Patterico's Pontifications

7/5/2016

A Sampling of the Reaction to the FBI Decision Not to Charge HRC [Updated]

Filed under: General — JVW @ 4:39 pm



[guest post by JVW]

In the aftermath of the FBI’s decision not to prosecute Ol’ Scratch for her email shenanigans, here is a sampling of the non-Twitter writings from across the political spectrum regarding what it means and where we go from here:

Andy McCarthy at National Review
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the [handling of classified information] statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

Paul Mirengoff in Powerline
Comey’s explanation was odd and unpersuasive on its face. He began by reciting what the law requires for a felony or misdemeanor conviction in cases like this. He noted that gross negligence is the standard for a felony conviction. He then recited the facts as the FBI found them. These facts suggest gross negligence.

When it came time to merge these two strands and present his decision whether to prosecute, Comey made no reference to the legal standard he had articulated a few minutes earlier. Instead, he pulled a switcheroo, formulating a new legal standard based on the elements he says have been present in past cases where prosecutions have been brought for the mishandling of secret/classified information. Gross negligence exited stage left — replaced by intent to harm the U.S., disloyalty, etc.

Mark Kirkorian in National Review
Comey’s announcement today that Hillary beat the rap has hacked out another large chunk of the remaining legitimacy of our constitutional order. Sure, it’s outrageous that a person like her could get away with what she did, days after a secret meeting between her husband and Comey’s boss.

But for someone like her to be elected president isn’t outrageous – it’s a threat to the Republic. For all the tumult surrounding Watergate, the outcome actually strengthened our political order, because it demonstrated that even the president was not above the law. Today’s announcement was a reverse-Watergate, demonstrating that open contempt for the law is no bar to the White House.

Chris Clizza in The Washington Post
FBI Director James B. Comey dismantled large portions of Clinton’s long-told story about her private server and what she sent or received on it during a stirring 15-minute news conference, after which he took no questions. While Comey exonerated Clinton, legally speaking, he provided huge amounts of fodder that could badly hamstring her in the court of public opinion.

Most importantly, Comey said the FBI found 110 emails on Clinton’s server that were classified at the time they were sent or received. That stands in direct contradiction to Clinton’s repeated insistence she never sent or received any classified emails. And it even stands in contrast to her amended statement that she never knowingly sent or received any classified information.

Roger Simon in PJ Media
. . . James Comey may have hurt Hillary Clinton more than he helped her in his statement Tuesday concerning the Grand Email Controversy. He may have let her off the hook legally, but personally he has left the putative Democratic candidate scarred almost beyond recognition.

By getting out in front of the Justice Department, the FBI director, speaking publicly in an admittedly unusual fashion, was able to frame the case in a manner that Attorney General Loretta Lynch in all probability never would have.

Scott Shackford in Reason
[I]t’s extremely disconcerting to see the Department of Justice and some of the left decry attempts by conservative criminal justice reformers to increase requirements where consideration of mens rea [the concept where prosecutors must show that the accused knew what they were doing was prohibited] should apply to federal law. Their argument is that it makes it harder to prosecute people, particularly white-collar criminals, which is partly the point of mens rea. Some on the left and within the Justice Department want to be able to prosecute corporate actors for violating one of the thousands of federal regulations that they claim protects safety and the environment, and they want to be able to do so without having to prove that people knew that they were doing anything wrong.

The vast difference between how Clinton has been treated here and how us commoners are treated should be a wake-up call for any civil rights organization who resist the expansion of mens rea. It’s already being applied unfairly so that the powerful are protected.[. . .]

Obviously, this suggests the possibility that perhaps the FBI made the right call in Clinton’s case, which probably does not sit well with many people. It also ignores the possibility that the Justice Department simply didn’t want a fight against a powerful politician with unlimited resources to fight back during an election year and who may have control over their budget come January.[. . .]

But Clinton supporters will want us to take this decision at face value, so do that as an exercise. Then turn and ask these people if they believe a similar mens rea standard should apply to everybody—even those dastardly Koch brothers—accused of violating federal laws.

Clare Foran in The Altantic
[T]he investigation could undermine Clinton’s case that her judgment makes her better suited to be president. Comey explicitly said that though there was not “clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” The accusation of carelessness may undercut Clinton’s case that she, unlike Trump, is an experienced and steady hand, capable of keeping the nation safe. The charge also threatens to feed suspicions harbored by her opponents that the Democratic candidate doesn’t think the rules apply to her. That, in turn, could further erode public confidence in Clinton.

Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept
Secrecy is a virtual religion in Washington. Those who violate its dogma have been punished in the harshest and most excessive manner — at least when they possess little political power or influence. As has been widely noted, the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined. [. . .]

People who leak to media outlets for the selfless purpose of informing the public — Daniel Ellsberg, Tom Drake, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden — face decades in prison. Those who leak for more ignoble and self-serving ends — such as enabling hagiography (Leon Panetta, David Petraeus) or ingratiating oneself to one’s mistress (Petraeus) — face career destruction, though they are usually spared if they are sufficiently Important-in-D.C. For low-level, powerless Nobodies-in-D.C., even the mere mishandling of classified information — without any intent to leak but merely to, say, work from home — has resulted in criminal prosecution, career destruction, and the permanent loss of security clearance.

This extreme, unforgiving, unreasonable, excessive posture toward classified information came to an instant halt in Washington today — just in time to save Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations. [. . .]

Joan Walsh in The Nation
The term “Clinton rules” have, over time, come to have two meanings. The one familiar to Clinton supporters is this: Both the former president as well as the presumptive nominee have spent their adulthoods on the political firing line, attacked by two generations of right-wing operatives, and they have faced a media culture in which they are guilty until proven innocent. But that’s led to another perception of “Clinton rules”: whether out of entitlement, or disgust at the media’s double standards, the former first couple sometimes acts as though rules of propriety don’t apply to them. From Clinton’s ill-advised Goldman Sachs speeches to her use of a private server in the first place, she seems to be unable to perceive the (at minimum) appearance of sleaze such decisions will communicate. If she has advisers who try to help her see such conflicts, it often seems that she doesn’t listen to them.

Does anything you read above ring especially true to you? If you find particular pieces that you think make salient points, feel free to place them in the comments.

UPDATE: Dana points us to the AP fact-checking story and highlights the following quote:

Key assertions by Hillary Clinton in defense of her email practices have collapsed under FBI scrutiny.

