by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh against former Reagan-era Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger the weekend before the 1992 election cost Bush a second term. The indictment, later thrown out, challenged Bush’s claim that he did not know about a controversial arms-for-hostages deal that dogged the Reagan-Bush administration

    yes, it did, with the help of acouple of lies. The indictemnt did niot accuse Bush of anything. By the way, Rush Limbaugh got two things wrong here in the story about the Casper Weinberger indictment. He said Casper Weinberger was a Bush Cabinet member, which he wasn;t, having resigned in 1987 while Ronald Reagan was president, and he also had it wrong about Lawrence Walsh being a Democrat.

    By the way, Walsh’s misconduct I think could be the reason for the ethical strictures about not afefcting an election, and the argument for not having independent special prosecutors.

    The point there in the indictment was not to indict a cabinet member of George Bush (which he wasn’t – he had resigned in 1987) but to accuse George Bush the Elder of lying about not knowing about Iran Contra. It was a second, supplemental, indictment.

    The key piece of evidence was the Weinberger memo, which Casper Weinberger had deposited in the Library of Congress (on the advice of Prince Bandar)

    It was supposedly contemporaneous,and was used to indict Weinberger for perjury.

    However, it was his testimony that was he truth and his “contemporaneous record” that was the lie. Yes, he lied to his “diary” so to speak. It probably was written several years later.

    It was dated January 6, 1986, and said that President Reagan had approved the sale of arms to Iran at a meeting at which Vice President Bush was present. It also claimed the idea originated with Israel (that’s where you can see the Saudi influence in composing it.)

    Now, that actually was not true. President Reagan turned it down, and only approved the sale on January 17, 1986. President reagan kept a real diary and that’s the date that he had.

    And he did it in a way that bypassed the Defense Department. (that’s what later enabled a profit to be made, with the money supposedly ro be given to the contras, except it never was. It was deposited in a different bank account with an account number that was different by one digit, from the one it was supposed to go into, although maybe this wasn’t an accident.

    Don Reagan was of the opinion that John Poindexter and Oliver North intended to pocket the moeny after January 20, 1989, when nobody would be around who would know taht teher was supposed to be any extra money.

    Anyway, the point of the indictment was to say “George Bush lied” when he said in late 1986 or maybe early 1987 that he was “out of the loop.”

    Now the Democrats had done a thing with the meaning of those words.

    It used to be that ot meanst “out of the chain of authority”

    That is its use in the 1986 Almanac of American politics article about Charles Mathias

    You can get it on Amazon.

    The Almanac of American Politics 1986 Paperback – 1985
    by Michael Barone

    But they started using it to mean “unaware”

    Now George Bush of course was aware of it, even though it actually was turned down in that January 6 meeting and only apprioved in January 17, 1986 meeting at which George Bush was not present.

    Somehow people have not noticed that. They don’t notice a lot of things. There’s plenty that gets by the major media.

    George Bush the elder never understood what the accusation against him was, and neve runderstood taht the democrats, had in a sort of Orwellian way changed the menaing of that phrase, and so he never could answer it.

    The accusation that he was lying or had lied once, about not knowing about the sakle of arms tio Iran had been made over the years, and the Weinberger memo, “Exhibit A” so to speak in the Weinberger indictment “proved” that he was lying when he said he was “out of the loop.”

    It’s a bit of a long argument, but the argument was made in the days leading up to the November 3, 1992 election.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  32. narciso @30.

    preeet wants the whole enchilada, he’s going after all of cuomo’s men, the rest of the angles are unclean,

    yes, he’s targeting Cuomo, but ow Clinton maybe has fallen into his hands,

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  33. “RIDE THE HILLARY RECURSION: Hillary Clinton Just Resurrected the 1964 Daisy Ad. “You know they’re desperate when they’re resurrecting an ad from 50 years ago!!”

    Huh – that was the ad that nuked the candidate whom Clinton herself supported in 1964. The same candidate that CBS’s anchors worked overtime to smear as a crypto-Nazi. (Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.) So if the ad is successful, will the left view Hillary with as much contempt as they did fellow Democrat LBJ in the mid-‘60s?”

    Colonel Haiku (8583e2)

  34. Yes, the Dems’ pivot away from Monstrously Heroic Comey to Running Dog Comey is so transparent that even a Democrat can get it. Well, Pat Cadell got it, anyways.

    What I can’t figure out is the talking point: it’s not specific! They’re lawyers, and lawyers know never to ask a question they don’t know the answer to. Does Hillary really want them to get specific?

    I’m surprised to hear from Holder, however. Thought he was still buried in his law books, still trying to figure out how Jon Corzine stole that $2 billion of client money.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  35. it’s not supposed to make sense, patricia, and that’s the best they could do on short notice, comey gave back his casino winnings, and that puts them out of sorts,

    narciso (d1f714)

  36. You may find me saying the same things Andrew McCarthy is saying. I’m not getting it from him. We’re both getting it from the same place. Don’t come back. If you fail to protect national security, don’t come back.

    You’re probably sick of this, but one more time.

    For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as Commander of a Submarine Coordinated Attack Group with Flag in the USS Sculpin, during the 9th War Patrol of that vessel in enemy-controlled waters off Truk Island, 19 November 1943. Undertaking this patrol prior to the launching of our first large-scale offensive in the Pacific, CAPT Cromwell, alone of the entire Task Group, possessed secret intelligence information of our submarine strategy and tactics, scheduled Fleet movements and specific attack plans. Constantly vigilant and precise in carrying out his secret orders, he moved his underseas flotilla inexorably forward despite savage opposition and established a line of submarines to southeastward of the main Japanese stronghold at Truk. Cool and undaunted as the submarine, rocked and battered by Japanese depth charges, sustained terrific battle damage and sank to an excessive depth, he authorized the Sculpin to surface and engage the enemy in a gunfight, thereby providing an opportunity for the crew to abandon ship. Determined to sacrifice himself rather than risk capture and subsequent danger of revealing plans under Japanese torture or use of drugs, he stoically remained aboard the mortally wounded vessel as she plunged to her death. Preserving the security of his mission, at the cost of his own life, he had served his country as he had served the Navy, with deep integrity and an uncompromising devotion to duty. His great moral courage in the face of certain death adds new luster to the traditions of the US Naval Service. He gallantly gave his life for his country.

