At His Own Risk

Could investigating the origins of the 2016 corruption cabal, and the subsequent coup, cost President Trump the election? Could it be detrimental to his presidential health?

I don’t know but if Donald Trump were a creature of politics and a Washington player, he might have declined to investigate at the great risk to his own presidency. But that is just not the way Trump operates.

So he does want it investigated. I think we know most presidents would have repelled that notion out of fear that it could hurt them. And maybe, just maybe, they would have thought it would be a net plus for them to forego looking into it. (and a case could be made that it may be good not to have it investigated.) In other words, a personal gain.

I don’t think Trump gets enough credit for doing what is not attractive in spite of personal consequences. Now it definitely seems to be all negative and an uphill battle having his administration investigate corruption — even Biden’s corruption. In the interim it is all negative. Any positives only come in the results and we don’t know when those will be.

Yet according to the oath of office, any president would be obligated to investigate it. Remember Democrats kept claiming there were grounds to investigate Trump when there were none. Then they tried to create the justification for their witch hunt. That’s what Mueller’s Special Counsel investigation was all about — justifying itself.

Now if this investigation should somehow result in the loss of the 2020 election, it would still be worth it. Those are not chances most politicians want to take. That is why we had so many phony investigations, like Hillary’s, before that ended in nothing more than “there is no there there.” They were picture shows creating only the illusion of an investigation, even if the fix was in right from its conception.

Not getting justice was the polite way of saying but we investigated it. But none of them was ever so consequential as this seditious coup investigation. Trump is the one for it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Whistling Past The People

The Democrats are so crazy now that they don’t know what fate awaits them. And maybe they don’t care either. They’re so captive to hatred they think everyone is.

They’ve worn out the language, impeachment is all that is left. They can’t show that they were bluffing. They want to be taken seriously. So they have guys like Ted Lieu and Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler out to score political points, to do the dirty work.

Boy are they about to score some points. Only they don’t know or understand the people. They’ve been so disconnected from the people so long that they could not know.

These Democrat hacks are all dug in on their partisan turf and they’ve exhausted all their veiled threats and now it is time for action. That is the part the people will pay attention to… the actions. When they pull the trigger, they actually believe all the people will be right there with them, but they won’t be.

See, the people never saw the cause for impeachment or the phony investigations from the beginning. Only Dems never figured that out. They assumed people would follow them.

I’ve heard the callers on CSPAN lines. They aren’t all with the Democrats. And Dems are not making a great case for what they are doing. Only that they have had these scorched earth plans all along and they are determined to carry it out. Tom Steyer’s apostles.

At that point people are going to say, “wait a minute!” They’ll think with all the big problems we have and a broken southern border with a broken Congress that won’t do anything about it; with all our critical issues right now; and “this is what your number one priorities are? Count me out!” Then they will think: “I’m not going to be a party to it and you aren’t going to use my sacred vote to do it.”

Now have I got the people figured or what? I could always be wrong but I really don’t think so. I bet people will see all this as a miscarriage or misapplication of justice, and turn tail saying “this is not our agenda.” They’ll think “we the people actually do have a full agenda we voted for. Where is that, what happened to it?”

I think it is about to get pretty interesting and the people do have a last word. If this is what government wants to spend all their time and our resources on, it is insulting. The people also want to hear the other side of the story. Up until now it has been one sided. And the other side of it has all the juicy real stuff people care about. They want to hear it, and when they do…..this impeachment talk is going to look pretty silly.

Right Ring | Bullright

Follow The Corruption: Clintons

Gateway Pundit has this expose. It ain’t over yet. It was a multi-part series.

MEDIA SILENT: Clinton Foundation Connected AGT Forwarded Top Secret US Intel to RUSSIA – FBI/DOJ Covered It Up – PART V

by Jim Hoft March 2, 2019 | Gateway Pundit

A 2016 DOJ criminal investigation was suppressed and buried by the DOJ/FBI that involved a major NY Democratic power broker and the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation.

The investigation revolved around the illegal sale of controlled US Homeland Security technology to Russia and China in the years before the 2016 election by a company named AGT. …./

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/03/media-silent-clinton-foundation-connected-agt-forwarded-top-secret-us-intel-to-russia-fbi-doj-covered-it-up-part-v/

The Great What If?