The agency’s yearlong investigation found that she did not, as she claimed, turn over all her work-related messages for release. It found that her private email server did carry classified emails, also contrary to her past statements. And it made clear that Clinton used many devices to send and receive email despite her statements that she set up her email system so that she only needed to carry one.

– JVW

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: An instant classic:

134 Responses to “A Sampling of the Reaction to the FBI Decision Not to Charge HRC [Updated]”

  1. I haven’t yet come across anything interesting written on the pages of the Dog Trainer or the New York Times — this isn’t a mass shooting after all where they have the anti-gun editorial ready to go in a matter of moments — so they are not represented here. It will be interesting to see if either of their editorial boards bothers to weigh in on this matter in coming days.

    JVW (eabb2a)

  2. and you won’t except for apologia for lawlessness, e pleb nista,

    narciso (732bc0)

  3. #NEVERTRUMP LOOKING PRETTY OLD AND BUSTED TODAY, AIN’T IT?

    Dystopia Max (76803a) — 7/5/2016 @ 10:38 am

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  4. I like:

    The FBI rewrote the [handling of classified information] statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require – Andy McCarthy at National Review.

    Gross negligence exited stage left – Paul Mirengoff at Powerline Blog

    I]t’s extremely disconcerting to see the Department of Justice and some of the left decry attempts by conservative criminal justice reformers to increase requirements where consideration of mens rea …this suggests the possibility that perhaps the FBI made the right call in Clinton’s case, which probably does not sit well with many people…But Clinton supporters will want us to take this decision at face value, so do that as an exercise. Then turn and ask these people if they believe a similar mens rea standard should apply to everybody—even those dastardly Koch brothers—accused of violating federal laws. – Scott Shackford in Reason

    ….extreme, unforgiving, unreasonable, excessive posture toward classified information came to an instant halt in Washington today — just in time to save Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations – Glenn Greenwald in The Intercept

    Sammy Finkelman (88f52d)

  5. scummy FBI pansy James Comey’s flagrant corruption and sniveling cowardice

    this does not serve to motivate stinkypig fans

    but people what deep down wanna make America great again?

    oh yes

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  6. JVW,

    This is surprising, and you may want to include it in your list: the AP on how Clinton email claims collapsed under FBI probe:

    Key assertions by Hillary Clinton in defense of her email practices have collapsed under FBI scrutiny.

    The agency’s yearlong investigation found that she did not, as she claimed, turn over all her work-related messages for release. It found that her private email server did carry classified emails, also contrary to her past statements. And it made clear that Clinton used many devices to send and receive email despite her statements that she set up her email system so that she only needed to carry one.

    Amusingly, this right before the president said of Clinton at the NC campaign rally:

    There’s never been any man or woman more qualified to be president than Hillary Clinton.

    Dana (995455)

  7. If anybody — ANYBODY — but Donald Trump were the Republican candidate, Hillary Clinton would have to withdraw, having no chance to become president. But with Trump, a person manifestly incapable of carrying out the duties of the office, she has a pretty good shot. Sure, she’s a liar, a scoundrel and ought to be in prison. But Trump, she will argue, is worse.

    Imagine instead Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Bush, Walker, Perry, Ryan or Romney. They’d be up 20 points right now. Trump is still losing to this crook.

    It’s enough to make you scream.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  8. #NEVERTRUMP LOOKING PRETTY OLD AND BUSTED TODAY, AIN’T IT?

    #Nevertrump never looked more apropos. Trump is the only person who can’t beat this sack of sh1t. Which was the whole plan all along.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  9. I am going to go reread Vince Flynn’s Term Limits. There was a guy with the right idea.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  10. oh my goodness somebody smacked it right smack dab in the schnozzle

    but whatever, NeverTrumpers – keep obsessing over Trump’s negligent mishandling of a retweet.

    Let’s elect Hillary Clinton – because she’s closer to you in class assumptions than the garish, vulgar Trump is. And that’s what matters in the end. Class affinity.

    – Mr. Spades

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  11. link

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  12. And that’s what makes this latest debacle so utterly frustrating, Kevin M. (Aside from the lack of recommendation for indictment). At the end of the day, we’re simply hosed. I’m so disheartened because not that long ago I was genuinely excited at the prospect of actually enthusiastically voting for a candidate that I could wholeheartedly support, and who met my personal criteria for what I believed to be in the best interest of the party, the country, and most importantly conservatism. Obviously, the rest of he country views it differently as we’re left with Trump and Cruz is a mere memory on the campaign trail. Out of 17 candidates, we’re left with Trump to beat Hillary.

    Dana (995455)

  13. Comey made it unnecessary for Lynch to deepsix this mess. So she owes him. OTOH, he laid out the facts that Hillary actually was guilty as charged. He even said that somebody else, implicitly somebody without such clout, would actually be prosecuted. Can’t say much worse than that. Not only is she guilty, he says, she’s got the whole thing rigged.

    Richard Aubrey (472a6f)

  14. House Judiciary Committee Chair Goodlatte has written Comey with some questions:

    https://t.co/a5i3brv8uX

    I am concerned that despite finding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acted with extreme carelessness and that evidence exists of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, the FBI is not recommending criminal charges against Secretary Clinton. Little solace is found in your detailed breakdown of the FBI’s findings that Secretary Clinton acted “extremely careless” in mishandling classified information. This raises many questions.

    According to your statement made earlier today, out of the 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department by Secretary Clinton, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains contained 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. Thirty-six chains contained Secret information at the time and eight contained Confidential information.

    Your public pronouncement today of the FBI’s decision to not recommend charges against Secretary Clinton raises a number of questions. I find the timing and manner of your announcement uniquely troubling in light of last week’s secret meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. I respectfully request that you respond to these questions in writing on or before close of business Monday, July 11, 2016.

    1. What sets Secretary Clinton apart from the persons prosecuted for mishandling classified information described above? How does Secretary Clinton’s conduct differ from that of former General David Petraeus or former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger?

    2. If the FBI found evidence of potential crimes related to mishandling of classified information by Secretary Clinton and her staff, why would the FBI pre-judge that “no reasonable prosecutor” would ever bring such a case for negligent mishandling of classified information? Is that not a decision that should be made by the Department of Justice? It strikes me as incredibly unorthodox for you to publicly announce that you are recommending that Secretary Clinton not be charged rather than refer the matter privately to the Department.

    3. The espionage chapter, specifically, 18 U.S.C. 793(f), doesn’t require that a subject act “intentionally” or “knowingly,” but with “gross negligence.”

