Ying and Yang on Obama vs. Trump

At this point, all reporting by mainstream media must be questioned. There is no benefit of belief. Disbelief is the instinctive reaction for much of the public.

No wonder Trump took a pass on the WH Correspondents’ Dinner. Good move.

Just over a week ago McCabe told Reince Priebus that reporting on Russia was wrong. Remember they raised questions about Priebus even asking the FBI or Comey to help correct the record about the claims.

But James Comey and the FBI said they could not or would not do anything to correct those reports. And they said they would have no comment about it.

Here is a subsequent NYT report (Feb 23) on the details

WASHINGTON — White House chief of staff Reince Priebus asked a top FBI official to dispute media reports that President Donald Trump’s campaign advisers were frequently in touch with Russian intelligence agents during the election, a White House official said late Thursday.

The official said Priebus’ request came after the FBI told the White House it believed a New York Times report last week describing those contacts was not accurate. As of Thursday, the FBI had not stated that position publicly and there was no indication it planned to.

The New York Times reported that U.S. agencies had intercepted phone calls last year between Russian intelligence officials and members of Trump’s 2016 campaign team.

Priebus’ discussion with FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe sparked outrage among some Democrats, who said he was violating policies intended to limit communications between the law enforcement agency and the White House on pending investigations.

“The White House is simply not permitted to pressure the FBI to make public statements about a pending investigation of the president and his advisers,” said Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. …/

The FBI would not say whether it had contacted the White House about the veracity of the Times report.

Forward to Trump’s accusations of Obama’s administration wiretapping the Trump Tower. The president suggests it, then they demand proof in unison. Yawn.

So they have no proof of collusion with Russia over hacking into emails, ostensibly to “influence our election.” But they go on talking about it as if it were so.

Then we have these reports on the surveillance and investigation of Trump over many months now. Yet as soon as Trump questions that it is dismissed as if there is nothing there. We know it was going on. There was an ongoing investigation, right?

For media, how can they complain that there is no wiretapping surveillance issue at the very time they don’t question the existence on the Russian claims. Now Clapper goes out to say there was no FISA warrant and no evidence of collusion, of Trump’s campaign, with the Russians. Why are we still investigating and taking the collusion as if it were established? Yet they decline to take seriously the wiretap, surveillance claims. Really?

As to Comey, he cannot correct media reports about the collusion claims. But as soon as wiretap claims were leveled, he demands DOJ correct them, then does it himself. His reason was to protect the integrity of the FBI. Again, really? He says he is “incredulous” at the accusation. Within weeks he does two completely opposite things.

Apparently he doesn’t care about the integrity of the presidency. I can’t imagine that going on under Obama. I suppose, in that case, the public would have a right to know. He did come out to make statements clearing Hillary. Now, we don’t have a reason to know that a presidential campaign or members of it were under surveillance. When is it illegal to speak to Russians or their diplomat anyway?

In NRO Andrew McCarthy states about wiretaps that:

A traditional wiretap requires evidence amounting to probable cause of commission of a crime. A FISA wiretap requires no showing of a crime, just evidence amounting to probable cause that the target of the wiretap is an agent of a foreign power. (A foreign power can be another country or a foreign terrorist organization.) Read more

All right, how would they investigate the Russian connections (or lack thereof) without some sort of surveillance? Couple that with a former CIA chief back in August endorsing Hillary Clinton. He used his intelligence credentials to brandish this op-ed claim:

“In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”

Coincidentally, that is the same definition used in a FISA court that a person is either a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.

He closed with this prescient note: “My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing now.”

He lent his expertise and experience as the justification for saying this about Trump and endorsing Hillary. Using that word “agent” of Russian Federation is significant. When have you ever heard a candidate called that, with no proof? All based on his professional career, so he claimed. That was a few months before the supposed wiretap.

They use the bio: “Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.”

The same Mike Morell equated the Russian hacking with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And as Breitbart reported, he now works for Philip Reines, longtime Clinton aide and loyalist. Let’s also remember that Morell was involved in the writing of the Benghazi talking points.

The investigation report on Benghazi determined, in contradiction to Morell’s and Obama officials’ claims, “the talking points were “deliberately” edited to “protect the State Department” — whatever Morell claimed.

“These allegations accuse me of taking these actions for the political benefit of President Obama and then secretary of state Clinton. These allegations are false,” Morell said.

So the report directly contradicts what he said in testimony.

He recently told a reporter in December that:

“To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this [Russia hacking] is the political equivalent of 9/11. It is huge and the fact that it hasn’t gotten more attention from the Obama administration, Congress, and the mainstream media, is just shocking to me.”

Then they also injected the story about a dossier of BS that threw in all kinds of claims. That made its way into presidential briefings, of Obama and Trump, claiming it involved blackmailable info. So they back fed an unsubstantiated report (political op-research) into intelligence, with the help of McCain dropping it on FBI’s doorstep. Then it was surfaced to the top of intelligence, into the PDB.

Think, the Obama administration had wiretapped (*correction: subpoenaed phone records) James Rosen and his family’s phones. So far, many officials have said there is nothing showing proof Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians. Yet nothing prevents Democrats and some in the media from saying that Russia hacked or interfered with the election, when there is no proof of either. Then insinuating that it is connected to Trump.

RightRing | Bullright

Comey turning Explainer-in-Chief?