Just allow Victor Davis Hanson to walk you through a meticulous ‘what if’ scenario of Obama in place of Trump being investigated. The details are chilling.

All one has to do is plug in all the relevant factors and apply them to Obama. It is a laborious task but someone had to do it. Don’t let your jaw fall on the floor.

Should the FBI Run the Country?

By Victor Davis Hanson | January 20th, 2019 | American Greatness

Since the media would doubtless answer that loaded question, “It depends on the president,” let us imagine the following scenario.

Return to 2008, when candidate Barack Obama had served only about three years in the U.S. Senate, his sum total of foreign policy experience. And he was running against the overseas old-hand, decorated veteran, and national icon John McCain—a bipartisan favorite in Washington, D.C.

During the campaign, unfounded rumors had swirled about the rookie Obama that he might ease sanctions on Iran, distance the United States from Israel, and alienate the moderate Arab regimes, such as the Gulf monarchies and Egypt.

Stories also abounded that the Los Angeles Times had suppressed the release of a supposedly explosive “Khalidi tape,” in which Obama purportedly thanked the radical Rashid Khalidi for schooling him on the Middle East and correcting his earlier biases and blind spots, while praising the Palestinian activist for his support for armed resistance against Israel.

Even more gossip circulated that photos existed of a smiling Barack Obama with Louis Farrakhan, the Black Muslim extremist and radical pro-Gaddafi patron, who in the past had praised Adolf Hitler and reminded the Jews again about the finality of being sent to the ovens. (A photo of a smiling Obama and Farrakhan did emerge, but mysteriously only after President Obama left office).

Imagine that all these tales in 2008 might have supposedly “worried” Bush lame-duck and pro-McCain U.S. intelligence officials, who informally met to discuss possible ways of gleaning more information about this still mostly unknown but scary Obama candidacy.

But most importantly, imagine that McCain’s opposition researchers had apprised the FBI of accusations (unproven, of course) that Obama had improperly set up a private back-channel envoy to Iran in 2008. Supposedly, Obama was trying secretly to reassure the theocracy (then the object of Bush Administration and allied efforts to ratchet up pressures to prevent its acquisition of nuclear weapons) of better treatment to come. The conspiratorial accusation would imply that if Iran held off Bush Administration pressures, Tehran might soon find a more conducive atmosphere from an incoming Obama Administration. …/

Continue reading https://amgreatness.com/2019/01/20/should-the-fbi-run-the-country/

 

Okay, what would happen? Safe to say there would be some reacting going on along with some outrage. For a while, I have been asking one irritating question. Do tell us:

Since they have been busy trying to give us reasons why this investigation took place and attempting to explain that process; then where was the investigation on Obama? Now someone has filled in many of those blanks with this scenario. Does FBI run the country?

2018 Doctrine of Cultural and Civil Order

…that is, as defined by the left. And they wonder why so many people have problems with this paradigm of perversion propelled across the land by ‘liberaldoom’.

 

Dislike is being criminalized across America as hate; while genuine hatred is encouraged and rewarded for political gain as “tolerance.” Protecting the murder of babies becomes sacred doctrine as ‘law of the land.” One person’s objection removes or abolishes the free speech of masses, as the “social media.” Yet that is just par for their course.

Isaiah 5:20 “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” 21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.” …”23who acquit the guilty for a bribe, and deprive the innocent of justice.”

Social Justice is miscarriage of justice and lawless behavior. Sexual desire of one supersedes any privacy and protections of everyone else under social justice.

Sedition is the highest, respectable form of patriotism. Criminality is rewarded and encouraged; abiding by and respect for the rule of law is hated.

Fair means by any means necessary, to the left. Protecting democracy now means destroying the Constitution. Sanctuary means special rights and privileges for some. Equality means picking winners and losers. “Antifa” is just a license for fascists. Fair means fomenting bias. Racist and racism is anyone who disagrees with the fascist left.

One person’s choice to use any bathroom outweighs everyone else’s privacy and choice in using that bathroom. You will be punished, if not charged, for objecting.

Choice is ratified as no choice for others. Murder is justified as the sacred choice and every official must swear on the altar to preserve it.