    Black’s Law defines gross negligence as “a lack of slight diligence or care” or as “a conscious, voluntary, act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party…” In your statement you said that Secretary Clinton handled classified email with “extreme carelessness.” How does that not constitute “gross negligence”?

    4. Why was Secretary Clinton interviewed only once and only at the end of your investigation? Interviews with her at the early stages and throughout your investigation would have shed light on her conduct in this matter. Certainly, Mrs. Clinton’s position as Secretary of State, the non-disclosure agreement she signed as Secretary (and which all federal employees who have access to classified information sign), the painstaking steps she took to circumvent the use of the .gov email system, and her attempts to seek classified devices for use when working inside her State Department office – all clearly point to her knowledge that she handled classified information as Secretary, that she had a duty to do so according to the law, and that she went out of her way to not do so. She was not a rank and file employee with a security clearance. Did this inform your decision?

    5. Section 1924 of title 18, United States Code, prohibits the unlawful removal of classified information and is the statute to which General Petraeus pleaded guilty in 2015.

    Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

    6. Why does the setup of a private server – through which she received Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret classified information – and retention of such information on the private server – not constitute a violation of Section 1924?

    7. Are you concerned that your recommendation that Secretary Clinton not be charged sends a message to the thousands – or millions – of government employees and contractors who possess security clearances (not to mention 535 Members of Congress and Senators) that they don’t need to follow the rules?

    8. I am concerned that classified information on our military’s Special Access Programs and other Top Secret material that Secretary Clinton sent and received over her private server is now in the hands of adversaries who wish to do us harm. If any other American with a security clearance had placed such sensitive information at risk, is there nothing the FBI would have done to recommend sanctions against such person’s extreme carelessness?

    9. What does your recommendation to DOJ that Secretary Clinton not be charged, despite extreme carelessness in the handling of classified information, mean for the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  15. Myself I find myself teeter-tottering between despair and an amiable befuddlement. My goodness there were so many stout fellows to pick from, some of them from quite good schools.

    But then the impudence of democracy – it just barreled into the process like that brain-damaged border collie Aunt Tiffy simply refused to let us put down.

    And now we’re in a bit of a position. How in the name of Alsace Beauregard are we to be at all expected to conjure the requisite zest to participate in an endeavour so crass as America?

    Damn good question, yes yes? Let’s skip over to Sable and we can ponder it over those darling spanish gin and tonics.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  16. Hey, how about let’s not nominate Trump? How about that? Then we can be EFFING SURE not to get Hillary in the White House. Why is having your cult leader on the ticket so effing important? You KNOW he’s gonna lose, but you DON’T CARE! You got a point to make, and to hell with the country!

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  17. When he resigned, most Republicans still supported Nixon. That’s what we have with Trump, except most Republicans never supported him.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  18. it must be some odd fetishism, like whitman, kashkari, haddad (I modified that last line from running man), the last time it didn’t cost 150 million,

    narciso (732bc0)

  19. and yet, the dour quaker was o’doul’s, who were the earnest republicans trying to impress, political surveillance was a fine art, so was finance legerdemain,

    narciso (732bc0)

  20. happyfeet,

    This isn’t a suicide pact. “Democracy” gave us Obama. Twice. Are you arguing that was a good thing? There wasn’t anything we could DO about it, of course. With a PARTY nomination, though, there is. The delegates make the decision and THEY ARE NOT ROBOTS. If they were, they could stay home and get drunk and laid a lot cheaper. Who wants to go to Cleveland anyhow? People who cast a vote in February may not want to make the same vote in July. And even if they do, they spent what, 20 seconds on “the issues” between episodes of CSI, while the folks in Cleveland know electoral politics like the back of their hand.

    Fukc democracy. This is a republic, for a reason.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  21. all you offer is whining Mr. M

    there’s only one just and proper way to prevent a haughty criminal stinkypig from sitting on america’s face and riding like the kentucky derby

    and his name is Mr. Donald Trump, and it matters not a whit what you think of him

    there is only do

    or do not

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  22. Hillary is like having rat poison for dinner. Nearly any other choice looks good. Trump, however is unappealing even then. Day old wormy dog crap. Still, if you have to eat one….

    But suppose you could have hamburger, or steak, or lobster, or candy bars? Would you really say “No, back in February people thought this day old wormy dog crap looked pretty good, so that’s what we’re going to go with. It’s democracy! You’re not one of those rat poison people are you?”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  23. Do not. I’ll vote for the LP like I did with Dole.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  24. just make a sandwich

    you’re overthinking it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  25. Happyfeet, all you offer is hopelessness. Utter and complete despair. Hillary is the second-worst candidate every to run for the presidency and you lot and dead set on running the only person she can beat.

    And you call yourselves patriots, when you are really on the other side.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  26. If I could only type.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  27. Mr. Trump has more fight in him than meghan’s coward daddy and pervy mitt romney combined on their best days Mr. M.

    I think he’s going to win.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  28. I’m kind of interested in Joan Walsh’s piece in The Nation. I would bet that the majority of the magazine’s editors (and readers) would prefer Bernard Sanders or Elizabeth Warren (or even Jill Stein) to Hillary!, but they understand that they have to play good soldier in order to block the nasty ol’ GOP. I only quoted a brief paragraph of her piece, but she essentially begs Hillary! to come forward with a sincere mea culpa and to take steps to convince the American people that she understands their concerns and to — get this — “commit herself to transforming the culture at the State Department and throughout the federal government as president.” Something about a fox and a henhouse comes to mind, though it could be interesting if Hillary! expresses a desire to appoint a Republican as attorney general, just to keep her honest.

    And Ms. Walsh does her arguments no favors with this clunker: “. . . while Comey did find that a few e-mails Clinton sent were actually marked classified, the vast majority of supposedly ‘classified’ e-mails under scrutiny were not.”

    Because, you know, sure I held up my neighborhood liquor store at gunpoint a few times, but the vast number of times it was held up it was actually someone else involved.

    JVW (eabb2a)

  29. It’s one thing for Trump to have “fight in him,” it’s another thing entirely to be moored to a set of principles and values that are foundational to your political belief system as well as understanding and respecting the Rule of Law – and knowing what it is. I see nothing in Trump that gives the indication that he is any of the above. However, if this election is about brawlers and bravado, you’ve got your man. But don’t try to dress him up as anything but.