Sticking to news you wish was fake and the inauguration, the Comey factor is back. Just a cameraman short of a reality show in Washington, Comey weighs a public explanation for his actions during the campaign. Then a generous side-order of Clintons’ explanations.

Add some gasoline to that fire, why don’t you? Democrats are already furious with Comey, claiming he caused them to lose along with the Russian hacking. That is a wild conspiracy: the FBI and Russians in tandem took Hillary down. Does that mean we should be grateful to them both for the election results? I think so.

The Comey explainer would be an inaugural fiasco

Ed Morrissey | December 21, 2016 | Hot Air

Which Inauguration Day event tickets will be tougher to get? An official President Donald J. Trump Ball, or an excruciating exercise in which James Comey tries to “prove” he wasn’t acting in a partisan manner? The latter might hold more promise for history, actually:

/…

Certainly Comey can step through his actions and demonstrate how he wanted to be completely transparent no matter what action he was taking, and that’s at least defensible. His July statement recommending no action on Hillary Clinton took place in the context of a very public investigation, and the FBI faced accusations of partisanship no matter what decision was reached. The only option Comey really had was to offer a thorough public explanation of the conclusion the FBI reached.

http://beta.hotair.com/archives/2016/12/21/new-event-on-the-inauguration-schedule-the-comey-explainer/

Comey seems to be considering it. That would just further ignite all the Left’s conspiracies. Bad enough what Comey did, it only adds more bricks in Hillary’s wall of blame.

More stupidity from Bill and Hillary

On the day of the electoral college vote, Bill Clinton explained their loss: Hillary just could not overcome “the Russians and the FBI deal.” Here comes the victim card.

She could not prevail against them.

CBS

“I’ve never cast a vote I was prouder of,” [Bill] Clinton told reporters after voting for Hillary Clinton in Albany, New York on Monday as one of the state’s Democratic electors. [Bill Clinton continued:]

“You know, I’ve watched her work for two years. I watched her battle through that bogus email deal, be vindicated at the end when Secretary Powell came out. She fought through that. She fought through everything. And she prevailed against it all but at the end we had the Russians and the FBI deal, and she couldn’t prevail against them,” he said. “She did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes.”

Start with “bogus email deal”. Considering it grew out of the Benghazi investigation, which was her doing, it was her own server “deal.” She had it for four years and never stopped it. Then she said it was a mistake — one that lasted four long years, meanwhile 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack. But nothing bogus about it all.

Yet Hillary prevailed? Well, if you mean she beat being indicted. Even though America lost, big time, and it put our government at risk. But who cares about that? “She prevailed.” Then Colin Powell vindicated her? No he didn’t.

Hillary told her donors:

“He [Putin] is determined to score a point against me which he did. But also undermine our democracy.”

That would make Putin stronger than our democracy. Hillary gave him the propaganda win, along with validating his election influence. Except that Hillary’s campaign were the ones actually playing the Russian card on Trump 24/7 — with a big assist from media .

Another explanation from Comey for his actions?
Well, what difference at this point does it make?

What’s next, an official independent investigation into why Hillary lost? They might as well start the next election on inauguration day. “Viva la 20, stupid.”

The Comey problem: same as the old one

I will not bash Conmey for reopening the Clinton investigation, but results do mater. How quickly Dems have turned on their pillar of integrity they’ve been touting for months.

Comey has put himself in a box. He made a wrong decision in July, now he reopens his flawed investigation. So what do we expect? Well, he has new information that does not change his original determination in July. No matter the new evidence, he will likely come to the same conclusion — rather than admit his conclusion was flawed in the first place.

He had little choice but to bring it forward. I expect this will just get buried in the same way and place that the other information got deep-sixed.

Comey’s only real choice forward now is to be consistently wrong, at least regarding the email server situation. His problem is how to explain it? Though taking a different position now could jeopardize any integrity of the first conclusion that Dems went gaga over. So he has a huge explanation problem.

Remember the main crux of this current debacle is that he said in his July statement that the investigation was completed. In his rush to put a period on the sentence, then, he prematurely shot himself in the foot. Now he has to declare, whoops it isn’t complete “I’m going to reopen it.” Though he already set the precedent and standard to dismiss, explain away, or marginalize even this new evidence and information. How does he do all that?

Aren’t you glad you are not James Comey? No matter what, he is going to piss off at least half the people in the country.

However, the last major problem is still Dep of Injustice which proves unwilling to prosecute. Could they prosecute Huma instead of Hillary? I have doubts. We already know they have refused to prosecute it. So then, what does even new information mean? It means the same treatment as the old information. It only makes the DOJ look even worse than it already does. We have a politicized and radicalized government.

In conclusion one can say, in other words, that the FBI’s pointless investigation into nothingness continues. Be it officially declared and noted this day of 2016! In the end Hillary wants to use the fact that the investigation went nowhere to confirm her innocence — much as I detest that result. And she’ll use it as some kind of accomplishment, having navigated another investigation.

The question is not whether Hillary Clinton is above the law, but how far above the law she is. See what the seeds of corruption have brought us?

RightRing | Bullright

Clinton’s web of investigation problems

What a tangled web she weaves, when at first she practiced to deceive. Hillary has had a few encounters with reality along her campaign trail in the last year and half. But at every one she took the road not traveled to obfuscate it. Then she blamed others for her own scandalous behavior. Yet she always says she is claiming responsibility. Lie.

She wants to create the illusion of accountability.