Mob rule under ‘pitchfork democracy’ is speaking truth to power. Resistance is conformity. Resisting democracy is saving democracy. Serving the public means being served by the public. Counting votes is cancelling votes or not accepting the vote count.

Investigation or impeachment is a diversion from corruption and treason that shall be honorably protected. Heroes of deceit shall be promoted to the highest level.

Transparency is keeping information from the public, whatever it takes. Only corrupted officials with conflicts of interest have integrity and cannot ever be charged — all others need to be recused from supervisory roles. A coup is now “preserving democracy”.

Dear God, save us from this ‘liberaldoom.’

Right Ring | Bullright

Hillary’s train wreck of excuses

Once again, Hillary’s ship of lies sailed abroad to promote her, well, stolen victory.

Townhall

“And his whole campaign — ‘Make America Great Again’ — was looking backward. You know, you didn’t like black people getting rights; you don’t like women, you know, getting jobs; you don’t want to, you know, see that Indian American succeeding more than you are — you know, whatever your problem is, I’m gonna solve it.”

Hillary muses that many white women were prepared to do the “right” thing until that dastardly James Comey intervened:

‘What happened in my election is I was on the way to winning white women until former director of the FBI Jim Comey dropped that very ill-advised letter on Oct. the 28th and my numbers just went down… All of a sudden white women who were going to vote for me, and frankly standing up to the men in their lives and the men in their work places were being told, “She’s going to jail, you don’t want to vote for her. It’s going to be terrible you can’t vote for that.” It stopped my momentum and it decreased my vote enough. Because I was ahead and I was winning and I thought I had fought my way back,’ she concluded.

Okay, this needs a translation so allow me. What she meant is this:

‘I had a full-blown revolution going on among women bullied by men and others, long intimidated to vote otherwise. (I should be commended for that accomplishment)  This was real progress for the weaker women who were iberated to vote for me. That is until Jim Comey put the kibosh on that by dropping the investigation hammer on me. That hammer was to be used on Trump. How dare he?

Well, my vast lead, and these liberated vaginas, were halted in their tracks. I tried to almost fight my way back from that, unsuccessfully of course. It totally overcame those newly liberated women with weak knees. They believed this fraudulent bunk about me. After their years of abuse and victimization from powerful men and interests, they succumbed to the plot. My lead evaporated. We tried to correct the record.

It didn’t work, there wasn’t enough time.

But that distrust should have all gone on Trump. I spent a lot of money, as did the DNC, to make sure the voters got the message. They blew it. I mean those incompetent boobs who were paid to arrange this whole investigation into Donald Trump, the dossier and all, with the intelligence community and Obama’s fledglings, were supposed to stop him earlier. They clearly were not up to the challenge he presented. The kicker is Obama used the same vendors in 2012. I even paid them more money. What’s that tell you?

So I did not fail. The village failed to deliver for me. And well, those foolish women who succumbed to bullying tactics should have known better. But I did everything I could do. That torpedo on the 28th came out of nowhere. Now here I am. I didn’t lose, I was prevented from victory. I was well on my way to winning. They stole it from me.

Everyone with a brain knows that. I even had a huge excess of voters in California who still did their duty to elect the first woman. Those backwards areas listening to Trump double crossed me in the end. They kowtowed under the pressure. The bullies — who were always after me and Bill — screwed me over, in a race that mattered for women’s liberation. Those vast right-wing bastards. And I won’t stop talking about it.’

There’s her whole unfiltered story.

Right Ring | Bullright

Dershowitz: it’s costing me dinner dates

Alan Dershowitz on defending Trump: ‘My liberal friends don’t invite me to dinner anymore’

By Caitlin Yilek | Dec 27, 2017,

Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz says he’s feeling the heat from family and friends over his defense of President Trump amid special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

“It’s caused me to lose seven pounds,” Dershowitz told Politico. “My liberal friends don’t invite me to dinner anymore.”

Dershowitz often appears on Fox News to argue against Mueller bringing an obstruction of justice charge against Trump, saying it would send the country into a constitutional crisis. He has also defended Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey.

“My really, really close friends say, ‘You’re 100 percent right in your analysis, but can’t you just shut the f—k up and not talk at all,’” he said. “They tell me, ‘This is a time for selective silence.’ My nephew thinks I’m helping keep in office one of the greatest dangers in American history. I tell him I’m just standing up for principle. He tells me that I don’t have to stand up so loud.”