    Dana (995455)

  30. Who Romneyed Ted? I can scarcely believe he put out this statement. He just go this head handed him by an electorate starving for bold and righteous conservative leadership. This is what he comes out with?

    If Texans would not support a full-throated attack on what has been done, his re-election is entirely pointless, anyway.

    https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2722

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  31. I gotta go meemees Dana but Mr. Trump is a testing I think

    I will face my trump

    I will let him pass over me and through me

    And, when he has passed, America, she will be great again

    and the stinkypig will pass into legend myth and folktale

    A story with which to frighten children

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  32. As someone infamously said: you have to suspend disbelief.
    HillClit is a criminal.

    jb (9badd6)

  33. I have a lot of lefty friends from my college days and up to today, they have been in full chirp about the election, with a lot of them extolling Clinton for her fundamental honesty (per Jill Abrahmson’s notorious article from earlier this year). Today, it’s been radio silence. That’s telling.

    Mr. D (ee128f)

  34. Today, it’s been radio silence. That’s telling.

    I was thinking the same thing, Mr. D. I have a number of pro-Hillary friends who haven’t exactly been shy about posting positive things about her on Facebook, but for some reason today — when they theoretically have been cleared — they have been remarkably silent. Is that a sign that deep down they know they really dodged a bullet, one they probably didn’t deserve to dodge.

    JVW (eabb2a)

  35. I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry She’s So Loathsome She Should ____

    You hear that tiresome federal shill
    Looked like a beaten man
    And freedom’s flame is burning low
    She’s so loathsome she should ___

    I’ve never seen a sadder sight
    When truth slinked out the door
    The sun just crawled behind the clouds
    To hide its face and cry

    Did you ever hear a taller tale
    When honor hit the road?
    But some, their souls are up for sale
    She’s so loathsome she should ___

    The silence of a falling star
    Brought low what once was high
    And as I wonder who we are
    And she’s so loathsome she should ___

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  36. Silas Tolliver – Deadwood Gazzette

    Hillary Clinton don’t get convicted of any crime in any court convened by humans.
    They’ll buy the judge, and if they can’t, the jury or witnesses. If not, they’ll start into killin’.
    What are we talkin’ about?
    Why would we want to know?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  37. Mr. Trump has more fight in him

    So what? Yosemite Sam had a lot of fight in him, and look what happened every time he went up against Bugs.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  38. I dunno. Let’s take it a step further. Comey said she’s guilty. Somebody else doing the same would be prosecuted.
    But the Justice Department–which is to say Lynch–and the admin, which is to say Obama are so crooked that there’s no chance of going further with this.
    He could have said the prosecution should go forward and prove his thesis, but instead he left it implicit.
    An indicted, prosecuted Hillary is a martyred Hillary dumped upon by the VRWC and, as such, innocent as the newest lamb.
    This…leaves smog hanging over her.

    Richard Aubrey (472a6f)

  39. What a maroon.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  40. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 7/5/2016 @ 6:40 pm
    Very poignant, Colonel. Perfect choice.

    felipe (408c5f)

  41. Ed,

    Ted called Comey a dishonest crony in Senate-speak. Yeah, I want the House judiciary committee to issue a bill of impeachment tonight, but they don’t do it that way. Too busy making like they’re solid, respectable, steady people even though the press will paint the GOP as Sons of Trump for the next couple of decades. *sigh*

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  42. Comey’s right about one thing. No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Her Royal Clinton-ness. They have spouses and children!

    Karl Lembke (cd9062)

  43. Our only chance is that in the next two weeks, before the convention, Hillary becomes 100% certain that if Trump is the nominee he will beat her in November.

    Does Trump bench press or go for walks in the park at night?

    nk (dbc370)

  44. “You’re either Democrat, or you’re little people”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  45. extolling Clinton for her fundamental honesty
    I have to admit, “fundamental honesty” is a phrase I have never associated with Hillary.

    kishnevi (18dae1)

  46. Thanks felipe. When sung by BJ Thomas, that old Hank Williams song nearly always brings a tear to my eye. Today it was more a feeling of rage.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  47. Our only chance is that in the next two weeks, before the convention, Hillary becomes 100% certain that if Trump is the nominee he will beat her in November.

    And what? Bill will call Donnie up and tell him to bag it? That the deal is off and if the loses there won’t be any government contracts?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  48. Comey has written the first line in his obituary today.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  49. Up until the last few years, I felt certain and not a little proud to have been born in what I believed was a nation that had the rule of law, the greatest country the world has ever known. That feeling has been steadily eroded and today was like a punch to the gut. Something has to change.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  50. Colonel, one of your best song parodies yet! Kudos.

    JVW (eabb2a)

  51. Thank you, JVW.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  52. The only thing that can save us now is a Democrat revolt, where Warren or Biden (not an out-and-out flake like Sanders) double-crosses her behind the scenes and forces her to step down. But that scenario is amazingly unlikely. Clinton is so heavily dialed-in to most of the Democrat power brokers (Cuomo, McAullife, Wasserman-Schultz, Pelosi, etc.) that it’s really hard to see any of them playing Cassius and Brutus to her Julius Caesar, and most of the prominent Democrats left who can’t stand her (Jerry Brown, Raul Grijalva, Alan Grayson) are such nutcases that they don’t stand a chance against her machine.

    JVW (eabb2a)

  53. No decision on the Clinton email case will please everyone, of course. But Comey’s announcement takes the path of the least amount of politicalization in a uniquely politically charged case.

    Orin Kerr, one of the bloggers with The Volokh Conspiracy, hosted at the Washington Post.

    A legal scholar, who seems to believe that Comey’s job is to find the solution that minimizes the political outcome that may result from a criminal investigation.

    Anon Y. Mous (9e4c83)

  54. I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere, but consider, if Trump were smart (I know, I know), he could really use this to peel off some Bernie voters by focusing on the fact that yet another privileged, Wall Street beneficiary, and 1%er in her own right is above the law and walks off scot-free. Only the privileged get this treatment, not the little people working in the trenches.

    Dana (995455)

  55. JVW (eabb2a) — 7/5/2016 @ 6:13 pm

    though it could be interesting if Hillary! expresses a desire to appoint a Republican as attorney general, just to keep her honest.

    As some Democrats are fond of pointing out, Comey is a Republican.

    And so was a special prosecutor – Lawrence Walsh – who issued what was almost certainly a politically motivated indictment to help the Democrat get elected a day or so before the 1992 Presidential election.