Hillary claims she apologized for the server mishap. Well, she said it was a mistake. A four year long, two-year investigative one. That didn’t stop or curtail her lying about it. The people found out just weeks before the Democrat convention that she was not being charged for anything. Surprise!

June 9, 2016

BREAKING: After Endorsing Clinton, Obama Admin Calls FBI’s Email Investigation ‘Criminal’

The Politistick [excerpt]

[Josh earnest said] “They don’t have political jobs. They have career jobs as law enforcement officers and as prosecutors and investigators. That’s what their responsibility is. And that’s why the President when discussing this issue in each stage has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference and that people should be treated the same way before the law regardless of their political influence, regardless of their political party, regardless of their political stature and regardless of what political figure has endorsed them.

Clinton has worked to downplay the seriousness of the investigations since the earliest days of questions concerning allegations that she maintained the email account in order to obscure shady dealings with foreign nationals to sell them influence in exchange for contributions that would help finance her inevitable bid for the presidency.

However, Clinton has augmented her denial efforts in recent weeks after the release of a damning Inspector General (IG) report that maintains that Clinton did, in fact, break federal law in refusing to “comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.“

In essence, the report clarifies that whatever the DOJ decides to do, the evidence shows unambiguously that Clinton had pledged to conduct State Department business in accordance with the department’s policies for protecting sensitive materials and that she failed to do so thousands of times.

In this matter, intent is irrelevant. Even if we accept that it was a supposed mistake, the end result is the same: she violated the law and has continually insisted that she did not, in fact, violate the law. Her actions were not merely violations of the Federal Records Act, but also of the Espionage Act’s 18 USC 793, known by many as the “gross negligence” statute.

See: http://politistick.com/breaking-endorsing-clinton-obama-admin-calls-fbis-email-investigation-criminal/#

There we have Obama defending that investigations should move forward irregardless of politics, and not be swayed by politics, as professionals.

Federal Records Act — this is something that apparently seems to be lost on Democrats and many in MSM.

What are records?

Records include all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine-readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of the data in them (44 U.S.C. 3301).

44 U.S. Code § 3101 – Records management by agency heads; general duties

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.
(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1297.)

44 U.S. Code § 3301 – Definition of records

a) Records Defined.—

(1)In general.—As used in this chapter, the term “records”—

(A) includes all recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics, made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the United States Government or because of the informational value of data in them; and
(B) does not include—
(i) library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes; or
(ii) duplicate copies of records preserved only for convenience.

(2)Recorded information defined.—

For purposes of paragraph (1), the term “recorded information” includes all traditional forms of records, regardless of physical form or characteristics, including information created, manipulated, communicated, or stored in digital or electronic form.

Then further guidelines and description. And it does include email and has for years.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Remember the famous Nixon quote?

People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook.”

And the people do know in Hillary Clinton’s case. She is a crook. Nixon resigned, Hillary Clinton is running for president.

H/T ref: National Review column

Comey guarded, then flushed the toilet

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

Read more http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/13/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html

The FBI investigators all thought, unanimously, that her security clearance should have been yanked. Thanks, Comey — the ballyhooed ambassador of integrity — you torched FBI’s cred too.

Should’ve, would’ve, could’ve… America lost. Snake eyes.
Take your parlor game with you.

Crossing paths with Clintons

Once one crosses paths with the Clintons, in an unflattering way, they don’t forget it.

WND — Jerome Corsi | 05/13/2016

“I would like to share with you and your friends in the MSM why this subject is important,” she continued. “This situation is NO longer about that. It’s not about the details of these multiple assaults and rapes involving numerous women who never knew one another, telling the same [or] similar stories.

“This is NOT about infidelities, indiscretions, adultery, girlfriends or consensual sex,” [Kathleen] Willey emphasized. “This is about Bill Clinton’s multiple sexual assaults and rapes for over 40 years and Hillary Clinton’s threatening, bullying, intimidating and terrorizing all of the women who have suffered at his hands. It’s as simple as that.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/bills-sex-assault-victim-lashes-out-over-hillarys-terrorizing/

Even the Washington media joined the bully party.

Newsweek’s Evan Thomas, the author of this piece, said on a Washington talk show that Jones was just `some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks.’

More http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2016/01/20/new-york-times-identifies-wrong-woman-carville-trailer-park-quote

It’s no longer, if it ever was, about the tawdry affairs, details or sex. It is about the abuse, or crime in Bill’s case, of women who crossed paths with the Clintonistas — the first crime family of American politics. There was even a White House war room with their inner circle to deal with what they termed the “bimbo eruptions”. As James Carville said, “Drag a hundred dollars through a trailer park and there’s no telling what you’ll find.”

Oh, did Hillary ever stand up for any of those women? No, she was right there to attack them and call them incredible. In fact, she was all for not believing women then. She attacked them and then played the victim.

Now she says women should always be believed. Then she says believed until they are shown to be liars. But this is a woman who Called Mrs. Smith a liar because it didn’t fit her political ambitions or agenda. Hillary defended the rapist of a 12 year old girl, then laughed about getting him off. That’s an advocate for women.

But about the sex and infidelity? It really never was… or is.

Must watch this

Hillary, the “Champion for Women?” — Still think it is just about Bill’s sex scandals?

Comey Clinton connections

There it is, the evidence on Comey’s collaboration with Clintons.
Never bite the hand that feeds you.