Dershowitz added that his family is no longer proud to be associated with him.

“I was a source of pride to my kids, my grandkids,” he said. “Now it’s ‘Oy, he’s related to Alan Dershowitz.’ That hurts me a little bit.”

Yet Dershowitz said he’s “happy with the role I’m playing.”

“I think I’ve changed the debate on the subject of obstruction of justice,” he said.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/alan-dershowitz-on-defending-trump-my-liberal-friends-dont-invite-me-to-dinner-anymore/article/2644432

Maybe that message should be telling him something. But Dershowitz gets no credit for his defense of Hillary? You know, where no one should be going after their opponents by weaponizing things like email processes. Maybe that is not his words but that we shouldn’t be investigating political opponents. Even though it is Hillary and her people who were investigating Trump. That seems to be okay for Democrats.

Still Alan is loosing friends. Isn’t the irony rich in what kind of friends these are? But Dems never would have an issue with blanket defense…denial about Hillary. In fact, he would gain friends. Even though what Hillary and Comey did was actually obstruction of justice. She clocked about five years doing it. That was really obstruction of justice.

Hillary’s Hallucination On Power

Hillary cries fowl at the idea of government investigating a political opponent, as an abuse of power. It would “rip at the fabric of the contract” of “trust in our justice system.”

Real Clear Politics

HILLARY CLINTON: I regret deeply that this appears to be the politicization of the Justice Department and our justice system. This Uranium One story has been debunked countless times by members of the press, by independent experts. …./

It is personally offensive that they would do this. But taking myself out of it, this is such an abuse of power, and it goes right at the rule of law. … And if they sent a signal that we’re going to be like some dictatorship, some authoritarian regime, where political opponents are going to be unfairly, fraudulently investigated, that rips at the fabric of the contract we have that we can trust our justice system.

While government IS investigating her political opponent — has been for months — in let’s count how many places, along with the Dep of Justice. Interesting. Is she serious?

Politicization of the Justice Department and our justice system“… surely you are laughing after 8 years of the most politicized government and Justice Dep in our history.

Such blatantly arrogant hypocrisy but you aren’t done.

Weaponized false information” … Odd claim for a candidate who spent 9+ million dollars to author a dirty dossier on her opponent. Which caused government authorities to back feed it into our system of government. Interesting concern, isn’t it? Very interesting. Video

Seems “What Happened” is still happening. Yeah, Abuse of Power is your issue, Hillary!

Just “rips at the fabric,” doesn’t it?

Winners and Losers of the week

Fox heavyweight Charles Krauthammer has interestingly called special counsel, Robert Mueller the winner of the week. His loser was McMaster. It’s all in how you see it.

NRO – National Review – had the story:

Charles Krauthammer named H. R. McMaster his “loser of the week” due to his damaged reputation, and then he explained why the winner of the week was Robert Mueller:
My loser: H. R. McMaster, the national-security adviser. On the night of the report of Trump spilling secrets to the Russians, he was one of several trotted out to say the story was false. The next day, he is contradicted by Trump who said he was within his rights to say what he said, implying that he did say it and the story was true. McMaster holds a press conference the next day, where he had to reconcile the irreconcilables. It was a sad sight for a man who spent decades establishing a reputation for integrity and consistency.

My winner is Robert Mueller, who is going to be the chief investigator for the Russia probe. He is now the man who is in charge who has a mandate to investigate essentially anything and is politically untouchable, cannot be fired. Technically he can; politically he can’t. He’s the most powerful man in Washington.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447818/robert-mueller-russian-probe-special-counsel-most-powerful-man-washington

 

If Mueller is the latest standard, allow me to write the new definition for Webster’s:
Winner in that you get an unlimited appointment with an unlimited mandate, and then get get to move your entire law firm into it. – Winning.

And winning is when your own conflict of interest is irrelevant or ignored unanimously by your peers.

My loser of the week has to be Obama, who was instantly driven further into exile by Trump’s new trip to Saudi Arabia. The country that could not be bothered to roll out the red carpet treatment for Obama is quite relieved that he is gone, and definitely not missed by the Saudi government.