    Sammy Finkelman (88f52d)

  56. I believe that Patrick Fitzgerald, for that matter, was also a registered Republican.

    JVW (eabb2a)


  57. I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere, but consider, if Trump were smart (I know, I know), he could really use this to peel off some Bernie voters by focusing on the fact that yet another privileged, Wall Street beneficiary, and 1%er in her own right is above the law and walks off scot-free. Only the privileged get this treatment, not the little people working in the trenches.

    It’s interesting, Dana, in that the wildcard seems to be how vigorously Sanders continues to attack the presumptive GOP nominee. For the past several weeks, he’s gone on a pretty blistering attack against him, obviously because the Dems are worried that Sanders voters are wildcards and might be amenable to this particular GOP candidate. But with all of Hillary!’s problems, does Sanders decide to tone down his rhetoric or do the Bernie Bros decide that she is so awful that they don’t care what their guy thinks, they’re going to shake up the system by voting for the GOP interloper? And if it looks like the GOP candidate is doing well with the Bernie Bros, does Sanders then wash his hands of it so that he’s not embarrassed by his inability to keep them in the fold? Lots of intriguing possibilities.

    JVW (eabb2a)

  58. She’s going to become our next President.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  59. RE: AP fact check.

    That was not a complete fact check, but just an illustration of a few places where Comey contradicted earlier statements by Hillary Clinton.

    CLINTON: “I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work related” to the State Department. News conference, March 2015.

    The AP says the second half of the sentence is a lie (although she could claim she believed that at the time. She made that claim on the basis of the State Department indicating it was satisfied, and the State Department did so on the basis that they did not have the other copy of any e-mails that she did not send, so John Kerry said he thought they had them all now. That’s why “work-related pretty much equalled exchanged with state.gov addresses)

    When what she did to select the e-mails is explained, and it was explained right at the beginning, it is clear that it was not, and could not be, the case, that she had supplied all work-related e-mails, and we didn’t need Comey to tell us that! I mean, I knew it. State.gov did not equal work-related. Even if you didn’t know about some of her aides also having an e-mail address on her private and exclusive e-mail service. She was implying only mail exchanged woth satte.gov addresses or with whitehouse.gov addresses was work related. Furthermore that would not count any communications where somebody from outside the government asked her to do something.

    But the first half of the sentence is a lie, too:

    “I responded right away:

    She did not. What happened was she negotiated with John Kerry’s State Department and got them to change the request from one to her to one to all previous living Secretaries of State who had used e-mail. This has not been heavily investigated, and is pretty much a lost fact.

    To that second or third request, which came maybe two or three months after the first one, she responded fairly quickly, but still took some time to deliver the e-mails, and did so only after printing them out, although she had preserved them electronically. That made them unsearchable, Except now it was almost 2015, and scanning technology was pretty good. It also omitted the metadat and the numbering system.

    All that was before the Trey committee investigating Benghazi had any inkling that Hillary Clinton’s e-mails were not in the possession of the State Department at all (except when someone saved the other copy. It was getting copies of e-mails from her when other people’s subpoenaed e-mails were turned over to the committee, but nothing at all when it was her records that were subpoenaed, that sparked the committee’s curiosity. They didn’t have her copy of any e-mails. They knew it should have been turned over.)

    Sammy Finkelman (88f52d)

  60. 56.I believe that Patrick Fitzgerald, for that matter, was also a registered Republican.

    Seems quite a few registered republicans fly the coop when the goin’ gets tough. Seems to be in the Republican DNA. Funny that all the democrats do when their guy (or gal) is in trouble is circle the wagons and double down. And any of you guys who believe those commie Sanders supporters are gonna vote for any Republican are idiots. Democrats know how to hold their party together and sort it out later. Hell, they have almost all the blacks and all the Hispanic votes and their interests are diametrically opposed to each other. We can’t even keep half of you guys in the party and the alternative is a corruptocrat neocommunist.

    Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6)

  61. They should have at least taken down a subordinate for covering up. It would only be fair.

    AZ Bob (d6a3a9)

  62. seriously, what does the gope stand for ‘absolutely nothing say it again’ consider the thick and yet pathetic gruel of the ‘benghazi report’, which could have resumed in five pages tops,

    narciso (732bc0)

  63. Silas Tolliver – Deadwood Gazzette

    I guess my question is who of us here didn’t know what government was before we came? Wasn’t half our purpose coming to get shed of the [edit]? And here it catches up to us again, to do what’s in its nature; to lie to us; and confuse us and steal what we come to by toil and being lucky just once in our [edit] lives. And are we gonna be surprised by that, boys, government bein’ government? Will we next be shocked by rivers runnin’ or trees castin’ [edit] shade?

    (sighs) You’re gonna find out somethin’ now about yourselves and your fellow man, how you handle adversity, or rumors of adversity, or ill fortune, or turns of luck. And I’m not going to further rumor or be a party to that [edit]. Do you want to know where I stand? You just look the [edit] where I’m standing. You’ll find out all you need to know. I ain’t going anywhere!

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  64. The best that will happen with the Sanders voters is that they will stay home, or vote for Jill Stein. They won’t vote for Trump any more than most #nevertrumps will vote for Hillary. Some of Sanders folks will vote or her and go home and lie about it, just as some #nevertrumps will do with Trump.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  65. There is such dissatisfaction with the two TERRIBLE candidates though, it has just gotta suck getting up in the morning if you’re a Secret Service agent. Can you imagine throwing your body between either one of them and a shooter? We’re not talking Rushmore here.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  66. 16. Kevin M (25bbee) — 7/5/2016 @ 5:47 pm

    Hey, how about let’s not nominate Trump? How about that?

    the delegates who want to prevent this are going about this entirely the wrong way. They are talking about releasing delegates from their pledges.

    The rules change that would work is one that require a supermajority to nominate a candidate. Not as high as 2/3 which is really high, but say, 62%. That would also keep candidates running longer during the primaries. But this is almost a lost cause, but is easier, and more principled than the other. It’s still lost because it may not come to a vote, or win one.

    Better would be re-establishing the Whig Party and naming multiple candidates for president (as in 1836) to run in different states (but the same candidate for vice president, so some rich billionaire can pay for it all – at least to get on the ballot)

    Also, having some state Republican parties name somebody else besides Donald Trump as the Republican nominee, even if they have to secede from the national Republican party to do that.

    They should name people who are credible presidents – not Gary Johnson.