    I never get sick of it, but that’s just me. Comey? Comey sitting there and saying it didn’t matter, they were only copies? That I get sick of.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  37. it’s not supposed to make sense, patricia, and that’s the best they could do on short notice, comey gave back his casino winnings, and that puts them out of sorts,

    narciso (d1f714) — 10/31/2016 @ 12:19 pm

    It’s not only not supposed to make sense, that’s the point. It’s how they convey their contempt.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  38. Get a grip. It isn’t all about you, Dustin. You’ve assured readers you act in good faith.

    Colonel Haiku


    Now you’re embarrassing yourself.

    By being a coward about it, you’re admitting you know you were in the wrong. You could have just apologized again for your nasty behavior. You’re a guest here, and you are extremely disrespectful to everyone who disagrees with you.

    I can certainly understand why you think Hillary must not be president. She is extremely corrupt and doesn’t give a crap about this country’s future. And you know damn well that Trump praises Hillary during this corruption, fully aware and even a paying investor in it. To the majority of Americans who do not see any value in a post Romney GOP (and why should they), that (R) just isn’t enough to get them to vote for Trump. While you know I’m right, your reaction is to dehumanize the American people. That’s not a winning political strategy, and more importantly, it’s not good for you.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  39. “You sign or no government teat for you!”

    SoupMan Government TeatMan

    Colonel Haiku (8583e2)

  40. I never get sick of it, but that’s just me. Comey? Comey sitting there and saying it didn’t matter, they were only copies? That I get sick of.


    He’s a bastard, but the interesting thing now is that as all these democrats line up to condemn him, they can only go so far. He knows a lot of their secrets and if they cast him aside to the point where he has nothing to lose, he will do what Weiner appears to have done.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  41. Carb up, young pup.

    Colonel Haiku (8583e2)

  42. Always the gimp who impugns and mischaracterizes the motivation of others, ain’tcha.

    Colonel Haiku (8583e2)

  43. Obama undercuts this letter today by having his press flack make a public statement supporting Comey’s integrity, and stating that Obama does not believe Comey’s actions were intended in any way to influence the election in favor of one party or one candidate.

    Although he has campaigned for her, I don’t get the feeling that Obama would be too disappointed if Clinton loses. I think he sees Trump as a buffoon who can probably be handily beat in 2020 after he demonstrates his lack of a grasp on the job of being President. Unless he chooses to be a one-term President (if he wins), the GOP will be stuck with him again in 2020, and not as a “successful business tycoon”, but as a one-term President with a record of ……

    Under the circumstances, the Dems front Elizabeth Warran in a Bernie Sanders reboot, untainted by Clinton Inc., and Obama then out of office can go full-bore on her behalf.

    If you are the transcendent iconic first African-American President of the US, do you want to be in the history books as the Democrat who was sandwiched between Bill and Hillary in the White House?

    Oops, can’t get that image out of my head.

    Better from a legacy standpoint to be followed by a fellow-traveler like Elizabeth Warren, even if delayed for 4 years, and running against Trump after one term might be the only circumstances under which an American Indian such as she is could get elected.

    Maybe we should root for Hillary to win. Guaranteed first term scandals galore, followed by a mid-term wipeout of all Dem office holders, and a march to the gallows for her in 2020.

    shipwreckedcrew (8aced3)

  44. Question of the day/week/month for the rabid Clinton voter: “Have you no sense of decency?”

    Colonel Haiku (8583e2)

  45. ROFLMFAO — the NYT rolls out John Dean to comment on why the email scandal is not worse than Watergate.

    shipwreckedcrew (8aced3)

  46. I love this, Patterico.

    I’m trying to think of when this supposed “iron clad” guideline of 60 days has ever even come into play. It seems like something that was made up after the fact.
    Even if it was Eric Holder “formalizing” this 4 years ago, that seems like it was specifically put in place for Hillary, no?

    MayBee (a7822d)

  47. Dustin, I agree with you that illary doesn’t give a crap about our country’s future. That’s why I could never in good conscience vote for her.
    Fortunately, Donald Trump has seen the light, and while he might have supported her during the primaries a number of years ago, he’s changed his mind about her.

    We can only hope that other illary voters will change their mind about her prior to November 8.
    By the way, how are things looking in Texas? Is Trump still hanging on?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  48. did he put down a deposit, of course, they say these things with a straight face, like a python sketch.

    narciso (d1f714)

  49. Dean’s moment in the Sun…

    Colonel Haiku (8583e2)

  50. Keep on milking that cow, NYT!

    Colonel Haiku (8583e2)

  51. The institution most outraged by the NYT and Dean is Amazon.

    Jeff Bezos sent a memo asking “WTF? Didn’t we make that guy famous??”

    shipwreckedcrew (8aced3)

  52. The first time the emails broke the Clinton campaign demanded that everything be released immediately so that Hillary could be cleared.

    Is there some food additive that is damaging everyone’s long-term memory?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  53. 43. Ding Ding Ding on your last line. I think a lot of Trump momentum might be people in places like the Great Lakes not liking the chances of state-wide Dems not having a chance in hell in 2018, also as the black and hispanic percentages improve for Trump I could see both breaking in his favor at an accelerated pace if only for the fact one group will want to be seen as being a larger share of the winning team than the other. I will begrudgingly give credit to Dilbert’s alter-ego in that he was probably right about Gary Johnson being a parking spot for shy Trump voters.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  54. Hillary was under investigation when the Democrats nominated her.
    How can they be so outraged that she’s under investigation?

    If Comey hadn’t “cleared” her in July, she’d still be under investigation, Weiner’s emails would still have been found, and this would all still have to be addressed.

    MayBee (a7822d)

  55. If illary wanted the emails to be seen in the first place, she wouldn’t have hid them!

    She’s just calling for ‘more specifics’ from the FBI because she knows the FBI can’t release info during an investigation. And she wants to get a little mileage out of saying, “SEE, THE FBI IS HIDING SOMETHING!!!” (LOL)

    What an Orwellian world we live in.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  56. MayBee (a7822d) — 10/31/2016 @ 12:58 pm

    How can they be so outraged that she’s under investigation?

    They’re not outraged that she is under investigation.