Red Flag News

FBI Director James Comey EXPOSED: Received millions from Clinton Foundation, on their Corporate Partner Board, brother works for law firm that does Clinton Foundation taxes

More http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2016/fbi-director-james-comey-exposed-received-millions-from-clinton-foundation-on-their-corporate-partner-board-brother-works-for-law-firm-that-does-clinton-foundation-taxes

Surprise!

One Incident Away From Mayhem

I don’t have to even write this piece to make the point. It’s all too true.

Society meltdown is just an incident away. How sad that our system cannot withstand any more than that? We’ve seen it over and over again.(Ferguson) One shooting or incident now triggers instant, almost endless anarchy. We are told this is in the name of peace and social justice. If this is social justice then who votes in favor of it?

No, it’s more of a means to some of their ends. The event, whatever it is, is just a means to another agenda. It erupts on a moments notice, anywhere, as if it were planned. Only the results look like it was anything but planned.

Problems with it are too numerous to mention. I’ve heard enough about the so-called “peaceful demonstration” BS. Peaceful it isn’t and any semblance of a demonstration is MIA. We get phrases like “otherwise peaceful protest.” Right, other than the violence and looting, and sheer anarchy, it is a peaceful protest. It doesn’t match the script.

Anarchy is not included in the first amendment protections.

“This is not who we are.” — Apparently it now is. Welcome to new Obamasized America.

I watch reality unfold in front of me live on TV. Reporters flood to the scene and protestors turn their violence on media as if they are the problem. Reporters are assaulted and blamed. So this is the new demonstration protest? Soon everything sucked into the violence of the red zone is fair game.

Then clergy are sucked into the whole “epicenter” as they call it. A word to clergy: do you realize you are also being played for tools? To what grand achievement?

Charlotte NC is now the latest in a long list of cities fallen to this new protest protocol. I’m sickened by what I see. So I have a simple idea.

First of all, to all the media, I know you have hours of the events from start to finish. The unedited footage should be strung together. Take that complete film to schools of junior high students. (for openers) Don’t narrate or describe the events in advance. Just show them the real footage without the opinions of news anchors etc.

After the film, ask them if anyone advocates for and wants to live in a society like that? Any student who does should be able to write an essay defending why. Students who don’t can write one, too. But I want to see advocates for that society explain their reasoning. Though I bet schools could not do that without injecting their opinion.

RightRing | Bullright

Clinton’s bribery attempt and mainstreaming corruption

Who wants four more years of lies and corruption from Clinton?

The latest story confirms only the idea of the Clinton political game nightmare. The sad truth is we know what she is and what Clintons are. There is no doubt about that.

The great Clinton Caper, I’m calling it, is to literally mainstream corruption and their patented ‘pay to play’ politics. Hillary’s shadow gov’t of Wall St influence and corruption in waiting has long been ready to get [back] into power.

Obama mainstreamed radicalism and corruption – emphasis on radicalism. Now that that is done Hillary plans to take corruption to new highs — mainstreaming the process. But now she already has built her personal defenses for it with people who are predisposed to defend her deeds as political witchhunts, partisan attacks, and ‘lack of evidence’ nothingburgers. Now comes the real objective, to make all that corruption mainstream.

So far, America still frowns on and is sickened by it. “Mainstreaming” would take it to levels where they not only accept it all but cheer it on, actually rooting for her. Throw in some Alinsky tactics to accomplish it and, voila… the great Clinton Caper complete.

One of a long list of Exhibits:

Former Haitian Senate President Speaks: “Hillary Tried to Bribe Me,”

(Video)
Saturday, September 17, 2016 | Before It’s News

Is it just me, or is It beginning to seem like with every passing moment, we learn another new story about the vile and wretched levels of corruption the Clinton’s will stoop to in order to line their own pockets off the backs of other people? It’s long been suspected there was some “funny business” going on with the Clinton’s and their “charity work” in Haiti, so in the video below, the former Haitian senate president sets the record straight.

In the time that has passed since his dealings with the King and Queen of corruption, the former Haitian senate president has since become a United States citizen, and to say he’s excited about that would be an understatement. In addition to the passion with which he beams about this new citizenship in the greatest country on earth, how can you not love a guy who refers to the Clinton’s arrival in Haiti for alleged charity work as, “The Clinton Invasion?”

God bless sir! Welcome to America!

H/T to Before It’s News

Not even 2% of all that donated money, after 2010 earthquake, went to Haiti. Red Cross raised a half billion dollars and built six homes.

Testimony from a sourse on the Clintons’ Haiti connections.

Clinton corruption has left its fingerprints all over the landscape.

How many people have to plead their fifth amendment rights to protect the Clintons?

Yet we the people — resistance –are labeled “irredeemable” and deplorable by her.

RightRing | Bullright

It’s the law, stupid: an anathema to Clinton

The law on records was lost in this murky area of Clintonisms. Then Hillary and the Left’s explanations are only further attempts to muddy up the water even more. “Depends on the meaning of is, there is no there there, we need to move on.” Move on to where?

1663. Protection Of Government Property — Protection Of Public Records And Documents

There are several important aspects to this offense. First, it is a specific intent crime. This means that the defendant must act intentionally with knowledge that he is violating the law. See United States v. Simpson, 460 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir. 1972). Moreover, one case has suggested that this specific intent requires that the defendant know that the documents involved are public records. See United States v. DeGroat, 30 F. 764, 765 (E.D.Mich. 1887).

Subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 contains a similar prohibition specifically directed at custodians of public records. Any custodian of a public record who “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys (any record) shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.” While the range of acts proscribed by this subsection is somewhat narrower than subsection (a), it does provide the additional penalty of forfeiture of position with the United States.

Sure Hillary knew that these were public records. After all, that was her purpose in obfuscating the gov system with her server – for fear they’d be public.

Then she had to know that she was destroying them. Of course using someone else to carry it out was essential for her. Still, she knew the objective was to destroy them. If they merely dissapeared and she discovered that they did, wouldn’t she have to report that? (I don’t know or find the law on that) She had given access to the records to lawyers and staff for that purpose. I mean it had to be at her request or they wouldn’t have been doing it.

They didn’t find what they were not looking for. That’s a surprise?

Now along comes Elijah Cummings to throw Hillary another lifeline about an email with Colin Powell. So Hilary planned on using Colin Powell as an excuse and an alibi for what she planned to do, to obfuscate the government records process.

The more that comes out the more intention cannot be ignored. We saw Comey do what our government loves to do, pass the buck. All this is also in addition, and aside, from the classified information process. She should not be qualified to run for any public office. Case closed. Problem is we the people have been hoodwinked, once again. She’ll do anything. And let the misinformation flow.

But Hillary is deeply offended when people shout “Lock her up.”

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary does NAACP

Out in front of the Republican Convention, and pandering as usual, Hillary gave a speech to NAACP. (I wonder if she charged them 250K?)

She lectured on the rule of law and accountability. Her hypocrisy really has no bounds.

So is the message or the messenger the problem?

And as president, I will bring the full weight of the law to bear and making sure those who kill police officers are brought to justice. There can be no justification, no looking the other way.

That’s why our laws treat the murderers of police so seriously, because they represent the rule of law itself. If you take aim at that and at them, you take aim at all of us.

We must reform our criminal justice system because everyone is safer when there is respect for the law and when everyone is respected by the law.

I don’t think anyone anywhere needs to connect what is wrong with messenger Hillary Clinton lecturing us on the rule of law and accountability, saying she stands up for the rule of law — while she trounces it every chance she gets. And lying is no problem either.

United States of Divert, Deny and Lie

It’s mourning again in America, and Hillary has avoided one more obstacle in her grand anointing process. Welcome to the Department of Injustice.

Comey punted and claimed “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case”. Ouch, take that America. Those laws and justice that you value are not even a speed bump to the privileged elite ruling-class who operate above the law. (actually, it is beneath the law but who is arguing.) Cleanup in isle two!

Two people are now relieved, Hillary and Loretta Lynch. Well, Bill Clinton is three.

I thought “extremely careless” was being negligent.

While all the attention now shifts to the bombshell that FBI director is recommending no charges be filed, it diverts the emphasis off of the whole ordeal. It seems Comey was talking about a narrow statute dealing with classified information, but that was not the genesis of the scandal.

Long before the classified was sent or received, she set up an email system to obfuscate accountability and divert from archives and the FOIA system. If that is not willful intent going to all that trouble to set this up, I don’t know what is. So they gave immunity to the techie, then, for what?

It was not just a matter of some classified emails, which she lied about. It is the whole thing from the time she entered office to the time she left. But nothing is chargeable. It seemed all they wanted to look at in their FBI investigation was the classified emails. And how else would she correspond with Syd Blumenthal, out of the loop of State, if not on that server?

So, Hillary got her way when she claimed this was a security review. In effect, that is what it became. But there is a good article on the miscarriage of justice issue this is in Reason Magazine by Judge Andrew Napolitano. What about the Inspector General’s report that was just released?

Inspector General’s Report Refutes All of Hillary Clinton’s Defenses For Using Private Email Server

The Democratic frontrunner is painted as stubborn, self-isolated, and unaccountable in IG’s report.

Andrew Napolitano | June 2, 2016 | Reason.com

Late last week, the inspector general of the State Department completed a year-long investigation into the use by Hillary Clinton of a private email server for all of her official government email as secretary of state. The investigation was launched when information technology officials at the State Department under Secretary of State John Kerry learned that Clinton paid an aide to migrate her public and secret State Department email streams away from their secured government venues and onto her own, non-secure server, which was stored in her home.

The migration of the secret email stream most likely constituted the crime of espionage — the failure to secure and preserve the secrecy of confidential, secret or top-secret materials.

The inspector general interviewed Clinton’s three immediate predecessors — Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — and their former aides about their email practices. He learned that none of them used emails as extensively as Clinton, none used a private server and, though Powell and Rice occasionally replied to government emails using private accounts, none used a private account when dealing with state secrets.

Clinton and her former aides declined to cooperate with the inspector general, notwithstanding her oft-stated claim that she “can’t wait” to meet with officials and clear the air about her emails.

The inspector general’s report is damning to Clinton. It refutes every defense she has offered to the allegation that she mishandled state secrets. It revealed an email that hadn’t been publicly made known showing Clinton’s state of mind. And it paints a picture of a self-isolated secretary of state stubbornly refusing to comply with federal law for venal reasons; she simply did not want to be held accountable for her official behavior.

The report rejects Clinton’s argument that her use of a private server “was allowed.” The report makes clear that it was not allowed, nor did she seek permission to use it. She did not inform the FBI, which had tutored her on the lawful handling of state secrets, and she did not inform her own State Department IT folks.