It became even more clear after the arrival how much Obama was despised, a bright red carpet and reception for Trump. It seems to take a real bad thing to recognize a good thing.

Also big losers are those Democrats, media, race baiters and haters who are left in Obama’s vacuum to defend his lousy legacy of lies. Losing.

Double standards, Comey’s lame excuses

Let’s see now: James Comey goes out of his way to bury, seal off, and officially close the Hillary investigation. Well, or whatever the hell he was investigating. That would head off or terminate future, continuing probes once she presumably assumed office. Closure.

But then, at the very same time, he left an ongoing investigation wide open to run the course for as long as he — presumably, he alone — felt justified in continuing the stealthy probe. To that end, he already advanced the narrative in previous hearings that some of these investigations can take a long time, even years. And he’s not compelled to say.

Yet in Hillary’s case he wanted to nail the box shut by officially calling it a closed investigation. Nothing he can do to change those facts.

So what we have left in the smokescreen is an ongoing, never ending, probe involving the Trump campaign or possible ties to Russia. It is on course to run out any clock. No limits. Why would Comey need any? ‘We don’t confirm or deny investigations.

In effect, he is doing the very thing to Trump that he feared doing so much to Hillary. No way can he claim to be objective. The Hillary probe was a show investigation anyway, done to end possible questions about her later. Just the way she did in Benghazi, Hillary could claim it was all investigated very closely and cleared her of any wrongdoing.

That was the goal in the server/email investigation all along, giving her security of having been cleared. So having this investigation jihad on Trump continue over the course of his first term bothers who? What harm would it do? Why is there a need to close it? All the questions he feverishly felt needed answering on Hillary.

For Trump, who cares?

Something tangentially came out in the latest hearing on Wednesday. Comey admitted that the collateral contact information collected on Americans via foreign target surveillance is stored away. Then he was asked if that database was searchable . Indeed, yes he admitted it is searchable. Which means at a later date, or anytime really, they could access and search that database — meaning search people’s information. Done without a warrant.

Comey recently expressed that old political adage that if he was making both sides unhappy he must be doing something right. Somehow that demonstrates impartiality, fairness, or being apolitical. No, it is possible to frustrate both sides and be wrong all the way around, to both sides. Just because you gored two different oxen, does not mean you were justified in goring either, or that you were fair to each.

5/3/17
RightRing | Bullright

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

Ignorance is an excuse

I’m sorry, ignorance is an acceptable defense, at least if you are Hillary Clinton.

Saved by intent. Lack of criminal intent says no criminal charges should be filed.

FBI Director Comey testifies about it’s investigation and his determination not to prosecute Hillary. Or as Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” In this case, it is the Director of the FBI standing in the gap, as both a servant of the people and a career.

You normally cannot find what you aren’t looking for, or don’t want to find.

Only in the land of the government oversight hearing would Democrats use the number and quality of all the hacking to government server systems as a defense for what Hillary did. Make that clear, the numerous government hacking mitigates Hillary’s private server arrangement — so she looks better than government by comparison. (I knew they could find a way to use all those hacks for some political purpose.)

Isn’t it interesting that the determining process here was “intent” because he had already — at some point — ruled out the negligence factor? Then, by design, he did not meet the bar of intent. Well, if he really looked very closely for intent. And as most of us know, we normally do not find what we aren’t look for or don’t want to find.

It is funny too that a body who does not want to see intent, even if it is 5 feet in from of their face, can see intent all over the place within the politics of the hearing.

Director Comey goes round and round saying there was no evidence astablished of intent, but then they really weren’t looking too hard for any, if at all.

Now we know if you are commit an offense or break the law of conduct in government, it is only prosecutable if they knew they were doing it or violating it.

At numerous times he appeared to contradict himself while navigating the circumstance of the investigation.

So you have here a Sec of State that is going around telling others not to use any private email for work related conduct, while she herself has set up her own rogue server in her house to use for all her communications. But that, when investigated, she is absolved of having any intent.

How can you scold others about following security rules and ignore them yourself, without intent? That’s right, intentionally ignore them yourself, for all your communications and not even set up a government account.

Gross negligence is not grounds to prosecute, but it is an acceptable defense of criminal conduct. But the greatest asset for the Left is to apply the Alinsky rules to the process to defend yourself. And when it doubt, play dumb, whether you commit the act, or whether you are investigating it.