    They are saying it is an outrage that this was announced close to an election. This is one of those things, that I suppose, you are not supposed to tell the jury.

    They’ve even roped in former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

    In addition, or more specifically, Senator Harry Reid is further claiming that Comey maybe was trying to undermine her election chances, which he says would be a criminal act, and that Comey is being inconsistent because he didn’t say anything about any investigation into Russian government penetration of Donald Trump’s campaign (although there is apparently no investigation into him.)

    Sammy Finkelman (b4888e)

  57. Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 10/31/2016 @ 12:59 pm

    She’s just calling for ‘more specifics’ from the FBI because she knows the FBI can’t release info during an investigation. And she wants to get a little mileage out of saying, “SEE, THE FBI IS HIDING SOMETHING!!!” (LOL)

    You have it exactly.

    The FBI is, indeed, in fact, hiding (or not telling) something. That is fairly obvious. But almost certainly not anything that would help her. She wants people to believe that it would help her.

    I am not sure what the word for this is.

    Sammy Finkelman (b4888e)

  58. They’ve even roped in former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

    Poor Gonzales. Done in by the “unwritten rule” that the President can’t replace US Attorneys.

    MayBee (a7822d)

  59. shirley, he can’t be serious, he doesn’t realize comey stabbed him in the back,

    narciso (d1f714)

  60. alberto’s nothing if not a loyal bush klanster

    they wanna do that pig all up in it

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  61. 52.Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/31/2016 @ 12:55 pm

    The first time the emails broke the Clinton campaign demanded that everything be released immediately..

    And she knew then, that that wouldn’t happen, either. It’s actually the same strategy she did before. Make demands to make things public that you know (but many in the pubic do not know) are not going to be listened to/

    She knew she was going to see some damaging e-mail released released anyway sooner or later, so she said she was for it, and wanted to release more, and did, which also had the advantage of possibly swamping something truly damaging. That’s why everything the State Department had is more or less being made public. Of course, that’s not all there ever was.

    It was strictly limited to e-mail that the State Department, and others in the government, might possibly have anyway, albeit unsorted, plus some things about Benghazi and Libya.

    Sammy Finkelman (b4888e)

  62. Cruz SAuppoter:

    Is there some food additive that is damaging everyone’s long-term memory?

    And how long has this been around?

    My question is, how come nobody noticed that Ronald Reagan only approved the sale of arms to Iran on January 17, 1986, but the Casper Weinberger memo that was the centerpiece of the pre-election indictment of Casper Weinberger in 1992 says January 6??

    Now, John Poindexter and others had expected that Ronald Reagan would approve it on January 6. In fact, he had probably slipped a covert operation authorization into a pile of papers for him to sign and had him sign it, and then he had to tear it up. He testified it was signed “by mistake.”

    Sammy Finkelman (b4888e)

  63. No.

    The headline on this posting should read:

    The Attack by Hillary Clinton Continues: Open Letter from Surrogates Desperate to Deflect

    This is ALL on Hillary Clinton.

    Hillary Clinton set up the secret server.
    Hillary Clinton though she could get away with it.
    Hillary Clinton made this mess herself.

    Superfluous postings naming Comey, Reid, Huma, Carlos Danger et al., grant too much attention on supporting players in this melodrama just as labelling it a mere ‘mistake’ is a weak attempt to neutralize intent. Every posting should lead with responsible party: Hillary Clinton; focus on how Hillary Clinton is trying to distract and dodge sole ownership for yet another example of Hillary Clinton’s poo judgement.

    None of this would exist if Hillary Clinton had not done it.

    Hillary Clinton up front. On top. Center stage. It is all Hillary Clinton’s responsibility. And long past time for Hillary Clinton to man up, stand alone on her own two feet and take the heat without flailing for crutches.

    “There are mistakes and mistakes. The margin for error is narrow here. There’s too much loss of life and property damage possible.” – Captain DeVriess [Tom Tully] ‘The Caine Mutiny’ – 1954

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  64. Carb up, young pup.

    Colonel Haiku (8583e2) — 10/31/2016 @ 12:25 pm

    This young pup has been carbed up since 1965, if I know what you mean and I think I do. I was three. My grandparents had to drag me away from teen agers on the skunk train in the Santa Cruz mountains as I got ready to throw down.

    This is not a stellar advertisement for my headwork.

    Did I mention that Naval Intelligence is an oxymoron?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)


    The Story of Roaring Camp Railroads & Historical Facts
    Where History Comes to Life – The Story of Roaring Camp

    Mountain man, Isaac Graham, settled here in the 1830s. Soon after, Mexican authorities named Graham’s wild settlement “Roaring Camp.”

    In 1842, Graham established the first saw mill west of the Mississippi. Fortunately, the Big Trees here were spared the woodman’s axe, and 25 years later became the first virgin stand of coastal redwoods to be protected from logging.

    The area’s first railroad, the Santa Cruz & Felton, began carrying tourists to the Big Trees and the beach in 1875. In 2013, the Roaring Camp & Big Trees Narrow Gauge RR celebrated its Golden Anniversary (50 years) and the Santa Cruz, Big Trees & Pacific RY has been operating along the 1875 Santa Cruz & Felton route since 1985. …

    It’s a sad thing I feel the need to document what I can. But anybody can say anything on the intertubes.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  66. Apparently there’s more than one skunk train.

    A Wilderness Adventure\

    Aboard the “Super Skunk”

    …Make New Memories
    on our vintage motorcars,
    the true “skunks”

    A Powerful Pull
    through the redwoods
    behind a diesel locomotive.


    I did not know this.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  67. I don’t have the picture anymore. My grandparents thoughtfully destroyed it. But I’m leaning up against some part of the train. My arms are crossed, my legs are crossed, and I have some smug smile on my face just begging to get wiped off. I would have hated me.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  68. There was a man who took part in the naval war against Japan. He was an Italian, like me. Last name, Lupo. Wolf. An Avenger pilot. His own father couldn’t stand him. A girl agreed to engage him. Lupo’s father warned the fiancee’s father, don’t marry my son he’s no good.