The report also makes clear that had she sought permission to use her own server as the instrument through which all of her email traffic passed, such a request would have been flatly denied.

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/02/hillary-clinton-email-defenses-refuted

Well, America, if you were not disgusted before, then this was another thumb in the eye to remind you how repulsive this whole process has been. Hillary operated for four years on an island of her own creation Then, when questioned, she lied, lied, lied. And that is beside what she did in Benghazi which is what set off all the red flares . She set the stage to get four Americans killed, and abandoned them both before and after their slaughter.

Comey covered his ass and preserved his job under a possible Hillary presidency. To say politics, and who the Clintons are, had nothing to do with it is ludicrous. This whole thing was loaded with politics. It would take Loretta Lynch bucking that recommendation to bring charges. Then it would be her own decision to do that, which she won’t do. To borrow a Bill Clinton phrase, “this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

The very day after we celebrated the 240th 4th of July, James Comey came out to deliver the recommendation of no charges. Loretta Lynch had been caught a week before in a private meeting with Bill Clinton. Now, as Comey spoke Obama amd Hillary were preparing to board AF-1 for a campaign rally in North Carolina for Hillary.

What a photo op, while she is escaping a major leg of suspicion about her future, she is hitting the trail with the President, as his Director in the Justice department is basically unindicting her. That beats a corsage While Comey claimed politics or influences have nothing to do with it, clearly they were on full display.

Then arriving in NC, with the President campaigning at her side, Hillary comes on stage with her “this is my fight song” music playing. That is an insult to the legacy of Benghazi. She’s been fighting against the damning Benghazi facts since the attack, amid another campaign for Obama’s reelection. From one political campaign to another — all politics.

    This is my fight song
    Take back my life song
    Prove I’m alright song
    My power’s turned on
    Starting right now I’ll be strong
    I’ll play my fight song
    And I don’t really care if nobody else believes
    ‘Cause I’ve still got a lot of fight left in me

    — Rachel Platten, “Fight Song”

They never mentioned escaping the FBI intent to prosecute. Though she did refer to Obama’s birth certificate aimed at Trump. Was she comparing the two?

Her first words were, “I feel very privileged” to be with Obama, a friend she stood with, talking about their “memorable experiences” she and Obama had together, joking and mocking Trump. Well, Benghazi might be a memorable one too, if it weren’t for all their denial from the beginning. Strange irony that Hillary says Trump is unqualified and temperamentally unfit for the office. She is the heiress of unqualified.

Finally, Obama lectured, “when a crisis hits” what do you do he asks? “You got to make the tough calls,” he said. So when a crisis hits they lie, lie and lie some more. Then divert, deny, distract and obstruct the truth finding… that’s what they do. He’s ready to pass the baton to Hillary. Well, that is after our government collectively passed the opportunity to hold Hillary or Obama accountable for their boatload of scandals.

But these are strange days when a tweet is more important than a national security, felony scandal. And what Trump says about it is more important than what Hillary did.

RightRing | Bullright

Realated: It takes a village to elect a crook

What did Charlie Daniels say?

I saw this article from November, 2013 and I was mostly through it cheering before I realized it was written by Charlie Daniels. Normally I’m aware of his writings when I read them. But at least you will know in advance who wrote it. It is all the more true now. A few selected excerpts:

The government that was founded to serve the people has turned the equation around and now they believe that the people are supposed to serve the government. That we should be willing to put up with whatever taxes they choose to levy, to abide by every ridiculous rule or regulation their bureaucratic little minds can conceive and allow them to regulate every facet of our lives…while they live above the law out of the clutches of Obamacare and shrinking retirement plans.

They pass out billions of dollars in contracts to their political allies and subsidize companies that have no hope of succeeding while they exempt those they choose from the programs they’re forcing the rest of the country into.

They can hire thousands of agents to enforce their will on the public.

They can forsake Americans in the Foreign Service – leave them to die without even attempting to rescue them.

They can look into a television camera and lie with a straight face.

Amidst all this passivity, however, there is great frustration, a smoldering, white-hot anger that only awaits a rallying point to ignite and become the most motivated political force in this nation.

If there has ever been a time in the history of this country for a true leader to step forth, it is now.

Read at: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/charlie-daniels/what-has-happened-america

This was worth going back to read, in the context of when it was written of course. But since then, even more has been exposed about this cauldron of corruption going on.

Is it any wonder now, a few years later, the way the election process has unfolded?

More of his articles: http://www.cnsnews.com/author/charlie-daniels

Rare natural phenomena and the Clintons

A strange phenomena occurred on Monday at a Phoenix airport. All the natural and political forces were aligned in such a rare way that a 1-in-millions chance that two planes on the tarmac were magnetically attracted to one another and that the occupants of each were then driven on an unavoidable collision course. They both survived impact.

As I said as rare a chance as that ‘is’. It needs to be appreciated in that light that it may never happen again — rarer than a solar eclipse and less predictable.

So it really doesn’t matter that it was former impeached President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Pay no mind to who they are, this could have happened to anyone. Pay no attention to their unique relationship being both involved in opposite sides of the investigation or pending case against the spouse of Bill Clinton. That also makes this such a rare event. That should raise the odds to like 20 Trillion to 1.