    The fact that there are multiple third party candidates, in different states (not competing with each other) can increase the third party vote, as only one of them can make it into the House of Representatives, and people will want ir to be the one compatible with their state electorate, rather than, say, Ted Cruz. Andin texas they’d want it to be Ted Cruz. Only one third party candidate can make it into the House of Representatives, but all can contribute to preventing an Electoral College for anyone. If it gets into the House, the leading third party candidate is well positioned to become the president. The House does not vote by simple majority, and in practical terms, something like 57% may be requirred on the first ballot.

    Although you have the complication of one of the two major party vice presidential candidates becoming Acting president if the House cannot decide. (the senate does vote by simple majority from among the top two)

    If it’s the Democrat who wins, Hillary Clinton will become president behind the scenes, but still weaker than if she had the title, and nobody should give it to her on the grounds of this being the best way of ending this.

    Sammy Finkelman (88f52d)

  67. And any of you guys who believe those commie Sanders supporters are gonna vote for any Republican are idiots.

    Hoagie is right. The best we could hope is that Clinton gets so smelly that Bernie’s contingent of occupy wall street stays home.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  68. Comey’s right about one thing. No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Her Royal Clinton-ness. They have spouses and children!
    Karl Lembke (cd9062) — 7/5/2016 @ 7:03 pm

    It just occurred to me that the decision to bring a case or not lies with the prosecutor. Law enforcement usually asked the prosecutor to make the call, especially in a controversial case. Police even ask DA’s to give them a written rejection on weak cases. But they make a visit to the DA for that document in order to spread the blame. This was very unusual for Comey to make the call and then have a press conference to explain it.

    The fix was in.

    AZ Bob (d6a3a9)

  69. yes, why would they risk being called racist and idiot, they would rather wallow in their own filth, they might cause a ruckuss in the city of brotherly love, (unlikely but possible)

    narciso (732bc0)

  70. Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 7/5/2016 @ 8:08 pm

    Hell, they have almost all the blacks and all the Hispanic votes and their interests are diametrically opposed to each other.

    Only under the “lump of labor” theory of employment. It’s not true. And only some Republicans subscribe to it.

    Some Democrats do think imports are taking away jobs, but not other people in the United States. And if you do think that, why limit the distinction between those you want to discrimnate in favor and those you want to discriminate in employment against to American citizens versus those who are not? More logical anyway is union members vs those who are not.

    Democratic voters also may think money is unevenly or unfairly divided within the United States, and everybody should get at least $15 an hour all the time, unless they get $0 an hour, or a negative number (that is, pay for education or training or have somebody else pay for it.) It’s not their job to ask where the money to pay the wages is going to come from.

    Sammy Finkelman (88f52d)

  71. AZ Bob (d6a3a9) — 7/5/2016 @ 8:28 pm

    This was very unusual for Comey to make the call and then have a press conference to explain it.

    And he said so.

    Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

    His excuse is that this makes everything more transparent.

    Whose idea was this press briefing? He didn’t say. That’s not being transparent.

    He says he didn’t discuss WHAT he would say with the with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government.

    But did he discuss it with Hillary Clinton’s lawyers???

    For sure, he did. Defense lawyers sometimes argue with prosecutors against indictment. Surely they discussed this with them – and her lawyers included at least two politcal aides doubling as lawyers – and surely in the end he gave them a heads up. Surely they told Hillary. Surely Hllary (or some intermediary) told Barack Obama. Surely Barack Obama told his justice department what was in store, and to have Comey issue a public statement.

    Sammy Finkelman (88f52d)

  72. All this stuff — e.g., the Atlantic quote above — about how “Comey may have really hurt Hillary yada yada” is the biggest load of bullcrap I’ve seen since the last time I bothered to watch Trump speak on TV.

    Yes, at the margin, there may be someone, somewhere, who will decide, based on Comey’s remarks, not to vote for HRC who otherwise would have. But I suspect you could comfortably fit everyone who’s mind is actually changed, or even much affected, by those remarks.

    If you didn’t know long before this election that the Clintons are criminals, you’re living in a world of fantasy in which you barely notice that there is such a thing as an FBI Director.

    Remarks by Comey or anyone else notwithstanding, there are millions of voters who are inclined to vote for HRC anyway which will look only, if at all, at the fact that she wasn’t indicted. That’s the “permission slip” they need to cast aside their reservations and doubts, their Bernie leanings, etc.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  73. see you find (redacted) reasons, why not to go with the nominee, doesn’t matter how laws are broken, the stench of corruptiom, the gag inducing debris strewn from dhaka to baghdad, which are the direct result of administration policies, that she helmed and even came up with,

    narciso (732bc0)

  74. Sorry, left a sentence fragment there, meant to write: But I suspect you could comfortably fit everyone who’s mind is actually changed, or even much affected, by those remarks into an averaged size New Hampshire hockey rink.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  75. probably, there is little that causes them to recoil, well perhaps having to affirm god and/or israel, that maybe a deal braker,

    narciso (732bc0)

  76. 18 U.S.C. § 793 (f).
    That’s all that needs to be said. Argument’s over. It was a moral imperative that she be prosecuted under that statute.

    Post-Constitutional, indeed.

    Evan3457 (79ccc1)

  77. yes, one classified email was enough, 2,000+, its all you can eat banquet, for mr, creosote,

    narciso (732bc0)

  78. Evan3457, everyone who ever held a security clearance knows she is guilty as sin.

    And Comey who was supposed to be some icon of integrity has shown he is just a w***e. Like the rest of them.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  79. I remember when liberals were all gung ho for the prosecution of Scooter Libby.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  80. What you are supposed to do.

    http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/2697/cromwell-john-philip.php

    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 U.S.S. 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 U.S. Naval Service. He gallantly gave his life for his country.

    I think this country owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  81. From Day One, the progressive movement sought to eliminate standards, the better to eliminate “judgment.” We’ve gone from demanding the highest ethical behaviors in leaders of all types, to accepting all but court-proven criminal felonious behaviors.

    Cultures? All are as good as any other. Behavioral profiles? Eeeevil. Consequences? Responsibility? Honor????? Hahahahaha.

    There is no overcoming this rot. Any hopes of a providentially inspired nation rest on an entirely new foundation. One of which, I am rather certain, is not attainable without a baptism of fire.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  82. Sorry. Just not a fan of betraying the country.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  83. UPDATE BY PATTERICO: An instant classic:

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  84. And she will be the President.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  85. Pat, are you trying to make me vomit?