    TBM Avenger “Bayou Bomber”

    This aircraft is depicted as Lt. (jg) Thomas C. Lupo’s Avenger at the Battle off Samar, one of the three naval battles collectively known as the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Flying from the USS Fanshaw Bay, Lupo made repeated attack runs on the IJN Yamato, one of the largest battleships in history. After Lupo expended all of his ammunition, he continued making runs on Yamato, throwing a Coke bottle and other loose articles from his aircraft at the ship’s bridge.

    I love this man.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  69. Lupo landed on an airfield that was still contested to pick up an American pilot. As he was roaring down the runway he fired his 50.s into the Japanese on the opposite end.

    Do I need to document this? Biurious.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  70. There is pretty much not anything I could tell you about Thomas Lupo that would be a lie.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  71. Given this Farrago of lies, I doubt.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  72. Lupo flew his Avenger, inverted, over the Yamato, firing his side arm when he ran out of ammo.

    He they didn’t shoot back. He could only guess, later, they thought he was Japanese flying a stolen aircraft. Because of the non regulation goatee. And he was trying to signal them.

    Did I mention I love this man?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  73. The Fireman:

    By the President of the United States of America a Proclamation

    Now, THEREFORE, I, BARACK H. OBAMA, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Hillary Rodham Clinton for all offenses against the United States which she, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 2009 through January 20, 2017.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand and seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-first.


    “Wait for it.” – ‘Radar’ O’Reilly [Gary Burghoff] MASH – 1970

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  74. Lupo injured himself crash landing his Avenger. Proving there are exceptions to the rule that there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots. He decided he could take the medical retirement or he could keep flying. He popped aspirin and kept flying in the reserves.

    He was a bad @$$.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  75. 73. It won’t happen, unless, as part of a plea bargain, she agrees to resign, or not take the oath of office. But I think she will insist on a pardon also for Bill and Chelsea.

    Sammy Finkelman (b4888e)

  76. I am not sure what the word for this is.

    “Bluff” knowing you can’t see the hole card until too late.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  77. Obama will not pardon ANYONE.

    Pardoned people MUST testify. If he pardons his underlings, they will have to testify (truthfully!) about things that Obama has done.

    Just think what would have happened to Nixon if Nixon had pardoned all his underlings. I assure you that Nixon DID think about it.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  78. The Clintons do not accept pardons. They do not give up. They know no remorse or shame. You cannot talk them down. You can only beat them down.

    nk (dbc370)

  79. There’s a word or it. Give me a minute.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  80. comey lol

    what a worm

    it’s hard to think of anyone not named John Roberts who’s failed this country as spectacularly as this sad little fbi poofterboi

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  81. Sociopathy. A personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits.

    nk (dbc370)

  82. Grifter

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  83. Teh Grifting Dead…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  84. Pardoned people MUST testify

    When did Nixon testify?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  85. Nixon did not accept the pardon for one thing, and I do not recall him being subpoenaed for another.

    nk (dbc370)

  86. man of mystery is stuck with the bellbottoms and the lava lamp, shame really,

    narciso (d1f714)

  87. @85. Except he did.

    ‘Nixon, contacted by Ford emissaries, was initially reluctant to accept the pardon, but then agreed to do so.’

    “What America needs are leaders to match the greatness of her people.” — Richard Nixon, 1968 nomination acceptance speech

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  88. Watergate was unprecedented. This is only unpasteurized.

    nk (dbc370)

  89. And now Clinton’s “illegitimate son” is going to be the at Nat’l Press Club at Noon (eastern) tomorrow to make an announcement that he says will “rock” the Clinton campaign…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  90. private political surveilance, sloppy financing, seriously you tell yourself that bedtime story

    narciso (d1f714)

  91. Actually, Nixon was under subpoena at some point between his resignation and the pardon but it never got past the subpoena stage. However, as I recall, some of his enemies still wanted him prosecuted claiming that he never accepted the pardon. I’m pretty sure that there is no formal statement of him accepting it.

    nk (dbc370)

  92. meh, razorback would sleep with anything with a pulse, this is news, now his mentor fulbright might have looked askance at that, but seriously people,

    narciso (d1f714)

  93. Un fois, un pilote de la la pilote de la luftwaffe de la ma’a la salue. 40
    ans plus tard Charles Brown retrouva le pilote de luftwaffe qui se rafusa le 20 Decembre 1943 a ouvrir le feu sur le “Ye Old Pub. ‘Un jour de Decembre 1943 Deux Hommes Se Croiserent.'”

    It must be imporatant. I said it in French.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  94. “Clinton’s son” is one more example of Trump making himself look more of a buffoon with National Enquirer stories written on tinfoil by Alex Jones.

    nk (dbc370)

  95. I hope I got it right.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  96. it’s not right that Mr. mg is still banned liked ddt

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  97. who was the luftwaffe pilot?

    narciso (d1f714)

  98. Notable Americans pardoned by recent U.S. Presidents:

    Richard Nixon:

    Jimmy Hoffa
    Angelo DeCarlo
    William Calley

    Gerald Ford:

    Richard Nixon- for Watergate crimes
    Robert E. Lee (yes, the Confederate general)
    Iva Toguri D’Aquino aka “Tokyo Rose” – only U.S. citizen convicted of treason to be pardoned
    Vietnam draft dodgers – 50,000 draft dodgers.
    Ernest C. Brace

    Jimmy Carter:

    Oscar Collazo – Attempted assassination on President Harry S. Truman; commuted to time served
    G. Gordon Liddy – Watergate figure. Convicted for 20 years, commuted after serving 4½ years for conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping.
    Peter Yarrow – Singer-songwriter of Peter, Paul and Mary
    Vietnam draft dodgers – Unconditional amnesty issued in the form of a pardon
    Jefferson Davis – President of the Confederate States of America.
    Patty Hearst – Convicted of Bank Robbery; sentence commuted
    Lolita Lebrón, Rafael Cancel Miranda, Irving Flores Rodriguez – machine-gunning the U.S. House of Representatives and wounding five Congressmen in 1954; clemency
    Frederic B. Ingram-Heir from Tennessee, convicted of bribing government officials in Illinois; jailed for 16 months.

    Ronald Reagan:

    W. Mark Felt (yes,’Deep Throat!’ and Edward S. Miller – FBI officials convicted of authorizing illegal break-ins.
    Junior Johnson – Moonshining; pardoned
    George Steinbrenner – Was convicted of illegal Nixon campaign contributions and obstruction of justice; pardoned
    Marvin Mandel – former Governor of Maryland convicted of mail fraud and racketeering; clemency; conviction later overturned in U.S. district court.