Since words really cannot explain this adequately — and it did leave many speechless — about all one can say is if not for a chance tipoff from a reporter, we wouldn’t even know it occurred. An event like this does not even leave chem trails. The brief, rare encounter lasted about 30 minutes, until they could pull their magnetic forces from each other to go their separate ways. We’re so privileged to know it happened. How lucky we are it was documented — and no emails, servers, or subpoenas were necessary to validate it.

But the AG didn’t try to deny it, only that no pending investigations or details were discussed. Well, I guess the chance that none of those things even came up makes this chance encounter all the more rare. How could all those natural forces involved avoid the subject? Close encounters of the rarest kind.

Apologetic for the close encounter, Lynch now says she regrets that it cast a “shadow” over the pending investigation and process. Those phenomena can do that. Sounds like another perception problem on our part.

Friends that they are, I mean this kind of thing happens — a social meeting. She was in the moment did not view it the same way onlookers may have viewed it. That’s right, folks, this meteor would leave no marks or traces at all. That is why it is so important that it was caught and documented that it did happen. Lucky we are, experiencing history like that.

I know, maybe this was part of what Hillary said was a “security review”?

RightRing | Bullright

Eric Holder, Obama and Snowden

Obama disagrees with Holder on Snowden

By Susan Crabtree | Washington Examiner

President Obama does not agree with the view of his former Attorney General Eric Holder that Edward Snowden performed a “public service” by leaking classified documents about the United States’ sweeping surveillance programs.

Holder, in an interview with CNN’s David Axelrod over the weekend, said Snowden’s illegal act had some silver linings for people by shining a light on U.S. surveillance techniques. But he also said the former contractor for the National Security Agency must pay a penalty for the crimes.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest was unequivocal in his response to a question on whether Obama agreed with Holder’s perception that Snowden’s actions had some redeeming qualities for the public.

“A careful review of [Obama’s] public comments will indicate that he does not” share Holder’s view, Earnest said

Read: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-disagrees-with-holder-on-snowden/article/2592644

Odd that Obama would be forced to publicly disagree with Holder. So Axelrod interviews Holder, and that is real credible journalism? I wonder if this is the beginning of the talk which is to end in a Snowden pardon? Since when should a former AG come out to defend a criminal? But then these guys are radicals, it’s what they do.

Was Hillary seeking indictment?

Hillary Should Be Indicted

By Bradley A. Blakeman — Friday, 06 May 2016 | Newsmax

It has been said that: “a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.” Well, if that is true then the FBI and Justice Department’s criminal investigation into the mishandling of classified materials with regard to Hillary Clinton as secretary of state are feeding from the all-you-can-eat buffet.

The news in the last few months has reported that there are as many as 100 to 150 FBI agents on the case. In addition, it was reported that a key Clinton aide who was responsible for the set up and maintenance of her home brewed private server used exclusively by Hillary for official State Department communications and who previously took the Fifth is now been granted immunity from criminal exposure in exchange for his testimony. It is also being reported that the FBI has broadened its investigation to include possible charges of corruption with regard to “pay to play” with donors to the Clinton Foundation.

A grand jury is made up of average citizens. I am sure they all have emails and are familiar with how they operate. This is not going to be hard for them to understand.

More at: http://www.newsmax.com/BradleyBlakeman/fbi-hillary-email-server/2016/05/06/id/727561/

Breaking News at Newsmax.com

Just a few pertinent questions Hillary needs to answer. Compelling case, I can’t see any other legitimate result. Almost as if she were courting indictment.

Gov restricts employers rights

Just when you think you have seen everything, and government invading or intruding on any private sector act, along come these new rules to take it to a whole new level. Basically, it infringes on employers’ being able to use outside legal council or seek advise on unionization. An attempt to restrict and limit employers seeking union advice.

New labor regs could violate First Amendment, lawyer-client confidentiality

By Eric Boehm / March 24, 2016 | Watchdog.org

Employers will have the federal government looking over their shoulder if they discuss unionization issues with outside legal counsel under a final rule released Wednesday by the Department of Labor.

Unions are vocal supporters of the new regulations, which give them a leg-up in organizational activities, but some lawyers worry that the new regulations violate employers’ First Amendment rights and privileged communication between attorneys and clients.

The so-called “Persuader Rule” has been a contentious issue since it was first proposed more than four years ago. The final version requires businesses to disclose whether they sought outside consultation or legal assistance as part of any effort to oppose their workers’ unionization.

The Department of Labor is greatly limiting businesses’ ability to obtain labor relations advice from attorneys, consultants and trade associations, said Kristen Swearingen, vice president of political affairs for the national branch of Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade group of open shops.

Since most small businesses don’t have in-house legal teams, the rule piles new mandates on small businesses, ABC warned.

“No employer should have to wade through the final rule’s 446 pages to figure out whether they can safely get advice on what they can say to their employees,” said Swearingen. “The final rule is clearly an attempt by DOL to restrict employers from communicating the potential pros and cons of unionization.”

The National Association of Manufacturers says the new rules violate employers’ First Amendment rights and promised to challenge them in court. […/]

“It’s a matter of basic fairness,” Perez [Sec of Labor] said. “This new rule will allow workers to know whether the messages they’re hearing are coming directly from their employer or from a paid, third-party consultant.”

Read more: http://watchdog.org/260447/new-labor-regs-issued/

Basic fairness? Only government can do something overtly unfair and biased then call it “fairness.” So pry into management’s office and board rooms. Once again, issued as a rule. No legislation, just instituted as a rule. It also puts a target on any lawyers giving advice. They can be subject to retaliation. So it limits businesses and inhibits attorneys.