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  86. Hopefully, Trump will prosecute this travesty in a populist tone that highlights how there’s one set of rules for the elites, and one set of rules for the rest of us.
    Marco Rubio would probably have been the best proponent of such a campaign, considering that his father was a bartender and his mother a maid at Motel 6 and a stock clerk at K-Mart.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  87. probably they will go green party

    Don’t underestimate the mindless Hollywood progressive’s ability to climb back on the bandwagon when needed. Today they are tired of the elite being given special treatment, tomorrow they will decide that nothing is more important than stopping “that dangerous racist” on the GOP side (whomever that may be).

    JVW (eabb2a)

  88. @JVW, you’ll never go broke.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  89. Aristotle – “that arbitrary power of an individual which is responsible to no one, and governs all alike, whether equals or betters, with a view to its own advantage, not to that of its subjects, and therefore against their will. No freeman willingly endures such a government.”

    mg (31009b)

  90. Point:

    When there is a decision not to prosecute, it would probably be considered unethical to describe what she did in any negative way, unless she consented. When a grand jury decides not to indict how much does a prosecutir say? So this all must have been worked out with Hillary Clinton’s lawyers. Who included a top aide or two.

    Hillary Clinton’s lawers, because they had to agree to anything negative about her being discussed, must have been told, and they, in turn told Hillary, who in turn told Obama, who in turn told Attorney General Loretta Lynch (some lower ranking officials than the president and the Attorney egeneral might have been the one told instead, but the point is the same) So people at DOJ knew that his recommmendation would be not to prosecute, and must have told him even to announce it all himself, because he is a non-political figure.

    And while he said what he was going to say had not been told to people at DOJ, this is probably not true for the bare fact that it would be not to prosecute – because if it was to prosecute, but there was a possibility that she would not be prosecuted, it would be considered unethical to go into the charges. It is highly unlikely he came up with the idea of giving a press conference all by himself. The FBI never does that, as he said. When a grand jury does not indict, its it the police detectives, or the highest ranking prosecutor who makes the announcement?

    Sammy Finkelman (88f52d)

  91. It appears that Comey has stepped beyond his pay grade. He’s gone so far that the position he has assumed is one that hasn’t existed before. He and Roberts must be pals.

    Is it possible that neither are aware of their role in the destruction of the Republic? Both are high level plumbers for the progressive oppression of the country.

    Our poor RINOs. Their orderly little world is no more. It’s all brass knuckles past this point. Their fear of the media is about to be replaced with a more fear-worthy foe, a totally unrestrained administration.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  92. no worries!

    pervy Mitt Romney knows what to do Mr. Bob

    he went to Harvard you know

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  93. …Their fear of the media is about to be replaced with a more fear-worthy foe, a totally unrestrained administration.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe) — 7/6/2016 @ 4:00 am

    I held out some hope that Comey would not knuckle under. But the more talk I heard about his supposed integrity, the more I began to suspect the fix was in. Only someone with Comey’s supposed credibility could clear her.

    She’s guilty. There’s no getting around it. Anyone who wasn’t the presumptive Democratic party nominee would be on her or his way to prison for this.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  94. Hubris has been at play here. Nemesis won’t be far behind. This is Athens magnified by a thousand.

    The going price on integrity is depressingly pitiful.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  95. http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/2015-doj-prosecutes-a-naval-reservist-for-mishandling-classified-info-without-malicious-intent/

    Since I’m already disgusted with myself for sending otherwise good Sailors to prison for mishandling classified, I might as well go ahead and vote for Trump.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  96. Turning the Anti-Abortion Tide

    Pro-choice groups have set out to take advantage of the momentum. NARAL Pro-Choice America immediately launched a campaign to mobilize voters on behalf of Hillary Clinton. In a statement, NARAL announced plans to pull “out all the stops and contact millions of voters through the primary and the general elections in order to make sure reproductive freedom and equality for women are at the top of voters’ minds when they go to the ballot box this November.”

    go go nevertrumpers!

    them wiggle giggles don’t stand a chance 🙂

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  97. oh.

    gross.

    the trashy failmerican obsession with megalotto balls is back

    No Mega Millions winner; Friday jackpot increases to $508M

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  98. Paul Jeanne came out of Sam’s Lobby Shop in downtown Baltimore, Maryland, on Tuesday waving a handful of Mega Millions tickets, jokingly claiming he was holding a fortune in his hands, the Baltimore Sun reported.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  99. The pro-life movement has not been successful in its strategy to prevent abortions. It is time to change it. We should actively help women who want abortions to have abortions. Help them abort themselves out of the gene pool. In one or two generations, there will be few, if any, “elective” abortions. In the meantime, we will gave reduced both the crime rate and the welfare rolls.

    Similarly, the more Eric Fannings, Bradley Mannings, Edward Snowdens and other detritus we have in the military and the civilian national security services, the sooner the Caliphate will get here to throw them off of rooftops.

    Unencumbered, a new, lean, clean America will then be able to rise again.

    nobody kareslol (dbc370)

  100. don’t forget bowe bergdork

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  101. Yes, yes, and he did manage to help the Taliban kill and disable other tatted-up illiterates, even though he himself survived and there’s a remote possibility that he might breed.

    nobody kareslol (dbc370)

  102. yes yes plus he helped food stamp free a bunch of his terrorist friends from the guantanamo

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  103. Paul Jeanne is a Haitian “refugee” who while on welfare works under-the-table as a non-union roofer. He says he spends about $100 a week on lottery but “ween it gets these big …like…today…I speend $450.” Paul Jeanne, PJ to his friends, pulls down a cool $30k a year in government bennys and another $35k in non-taxed cash money working for a local black-market roofer. When asked when he’ll become a citizen PJ replied: “No…No ceetizen. Don’t need to be ceetizen”. He thinks this is his lucky year because he just received a brand newly built home fully subsidized by the government after being on the waiting list two years. He says he can vote because “they signed me up “democratic” when he got his driver license under Maryland’s Motor-Voter law.

    Funny thing, several years ago before my wife became a citizen I took her to our local DMV to renew her license. They tried to register her. I said to the lady “She’s not a citizen” and she said she was sorry, she didn’t know. How would she know when she didn’t ask and why would she ask when she didn’t care? Her job was to sign up democrats not check and see who they are, after all at this point what difference does it make?

    Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6)

  104. A Trump line that would be fun (but he won’t think of):

    “Anyone who has a Top Secret clearance and who votes for Hillary ought to lose it. It might wind up on the polygraph list”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  105. Rev. Hoagie, ropelight, I take back everything I said.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  106. No Mega Millions winner; Friday jackpot increases to $508M

    Which really means about $150 million.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  107. I think you’re still wrong. But then, so am I.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  108. Here is this:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437487/hillary-clinton-threat-political-legitimacy

    I know the father of one of those killed looking for Bergdahl, he was a warrior, husband, and father, uncle, and son,
    Not a tatted up illiterate.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  109. MD, if he were a tatted up illiterate he’d be better than Hillary!

    But you and I know better than that.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  110. I bet he could keep a secret.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  111. 61. That’s a rich one. Does she really want to incur the wwrath of whichever cells Humas cousins are down with?

    urbanleftbehind (4a67fe)

  112. It is clear now that Paglione was granted immunity to shield him from prosecution.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  113. Found on internet. Is this a real tweet from the real Donald Trump, you think? https://i.sli.mg/RXH4yY.png

    nk (dbc370)

  114. Steve57 (ecac13) — 7/6/2016 @ 4:19 am

    Anyone who wasn’t the presumptive Democratic party nominee would be on her or his way to prison for this.

    Maybe not prison, but part of the deal would be that they wouild get out of politics, like New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer. But we have higher ethical and legal standards for Governor, Senator and, especially, Vice President, than we have for president – the Clintons proved that.

    Sammy Finkelman (88f52d)

  115. nk (dbc370) — 7/6/2016 @ 7:02 am

    Is this a real tweet from the real Donald Trump, you think? https://i.sli.mg/RXH4yY.png

    Probably. He went very pro-LGBT after Orlando.

    This tweet sounds like a response to some other tweet, which we do not see here. So that is like the one where he thanked people for the congratulations for being right on terrorism after Orlando.

    I did not (quickly anyway) find a direct link to that tweet, but here is TheHill citing that tweet:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283438-trump-thanks-lgbt-community-after-orlando-attacks

    Here is Hillary Clinton responding to Donald Trump trying to gain support from the LGBT people on the grounds that radical Moslems are their enemies, and he will protect them from radical Moslems r people who might be radical Moslems:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/743842950912737281

    Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton

    Donald Trump says he’s “the real friend” of the LGBT community. Yeah, no. amp.twimg.com/v/b3afb2a3-1b6…

    9:29 AM – 17 Jun 2016

    Sammy Finkelman (88f52d)

  116. When Trump talks about supporting LGBTs, he is, as am I, referring to this

    Horatio (94dc4f)

  117. Heh! Trump does not drink, though. For real.

    nk (dbc370)

  118. The people who hacked her emails certainly want Hillary to be president. You’ll get excellent cooperation from the US on any issue. Very easy to drop a hint that you have the goods.

    Jcurtis (37e2aa)

  119. Comey agreed to answer questions from the oversight committee tomorrow. He seems like a man daring the AG to fire him.Interesting….

    vor2 (494009)

  120. meanwhile, the triteness of the narrative,

    http://www.torontosun.com/2016/07/05/the-historical-roots-of-islamist-terrorism?

    narciso (732bc0)

  121. Steve57, I’m at the point where I may not even vote. I know, I just gave Leviticus that whole speech about how “all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing” but frankly at this point what good would it do?

    The down ballot means $hit if she’s on the top. Period. That’s the truth. With her as President whatever else occurs short of a revolution won’t mean crap. Every time someone sings God Bless America and gets sued by the government; every time a little girl is accosted in a public area by a pervert who happens to be “identifying as a man” that day; every new gun law passed until confiscation is achieved de facto; every time an illegal alien or moslem is taken in by a democrat run sanctuary city; I will kick myself but frankly, what good is my vote when so many fellow Republicans refuse to vote with me against Hillary!? If you think not voting for Hillary! means you are not part of the problem you are wrong. That is precisely the problem.

    We are accepting that a kleptocracy will install itself at the highest levels of power and from that kleptocracy will flow all the rules, regulations and laws we little people must obey under penalty of law. What kind of government should we expect to have from Hillary!? We are Venezuela.

    Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6)

  122. I can’t speak for anyone else here narciso, but Steve57 and I are well aware of the history of islam. But thanks for the reminder.

    Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6)

  123. #122 Rev Hoagie,

    The left is playing you into their hands.
    “Alinsky 101” is all about demoralizing people into believing that no matter what happens, they just can’t win. And so they become discouraged, and resign to themselves to the authority of the left wing state.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  124. Hoagie, I really am too old for this s**t.

    I wish I could make other people care.

    Three minute rounds? Just not happening.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  125. Three three minute rounds.

    Steve57 (ecac13)

  126. 127.

    The brand of overalls Melbourne guy was wearing is one which I thought was a brand for infant/toddler clothes.
    The clothes make the man, or the infant in this case.

    kishnevi (4aeca3)

  127. Tell me about it Steve57.

    Here’s an example of an American “Melbourne Guy” type of occurrence, narciso. I began watching a new TV show called Animal Kingdom it’s about a “family” of criminals. Looked interesting because they were close an yet detached at the same time. Totally antisocial psychos. Then, for no reason in episode three the eldest son has a homo tryst with another guy in a public rest room stall at the beach (they live in Cali). I let it go. The fourth episode has the grandmother, yes grandmother having lesbian sex with another old hag. This is supposed to be a crime show but they just can’t help themselves on the left coast. Every show MUST have a fag. Every show must use the Modern Family template of sexual as well as psychological dysfunction. I mean after all these are lousy white people in lousy, racist America what else would one expect?

    I can’t even watch a friggin’ crime show any more without homo propaganda. It’s a crime show, for god sake shoot somebody already!

    Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6)

  128. I dvr’d the first episode but didn’t watch it, was watching peaky blinders, about good old fashioned gypsy gangsters in birmingham in the 20s, the main character is invented, but he best scotland yards men and the early iteration of the cosa nostra, kills commies and betrays the ira for good measure,

    narciso (732bc0)

  129. That Melbourne Man rot is beyond Portland,OR in every way imaginable. But the dirty little secret, in the words of the Urbanophile (Aaron M. Renn), Portland is white-flight (from California) writ large.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  130. Shocked, but not surprised. Color me cynical.

    Bar Sinister (c62a89)

  131. Koch Brothers and mens rea Hell.

    Bush lied people died is now out the window, forever.

    If you can’t show an intent to lie, you can’t blame bush…..

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses (299687)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2840 secs.