    George H. W. Bush

    For their roles in the Iran-Contra Affair:
    Elliott Abrams
    Duane Clarridge
    Clair George
    Alan D. Fiers
    Robert C. McFarlane – National Security Adviser to President Ronald Reagan
    Caspar Weinberger – Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan

    Armand Hammer – CEO of the Occidental Petroleum Company, contributed $110,000 to the Republican National Committee just prior to his pardon. Pardoned for illegally contributing $54,000 to Richard Nixon’s presidential campaign in 1972.
    Joseph Occhipinti – Federal drug agent convicted of violation of civil rights, perjury and depravation of rights. Commuted.
    Myra Soble – 1957 conviction for her involvement in the Rosenberg spy ring; pardoned

    Bill Clinton

    Roger Clinton, Jr. – brother of Bill Clinton. After serving a year in federal prison for cocaine possession.
    Almon Glenn Braswell – convicted of mail fraud and perjury; pardoned
    Patty Hearst – Bank robbery. Prison term commuted by Jimmy Carter. She was released from prison in 1979. She was fully pardoned by Clinton in 2001.
    Marc Rich, Pincus Green – business partners; indicted by U.S. Attorney on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran.
    Dan Rostenkowski – Democrat from Illinois. Served his entire sentence, then pardoned.
    Fife Symington III – Republican Governor of Arizona convicted of bank fraud; pardoned.[22]
    Susan McDougal – partners with Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the failed Whitewater deal. Guilty of contempt of court, she served her entire sentence and was then pardoned.
    Henry Cisneros – Clinton’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count for lying to the FBI, and was fined $10,000.
    Edward Downe, Jr. – wire fraud, filing false income tax returns, and securities fraud; pardoned
    Elizam Escobar – seditious conspiracy; pardoned
    Samuel Loring Morison – espionage and theft of government property; pardoned
    Mel Reynolds – Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives.
    Henry O. Flipper – The first black West Point cadet was found guilty of “conduct unbecoming an officer” in 1882.
    John Deutch – Director of Central Intelligence, former Provost and University Professor, MIT
    Rick Hendrick – NASCAR Team Owner & Champion; convicted of mail fraud; pardoned
    FALN – commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States, mostly in New York City and Chicago. The 16 were convicted of conspiracy and sedition and sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison.
    Lyle Prouse – Pilot convicted of flying drunk

    George W. Bush

    Lewis “Scooter” Libby – Assistant to President George W. Bush and Chief of Staff to Dick Cheney was convicted of perjury in connection with the CIA leak scandal involving members of State Department who ‘outed’ CIA agent Valerie Plame. Libby received commutation, not a full pardon.
    José Compeán and Ignacio Ramos – Two US Border Patrol agents who wounded drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete Dávila and tried to cover up the incident received commutation.[23]
    Charles Winters – Posthumous pardon for smuggling three B-17 Flying Fortress heavy bombers to Israel in the late 1940s
    Issac Robert Toussie – Convicted of making false statements to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; pardoned and the pardon revoked one day later
    Edwin L. Cox Jr. – Convicted in 1988 for bank fraud
    John Forté – Hip-hop singer and songwriter sentenced for smuggling cocaine was commuted.[24]

    Barack Obama

    James Bernard Banks, of Liberty, Utah, sentenced to two years of probation in 1972 for illegal possession of government property.
    Russell James Dixon, of Clayton, Ga., sentenced to two years of probation in 1960 for a liquor law violation.
    Laurens Dorsey, of Syracuse, N.Y., sentenced in 1998 to five years of probation and $71,000 in restitution for conspiracy to defraud by making false statements to the Food and Drug Administration.
    Ronald Lee Foster, of Beaver Falls, Pa., sentenced in 1963 to a year of probation and a $20 fine for mutilating coins.
    Timothy James Gallagher, of Navasota, Texas, sentenced in 1982 to three years of probation for cocaine possession and conspiracy to distribute.
    Roxane Kay Hettinger, Powder Springs, Ga., sentenced in 1986 to 30 days in jail and three years of probation for conspiracy to distribute cocaine.
    Edgar Leopold Kranz Jr., of Minot, N.D., who received 24 months of confinement and a pay reduction for cocaine use, adultery and bouncing checks.
    Floretta Leavy, of Rockford, Ill., sentenced in 1984 to 366 days in prison and three years of parole for drug offenses.
    Scoey Lathaniel Morris, of Crosby, Texas, sentenced in 1991 to three years of probation and $1,200 restitution for counterfeiting offenses.

    … and on deck for Chicago…. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  99. Nixon testified to a Watergate grand jury in 1975.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  100. who was the luftwaffe pilot?

    narciso (d1f714) — 10/31/2016 @ 6:30 pm

    Franz Stigler.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  101. ah yes, elliot abrams is still around from that round robin, why would you pardon someone who tried to kill an american president?

    narciso (d1f714)

  102. why would you pardon someone who tried to kill an american president?

    Ask me after the election.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  103. Incident. The man was a killer. He chose not to kill. I laugh.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  104. @91… I’m pretty sure that there is no formal statement of him accepting it.

    Except there was.

    Nixon’s Response to Pardon

    I have been informed that President Ford has granted me a full and absolute pardon for any charges which might be brought against me for actions taken during the time I was president of the United States.

    In accepting this pardon, I hope that his compassionate act will contribute to lifting the burden of Watergate from our country.

    Here in California, my perspective on Watergate is quite different than it was while I was embattled in the midst of the controversy, and while I was still subject to the unrelenting daily demands of the presidency itself.

    Looking back on what is still in my mind a complex and confusing maze of events, decisions, pressures and personalities, one thing I can see clearly now is that I was wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly in dealing with Watergate, particularly when it reached the stage of judicial proceedings and grew from a political scandal into a national tragedy.

    No words can describe the depths of my regret and pain at the anguish my mistakes over Watergate have caused the nation and the presidency — a nation I so deeply love and an institution I so greatly respect.