As Comey put it, he has worked hard to “stop the criminalization of negligence.” Then he himself fell back on ignorance of not knowing certain details about the case, including motive. However, by defaolt, he implied there was no intent by saying he found no prosecutable intent — whether he was really looking or not. He didn’t find it.


I did not, in any way, coordinate that. Brings back some fond memories.

RightRing | Bullright

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.

We may never know Chattanooga shooter’s motives

SO the Chattanooga shooter investigation seems to be on a real slow train.

Pamela Geller

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) – The public may never know what motivated a 24-year-old Chattanooga man to kill four Marines and a sailor in an attack on Chattanooga’s U.S. Naval and Marine Reserve Center last July.

Investigators have said Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was a homegrown violent extremist but have not offered more details about what motivated the attack that began at a military recruiting center and ended when Abdulazeez was shot to death by police who followed him to the reserve center.

“Sometimes the way we investigate requires us to keep information secret. That’s a good thing. We don’t want to smear people,” [FBI Director James Comey] said.

– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/11/fbi-chief-refuses-to-release-motive-in-chattanooga-jihad-murders-we-dont-want-to-smear-people.html/

Sometimes it’s better if people not know, I take it. Wouldn’t want to damage or smear anyone. Nope. Isn’t he the same guy running the Hillary servergate investigation?

No smearing … unless it is the American people, then by all means go ahead.

Unfair and Unbalanced

If Fox News’ tag line is “Fair and Balanced,” then Democrats tag line must be Unfair and Unbalanced — and proud of it. Judging by the Benghazi hearing, they lived up to that standard. Enter the Benghazi Lie.

The story of an internet video was nothing more than a straw man for Democrats. They got as much mileage out of it as they could. Seeing Jay Carney’s prostration of what he had of a reputation before the public and American press pushing a lie was such an act of self-committed denial. But it was in his words that really told the story. He said there was no proof that it was not caused by the video.

See the construction of what we now know were carefully crafted words to deceive.

“What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise[than the video] that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.” — Jay Carney (9/14/12)

So without proof the the Benghazi attack was caused by the video, they asserted it as the reason. See that, lack of proof was never a problem. It’s a contorted abomination of logic: they demanded proof that it was not a video. But they already knew the attack was organized terrorism. It was only the public they were shoveling that lie to. Meanwhile, Hillary wrote to Egypt that we know this is a terrorist attack — and we know it was not caused by the video. Perhaps to reassure them, no matter what they heard from us publicly, that we do “know it was a terrorist attack” not a video reaction.

But the video had nothing to do with Benghazi. Yet they started this game of ‘prove it was not the video.‘ However, what they really wanted to make very clear — in their straw man case — was that the video was not in any way, had nothing to do with, the government.

“In terms of policy, we continue to make clear that in this case, we find the video reprehensible and disgusting. We continue to try to get the message out as broadly as we can that this video is — has nothing to do, is not in any way related to the American government. It does not represent who we are or what we believe. “

It’s funny that I never heard anyone make the case that the video did have anything to do with the government. So they brought in their own accusation that it did. Again without proof that a government-tied video idea was ever postulated.

All this is minor and insignificant, Democrats would say. No, it was very significant. It was a deliberate attempt to deceive, namely the families of victims and the public. That’s why Dems claimed so many times, nothing to see here, move along.

It was only one aspect of Benghazi that was so terrible. If lying didn’t get your ire up, then everything else they did there and about it afterward would.

Q Okay. And if I could just follow up on — you earlier said the cause of the unrest was a video, then you repeated something similar later on. And I just want to be clear, that’s true of Benghazi and Cairo?

MR. CARNEY: I’m saying that that — the incident in Benghazi, as well as elsewhere, that these are all being investigated. What I’m saying is that we have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise that there was a preplanned or ulterior instigation behind that unrest.

Now you see, Democrats liberals always demand proof when you criticize them. In fact, Hillary’s whole defense is that “there is no evidence that she did anything wrong.” That’s their mantra. Obama told us there was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS. How many times have they said “there is no evidence of that?” They are obsessed with evidence and proof on every scandal, but they had no evidence that Benghazi was caused by a video. Yet Susan Rice took to the air on that Sunday indicting a video that had nothing to do with it, without a shred of evidence to support it. As Jordan said, that was the message and explanation they took to the American public.