One flew over Clinton’s legacy

A day in the life of Hillary news. It lives on and on and on.
)Really? — “Former NY Times Chief: Clinton Is ‘Fundamentally Honest’”

At what point in her tenure — covering a whole multitude of scandals — can we say “Hillary Clinton is fundamentally dishonest?” I think even the people get that one. They may care or not, but they get it.

From the Free Beacon article:

“A former student of [Jill Abramson’s] who is a leader of Harvard’s Institute of Politics, thinks a gender-related double standard gets applied to Clinton. “We expect purity from women candidates,” he said.

Right, so it’s sexist to question Hillary’s poor judgement, flip-flopping, scandals and finally not to trust her. Though Abramson herself charged sexism after NYT fired her.

)If the shoe fits — “Clinton Complains About Super PACs and Big Money in Politics”

“At a Monday rally in Madison, Wisconsin, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton mourned the role of big money and super PACs in politics, although she has benefitted heavily from them.

Clinton decried the Supreme Court decision Citizens United, which ruled that independent political expenditures could not be regulated by the federal government due to the First Amendment.” — Wa Free Beacon

When in Rome… and Hillary is definitely in Rome. She’s in Wisconsin, home of the union lobby that used every bit of special interest leverage it could to oust Walker and lost.

Still, Clinton cannot prove her point considering the tens of millions in pac funding employed by Bush, on his behalf, or others this cycle that had little to no effect. Let’s not forget the Citizen’s United case directly related to telling the truth about her career.

Pot meets kettle:

“Clinton’s close ties to Wall Street have also been a point of contention in the campaign as much of her campaign’s financial support comes from large Wall Street firms. She has given many paid speeches to Wall Street firms.

Goldman Sachs infamously gave her $675,000 to give just three speeches.”

)Speaking distrust: “Report: FBI Moves to Interview Top Clinton Aides in Email Probe”

“FBI officials are preparing to question top Hillary Clinton aides at the State Department in the latest leg of the federal government’s probe into her unsecured email system.”…

“The interviews, along with the case’s final review, could take weeks to complete, threatening to haunt the former secretary of state for the remainder of the presidential primary elections.” — Free Beacon

And yet the saga of scandal and genesis of distrust of Hillary continues to dog her.But she lectures on the evils of money and its influence. What about the evils of those in power, and their use of its resources?

)So Clintonesque — “Loretta Lynch’s law firm tied to Hillary Clinton”
WND and Jerome Corsi report on Clintons’ ties to Loretta Lynch’s former law firm.

Maybe it is no wonder she seems confident. So conflict of interest anyone? But then both Clintons and Obama are walking talking conflicts of interest, everywhere.

I’ll take honesty for a million, Alex…. Who is Hillary Clinton?

One for the Democrat kitty

Bonus round on money and influence: “Moran Registers to Lobby for Groups That Were Among His Top Donors in Congress” — Washington Free Beacon:

Former Rep. Jim Moran (D., Va.) has registered to lobby on behalf of firms who were among his top funders throughout his political career in Washington.

And no one is really surprised. All that above reported in just one day.

But Jill Abramson says there is absolutely good reason to trust Hillary — er to believe her. Couple that with her promise to continue Obama’s deceitful legacy of distrust.

You can’t ask for more hope of no change than that.

Clinton investigation 2.0

FBI, grand jury on second investigation into Hillary’s political corruption, says former US attorney

March 10, 2016 | Bizpac Review

Department of Justice officials have impaneled a federal grand jury in the Hillary Clinton email case and FBI agents have launched a second, separate investigation on political corruption involving the former secretary of state’s official activities and the Clinton Foundation, a former U.S. attorney told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Joseph E. diGenova, who served as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for four years, said Wednesday he believes the FBI is investigating two separate Clinton scandals.

“The Bureau has between 100 and 150 agents assigned to the case. They would not have that many people assigned to a classified information case,” he told The DCNF, addressing Clinton’s use of a private email server located at her New York home.

“Based on reports that agents are asking questions about the foundation, it seems to me to properly the subject is a second prong of the investigation,” he said.

The Department of State’s Inspector General (IG) subpoenaed documents from the Clinton Foundation last fall to determine if State Department policies had been influenced by foundation activities. The State IG asked for records held by the foundation and Huma Abedin, who for six months simultaneously worked for former Secretary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

More: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/03/10/fbi-grand-jury-on-second-investigation-into-hillarys-political-corruption-says-former-us-attorney-315315

So the Clinton inquiry came to a fork in the road, and took it. The question is can they now handle a two-pronged investigation, or two separate ones, when they haven’t shown much will to do the first one yet? So I hope the numbers and the second front are all a good sign they are serious. We know Hillary doesn’t take the “security review” seriously.

Loretta Lynch helped America

Loretta Lynch has done the country a big service today, by withdrawing her name from the short list as a SCOTUS nominee.

[CNN]”The Attorney General determined that the limitations inherent in the nomination process would curtail her effectiveness in her current role,” DOJ spokeswoman Melanie Newman said.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/politics/loretta-lynch-supreme-court-nomination/index.html

So that’s one relief. Though it was a knife in America’s back to have her on a list as a Scalia replacement, in the first place. One down. I can’t imagine who else is on it. Holder?