    I know many fair-minded people believe that my motivations and action in the Watergate affair were intentionally self-serving and illegal. I now understand how my own mistakes and misjudgments have contributed to that belief and seemed to support it. This burden is the heaviest one of all to bear.

    That the way I tried to deal with Watergate was the wrong way is a burden I shall bear for every day of the life that is left to me.

    Richard Nixon

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  105. the lesson is clear, deep six the evidence however you can, why didn’t gonzalez go beyond petty grievance and defend the rule of law, honestly do they learn no lessons from their experience,

    narciso (d1f714)

  106. @99- But he was pardoned by President Ford in 1974.

    Thanks for playing.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  107. Mukasey says the current situation is “an embarrassment” and he’s “hopeful that the department can wash it off when somebody else is in charge”.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  108. And I’ve read that Nixon did accept the pardon, but it was in the NYT, so there’s that.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  109. Well, then, Kevin is right. If Nixon was pardoned in ’74 and was subpoenaed to the grand jury in ’75, he had to testify. He could not take the Fifth.

    nk (dbc370)

  110. Some of us were around when it happened.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  111. Nixon tried to dodge the summons due to a flare-up of phlebitis (I seem to remember he had vascular surgery). But the prosecutors were patient and eventually he had to show up.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  112. Not really. The pardon wasn’t issued to motivate testifying. And besides, he could of dropped dead. That he was free and clear made it easier, but it certainly wasn’t a condition. Ford made that clear.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  113. So, no president will pardon anyone who can testify against them. Not unless he’s willing to take the fall — you pardon everyone else and that thing about not putting the ex-prez in jail gets sorely tested.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  114. @113- Apparently the Big Dick was taking ‘the fifth’ daily… J&B on the rocks.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  115. DCSCA–

    He was a private citizen summoned to testify. He cannot take the Fifth when pardoned for “any and all crimes he may have committed.” The pardon didn’t say he HAD to testify, but it also didn’t say he had to obey the speed laws or pay taxes. So he had to show up. He could have “not remembered”, but you will note that in the transcript the first thing that’s said is a warning about perjury.

    The pardon did not cover prospective crimes.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  116. Apparently the Big Dick was taking ‘the fifth’ daily… J&B on the rocks.

    My only objection to that is that he could have done better than J&B. But he was always middle-class, which is why he was so popular (until).

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  117. @115- Right. He was a sick dude. The motivation to pardon was to heal the nation, not nail his butt for years afterward and his underlings paid for hi suns. So did Ford. Cost him the election. But history shows it to have been a wise decision. But if you were alive at the time it certainly wasn’t cheered.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  118. @120 LOL Here-here. Cheers!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  119. #120 Kevin M, his wife Pat wore a Republican cloth coat.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  120. The dirtiest pardon was probably that of Marc Rich by Bill Clinton, absolving Rich not only of criminal liability but also of back taxes and other civil disabilities. I remember talk about a lot of money being involved in obtaining the pardon, but I’m pretty sure these were Clinton’s two reasons.

    nk (dbc370)

  121. there was a whole ring around denise, the lebanese player in nigeria, at least one russian oligarch, all paid up members of spectre

    narciso (d1f714)

  122. @119- It was a full, free and absolute pardon for offenses against the United States. Frankly, I wouldn’t put it past Obama to grant Maudie one. Even if she insists she did nothing ‘wrong’… just for being ugly.

    FWIW, we should all get one of those in our lives to carry around in our wallets– like a Get Of Jail FREE card.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  123. @124- FWIW I googled the list and it’s pretty atrocious… particularly the attempted assassins and so forth. Liddy. Steinbrenner. The Clinton list is just a Bubbafest.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  124. just in case, you were going to say aha,

    narciso (d1f714)

  125. “Scott Adam’s Risk Assessment:

    Here’s a quick summary of the other risks, organized by candidate. I’ll rank them from 1-10 with 10 being “drinks alcohol.”

    Trump Risks

    1. No political experience in office (4)

    2. Might say something insulting to another leader (3)

    3. Might go nuts for the first time in his 70-year life. (2)

    4. Aggressive negotiating stance might cause trouble (5)

    5. Might institute some racist/sexist/homophobic policies (0)

    6. Doesn’t do his homework on the issues (3)

    7. Health problems (5)

    8. Budget deficit expands to deadly proportions (6)

    9. Might cause a race war (3)

    Clinton Risks

    1. Perpetual scandals and investigations. (5)

    2. Health problems for Hillary Clinton (7)

    3. Health problems for Bill Clinton that become distractions. (7)

    4. Scandals for Bill that distract (8)

    5. Big donors to Clinton Foundation rely on wars to make money (9)

    6. Clintons are relatively easy to blackmail. (8)

    7. Budget deficit expands to deadly proportions (8)

    8. Immigration policies are more likely to allow in terrorists (9)

    9. Drinks alcohol (10)

    I didn’t include Climate change in the risk assessment because neither candidate is likely to do much about it.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  126. urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/31/2016 @ 11:59 am

    Preet Bharara is the “right kind of Indian” (1/2 Hindu, 1/2 Sikh) that might be receptive to doing a solid for the incoming team, but perhaps in exchange for being a token Dem appointee in said administration.

    I have now read through the Wall Street Journal article.

    The real news doesn’t get started until well within the article, and there are half a dozen important bits of news in it.

    The headlines in it are:

    First, the the U.S. Attorney in New York who was (at least till the sexting case came up) engaged in a Clinton investigation was not Preet Bharara, but Robert L. Capers, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. He succeeded Loretta Lynch.

    New York City is divided between two different districts. The Eastern District encompasses all of Long Island, including Brooklyn and Queens, while the Southern Distict of New York includes Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island, too.

    For some undisclosed reason, the Eastern District of New York was in charge of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, even though it doesn’t look like there is any nexus to Long Island/ Chappaqua, and Bill Clinton’s office in Harlem, are in the southern District.

    2) The Wall Street Journal had conflicting sources, some saying there was no real case. I would not tend to side with them. This sort of thing might be expected, if there is a cover-up going on.

    3) Andrew McCabe had recused himself from any role in the investigations, but he was still making some decisions. And it looks to me like, it is not that he was corrupted, but rather, the candidacy of his wife was a device to get him to recuse himself. This sometimes happens in court cases. The son, or former law partner, of the judge is hired by the defense. Because this can be a tactic to get rid of a judge, the Supreme Court is nto too expansive on what are grounds for recusal.