The other false narrative is that it is a political witch hunt, and Republicans are trying to take her down in her bid for President. Let’s deal with that in two parts. There is the political attack defense. Well, the scandal of Benghazi was created from playing politics — presidential campaign politics.(sound familiar?) Now they assert that politics is the problem with the investigation. While making their case, they played partisan politics to the max. They were even going to boycott the committee/investigation. Benghazi was politics from the beginning. That had everything to do with Hillary’s and Obama’s Libyan adventure. Politics was the central reason for Libya and Benghazi.

Secondly, it is a witch hunt by Republicans hell bent on taking her down. First, all these actions were Hillary’s alone and no one forced her. Witch hunt? So, since she is a premier candidate for President, no one is allowed to investigate her actions? Whoops, our bad! So because Hillary is a powerful and prominent person on the left, we aren’t allowed to investigate or question her motives and actions? I didn’t know she was off limits, especially now since she is running, because it may effect her political chances. Then they claim McCarthy stated/admitted it was a political witch hunt against Hillary. No, he didn’t. He stated as a matter of fact that they began a Benghazi investigation and her polls were now down. He did not say that was the motive.

Were they not to investigate because of her political prominence and that she was running, that would be acting for political reasons. Hillary is not stupid, almost the opposite. She knows everything done in Washington has a political angle to it. In fact, she is a stereotypical player in that environment. It was all through Libya and all over Benghazi. They suddenly have a problem with the political environment? I remember the left’s prediction for years was people won’t care about Benghazi in 2016. That won’t matter to voters. But Dems have been playing political footsie with this terrorist attack since it began. Not to forget playing politics with Mo-Bros throughout the ME.

But there was a point in the hearing when I thought it was taking a turn for the worse. ( if it hadn’t already) Near the end Hillary was talking, I believe, about the co-chair of the ARB and she appeared to suddenly choke on something and started a coughing fit. That’s it, I thought, she’s going to lay it out right here on live TV. She’s going to flat line and EMT’s are going to rush in to revive her. The headline will be the Republicans tortured her with grueling questions until she collapsed. Yes, an imagined story but no more a fictional one than Hillary and Obama were trying to sell the public on Benghazi.

Afterward, the liberal media declared it a masterful marathon by Hillary Clinton. (something to that effect) Yes, Hillary was the victim but she excelled and suffered though it all. (badge of courage) Rachael Maddow asked who else ever endured such a spectacle and treatment? I guess they don’t remember Scooter Libby or the contested testimony of General Petraeus, which Hillary declared “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”.

Stunner: Hillary said she didn’t recall when she spoke to Ambassador Stevens after sending him there. Being the gruesome facts and results of Benghazi, wouldn’t you think she would have remembered the last time she spoke to Stevens? And in over 3 years since, she hasn’t been able to remember.

Hillary: I’m taking responsibility and “I was not responsible for specific security decisions.” So her definition of taking responsibility is not taking responsibility. But she ran out to lie to people it was due to a video that she still insists had something to do with it. Again, no proof of that whatsoever. And no one other than the administration said it did.

RightRing | Bullright

Morning Joe grief counseling on Hillary

Morning Joe dumps on reacts to Hillary’s server mess.

Mika says, if she wins the nomination “I’d vote for her.” But then how do you get there?

Mika sounds warnings about “candidates pretending that things don’t exist.” Welcome to Hillary’s world. Then came the sobering proverbial question of the decade: “I’m going to believe you…and you think the American public is that stupid? That’s very insulting.”

Yes, apparently they do if people say they would still vote for her anyway.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager issued a memo August 13th, wherein he said Republicans are mired in a “bizarre and contentious primary”. So it’s the Republicans, stupid! I don’t see any of them mired in scandals, pretending they don’t exist.

Even lamestream media acknowledges the problems and lies contradictions. Strategy: Deny and ignore that Hillary’s problems even exist.

It’s all politics, all the time

Bad enough that we have one ideologue politician in the White House, but we also have a politico, Attorney General running the DoJ.Why does that matter? Whenever credibility or trust is a factor, then it becomes an issue.