    4) The investigations into matters Clinton was being stalled quite specifically…

    …because Hillary Clinton was a Presidential candidate!

    It was not only an indictment that was precluded (remember those claims that Hillary Clinton could be indicted after the conventions or something like that? I knew that was probably precluded by Justice Department policy.) But it looks like there was more.

    The Department of Justice also held that subpoenas, formal witness interviews, and the enpaneling of a grand jury was precluded because Hillary Clinton was running for president. That would ave been too overt, or public they held.

    5) There were originally four FBI field offices involved in investigating matters Clinton.

    One, in Los Angeles, had run across something in an unrelated corruption case, and had gotten too the stage of subpoening some bank records related to the Clinton Foundation, before the case was taken away from them.

    A second, in Washington, was an investigation of Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, dealing wh a period of time before he became a Clinton Foundation board member. The issue seems to involve he question of whether or not he failed to register as a foreign agent,

    The third one was in New York, and it wasa being assisted by teh FBI field offie in Little Rock, Arkansas.

    In mid-July, Andrew McCabe consolidated them in the New York and Little Rock offices.

    5) On August 12, a senior justice department official whose name is not given in the Wall Stgreet Journal article, called Andrew McCabe to complain that FBI agents in New York were still pursuing a Clinton Foundation probe, when the department considered it closed. And that nothing that might become public should be going on during an election season. McCabe said that they were still free to do anything didn’t require approval from above.

    The official didn’t like that kind of answer at all, and Andrew McCabe said: “Are you asking me to shut dowm a validly predicated investigation?” and the Justice Department official said, after a pause: “Of course not.”

    6) In September, FBI officials in New York (the field office is centralized and not divided between two districts) tried to gets authority from the Southern District of New York to look at the non-governmental laptops that had been searched as part of the classified information probe, after they had been turned down by the Easterm District of New York on the grounds that they had been obtained under limited immunity exlusively for the issue of mishandling of classified information. But McCabe told them they could not go prosecutor shopping.

    7) Then they found out about the Weiner laptop. (this is probably under the jurisdiction of Southern District of New York)

    Sammy Finkelman (f07364)

  127. how food stamp’s not helping piggy do war on the sleazy fbi

    doesn’t that strongly suggest he knows the fbi’s weiner trove shows she’s dirty dirty dirty

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  128. 132. happyfeet (28a91b) — 11/1/2016 @ 4:43 am

    how food stamp’s not helping piggy do war on the sleazy fbi

    Barack Obama is not taking part in any coverup, don’t you uderstand that? His role in any coverup, I think, is limited at most to appointing the “right” people, and then letting them alone, and not taking part in any decisions.

    And the people who were recommended to him (for the Justice Department) were not being recommended on the grounds that they will cover-up for any Democrats, even if that actually may be the reason that somebody somewhere managed to cause their name(s) to pop up. Those are not any of the reasons being given to him by anybody, I think we can feel fairly safe in saying.

    doesn’t that strongly suggest he knows the fbi’s weiner trove shows she’s dirty dirty dirty

    He’s not directly involved in any of this, I think, but that may affect what other people do.

    It’s evidence of dirty money dealings what we’re talking about here.

    Sammy Finkelman (f07364)

  129. The Anthony Weiner laptop, unlike the other previously obtained laptops, is under the jurisdiction of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara.

    Now, very often things acquired for one investigation, are the predicate for opening other lines of inquiry.

    So what’s Clinton Plan B now?

    I think what they’re going try to do now is to have the Weiner-related investigation only look at e-mails that not discovered previously, even though they could be the predicate for a Clinton-Foundation-related investigation

    That’s how I am interpreting what I read and heard about the automated eliminaition of duplicate e-mails.

    The search for Weiner’s laptop is going to exclude anything discovered before, I don’t know who decided that, and the FBI agents examining it won’t even get to see them, or at least talk about them to their superiors, even though, and this is the key point, there are other things besides the matter of classification that might be of interest to a prosecutor.

    Right now, you see, the predicate for the investigation is the matter of classified material, and so the Weiner search doesn’t need to evaluate anything already evaluated for the presence of classified information (even though it was not evaluated for anything else)

    It will take some legal footwork to be able to make the leap to the matter of corruption, bribery, and people not registering as a foreign agent, but I think that probably will be made. Once and if that leap is made, there will be severe problems for the House of Clinton. FBI agents might even get to look at the e-mails already looked at. (except maybe for the fact the laptops were destroyed, but they must have lept copies of the e-mails they retrieved.)

    Of course many of them are already public, or scheduled to become public, but some were considered unclassified but still confidential for other reasons, like especially, not being work-related.

    Sammy Finkelman (f07364)

  130. Thank you for the corrections about Nixon, KevinM and DCSCA. As Noether’s Law states, if you want to know something on internet, don’t ask the question, post the wrong answer.

    nk (dbc370)

  131. nonono obama’s absolutely part of the cover-up

    he lied lied lied like a filthy p.o.s. about not knowing about piggy’s bad-ass private email server she used to launder influence-peddling money through the Clinton Global Criminal Cartel

    sleazy harvardtrash obama’s just as dirty as the pig

    he set that diseased criminal piggy up in the state department, knowingly let her sell policy, appointments, and influence to the detriment of our sad pitiful once-respectable country and just left her alone

    piggy’s dirty

    food stamp’s dirty

    comey’s a dirty coward

    this is who america is anymore

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  132. “A CONSPIRACY SO VAST: Carville Blows Up On MSNBC Anchor: Our Democracy Is Under Assault By Comey, The KGB And Republicans. Usually when people start claiming they’re being targeted by the FBI, the KGB, and other parties simultaneously, it’s seen as a sign of clinical paranoia.”

    Colonel Haiku (820854)

  133. Carville is red lectroid if ever there was one, Sammeh you wear yourself out chasing squirrel!

    narciso (d1f714)

  134. This is how the Clinton’s manage scandals. Carville’s role is to be the loudest of the feces flinging monkeys.

    crazy (d3b449)

  135. How long before Carville says “If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find” about Comey, do you think?

    nk (dbc370)

  136. “AS IF THERE WEREN’T ALREADY SO MANY REASONS TO VOTE FOR HIM. Survey: 35% of federal workers may consider leaving their jobs if Trump wins.

    Who says a moderate Republican like Trump wouldn’t shrink the federal government!”

    Colonel Haiku (820854)

  137. Just a couple clarifications for Sammy at 131:

    Its unlikely that the SDNY US Attorney’s Office is handling the Clinton Foundation investigation.

    US Attorney’s Offices and FBI Field Offices do not perfectly overlap. There is a separate US Attorney’s Office in each federal district, but there isn’t an FBI Field Office in each federal district.

    On the prosecution side, I’m quite sure that an investigation into the Clinton Foundation is being handled by the Public Corruption Section trial attorneys in Main Justice. That is not a case that would be left to a local US Attorney for the very reason that it is going to cross many district lines, and involve international conduct as well. And given its sensitivity, and the demand for resources, its going to be worked in Main Justice.

    The way the FBI staffs cases is different. For the most part — and this is subject to many exceptions — the FBI sends “lead” information out to the FBI field office that is in physical proximity to the location where the work needs to be done, and has that local field office perform the task and report back to the office where the prosecution is being handled. This is how it is being “misreported” – in a manner of speaking — that 4 FBI Field Offices are involved. If for purposes of court venue and jurisdiction a judgment has been made that and grand jury or other legal proceeding will take place in the EDNY, Agents from that Field Office will be assigned to the investigation, thought they might be working with Main Justice lawyers in Washington DC, and not prosecutors in the EDNY. At the same time, if they want a witness interviewed in Little Rock, or if they want banking records from a bank in California, agents from New York do not travel normally travel to Arkansas or California to perform that work. They send a “lead” to the FBI Field Office in Little Rock, or the FBI Field Office in Los Angeles, with instructions on what needs to be accomplished, along with deadline, and local FBI agents in that field office are assigned to accomplish the task.

    IMO it has always been an inefficient way to do business, and its really a relic of the early days of the Bureau when cross-country travel wasn’t as simple as it is now. I used to complain to the Bureau in some cases where I got information back which was done by an agent in a different district because that agent didn’t have a background in the case and didn’t necessarily know what follow-up questions to ask in a witness interview, for example. Such complaints to the Bureau about the Bureau were always met with the same response — “That’s the way we operate, and we have no intention to change.”

    So, I very much doubt either US Attorney’s Office, the SDNY or the EDNY, has any role in the Clinton Foundation investigation. I would guess that the McAuliffe investigation concerning whether he should have been registered as a foreign agent is probably being handled in either the US Attorney’s Office for the Dist. Colombia, or in the EDVA. The Clinton Email probe is clearly in Main Justice, and Weiner sexting case is in either the SDNY or EDNY, depending on where they lived. Brooklyn is in the EDNY (Queens too, I think).

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  138. 141. That’s BS posturing – where else can they go, though I do think their will be a lot of “stooges” placed at mid-level to keep people in line (in addition to the burly Russian guy who stalks the parking lot at 5:30pm). In the short term, particularly in a job with a lot of regulatory responsibility (think EPA), the roll-back in enforcement of regs will result in a paid vacation scenario for many. On the other hand, ICE may have a flurry of activity and who knows if its with or without “time of day pay differentials” or new staff (new vans maybe, but…).

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  139. Simply as a comment on a headline this morning — DOJ has not assigned a “Clinton crony” to oversee email investigation. Several reputable sites are reporting that Peter Kadzik, Assistant AG for Legislative Affairs, is in charge of the investigation because he wrote letters responding to letters from Dem. members of the House and Senate complaining about Comey’s Friday letter.

    Kadzik’s job as Assis. AG for Legislative Affairs is to communicate with Congress, and respond to their inquiries. So letters from DOJ, if they don’t come from the AG personally, normally come out of Kadzik’s office.

    But that office doesn’t do any case management or supervision. It only writes what it is told to write.

    The email case, because it involves issues of classified information and potential national security breaches, is being handled by DOJ’s National Security Division, Counterintelligence and Export Security Section. These are the lawyers who normally prosecute cases of spying, and attempts to export classified data to foreign actors or countries.

    The Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division is Mary McCord.

    She is the Acting Assistant AG — which means that the political appointee previously in this position has resigned and left the Department. That was John Carlin.

    McCord was a prosecutor in the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia for 20 years, where she served as both Criminal Division Chief and Appellate Section Chief.

    So, McCord is a career prosecutor, not a political appointee.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  140. 144… VERY good to know, thx.

    Colonel Haiku (820854)

  141. 142. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 11/1/2016 @ 7:56 am

    Just a couple clarifications for Sammy at 131:

    Its unlikely that the SDNY US Attorney’s Office is handling the Clinton Foundation investigation….On the prosecution side, I’m quite sure that an investigation into the Clinton Foundation is being handled by the Public Corruption Section trial attorneys in Main Justice.

    That seems to be the case, I think I read something. At least that’s who is examiing the e-mails. They seem to be only looking at two things – the issue of classification and the issue of obstructing an investigation.

    The Clinton Email probe is clearly in Main Justice, and Weiner sexting case is in either the SDNY or EDNY, depending on where they lived. Brooklyn is in the EDNY (Queens too, I think).

    When Anthony Weiner was elected to Congress to succeed Charles schumer in 1998, he lived in Brooklyn. Redistricting after the year 2000, moved the district 2.3 into queens and he moved there. Maybe half a year after he resigned from Congress, he moved to an apartment in Manhattan, in the same building that Chelsea Clinton lived in, on Park Avenue South around 28th St. Bill Clinton undoubtably arrranged all this, and jobs for Weiner.

    So all this, took place in Manhattan, and it would be SDNY that’s handling the Weiner sexting/child pronography case.

    Sammy Finkelman (3fda43)

  142. if mccord would have jurisdiction over the investigation, it would state so,

    narciso (d1f714)

  143. Carville is red lectroid if ever there was one

    That pretty much explains the whole Clinton keiretsu. It would be so much easier to follow if they were all named Bill.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  144. what I’m referring to,

    narciso (d1f714)

  145. Yes, of course. Where they were all named John. Hillary would be John Bigboote. Bill would be Lord John Whorfin.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5450 secs.