A week since the Grand Jury decision was released and we found out the details. No hands in the air, he assaulted the cop in the car and tried to get his gun. Then he bum-rushed the cop. Even the blood trail showed the direction he was traveling. So all that they had been saying was wrong. And race had noting to do with it. Those results are the backdrop.

Then we had the nasty riots and fallout of the decision. That night DeAndre Joshua was shot, who may have been a witness to the Brown shooting, and also friend to Dorian Johnson, is hardly getting covered. It’s being dismissed as is Louis Head’s incitement.

A week later Obama has a WH meeting with his race-bating buds. All the facts are out now and a lot of people have egg on their face. So that evening Holder travels to give a speech in Atlanta. Holder said the events in Ferguson were not unique to Ferguson but nationwide. Then he mentioned he was going to write policies on profiling.

But we scream that profiling did not have anything to do with Ferguson. Well, precisely the point. The issue of profiling is another poll-tested issue. They know it is a popular whipping post, with many people. So the subject and narrative on Ferguson is now bad. What to do? Change the subject almost as if Ferguson was about profiling.

Obama has a pow wow with his race-baiters. He decided lets change the subject to something that is popular, we can rally people to support. And it gets away from the losing, declining narrative about the Ferguson details. Face it, after the second round of riots and destroying much of the city, it has been stained. The narrative is now about the violence and the riots, and the lies flowing from there since August.

Time to change the subject.

Anything Holder does will be an attempt to start an argument about profiling and steer the attention right into that, as if it were the central issue. We’ll see how fast both media and race-baiters pick up on the narrative. It was already reported MSNBC was posing provocative questions on profiling.

“Like you, I understand that the need for this trust was made clear in the wake of the intense public reaction to last week’s grand jury announcement. But the problems we must confront are not only found in Ferguson. The issues raised in Missouri are not unique to that state or that small city. We are dealing with concerns that are truly national in scope and that threaten the entire nation.”

“Third: in the coming days, I will announce updated Justice Department guidance regarding profiling by federal law enforcement, which will institute rigorous new standards – and robust safeguards – to help end racial profiling, once and for all. This new guidance will codify our commitment to the very highest standards of fair and effective policing.”

This is a straight from the top, race power-brokers, an attempt to commandeer the Ferguson issue into a wider grievance issue. Holder stressed these were national issues. It was Ferguson, it was a local matter. But, as is typical, when controversy and trouble arise they broaden the issue.

Holder said: “Our police officers cannot be seen as an occupying force disconnected from the communities they serve.” Well, where does that come from?

He also said: “But the issue is larger than just the police and the community. Our overall system of justice must be strengthened and made more fair. In this way, we can ensure faith in the justice system. Without that deserved faith, without that reasoned belief, there can be no justice.”

Really? Most people have no trust in Obama or Holder, their cred on anything is MIA.

Holder told them: “As this critical effort unfolds, we will remain firmly resolved to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you in driving this work into the future. And this commitment will also fuel our broader efforts to bring change – and meaningful reform – to urgent challenges far beyond the realm of community policing.”

Can you say politics?

RightRing | Bullright

Faux step-dad being investigated

Michael Brown’s stepdad investigated for comments

AP  By JIM SALTER — 12/2/14  | Yahoo News

ST. LOUIS (AP) — Police are investigating Michael Brown’s stepfather for angry comments on the streets of Ferguson after a grand jury decided not to indict the police officer who fatally shot his stepson, a spokesman said Tuesday.

Officials want to talk to Louis Head about his comments as part of a broader investigation into the arson, vandalism and looting that followed the Nov. 24 grand jury announcement, St. Louis County Police spokesman Brian Schellman said. Twelve commercial buildings were destroyed by fire. …/

Video widely circulated after last week’s grand jury announcement shows Brown’s mother, Lesley McSpadden, on top of a car and breaking down as the decision blares over a stereo. Head, her husband, comforts her then yells angry comments, including “Burn this bitch down!”

Family attorney Benjamin Crump has called the reaction “raw emotion,” but “completely inappropriate.” He did not immediately return messages seeking comment Tuesday.

Head has not yet been interviewed by police, and there is no timetable for when the investigation will be complete, Schellman said. He declined to discuss what specific charges Head could face. A message left with a spokesman for St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch was not immediately returned. …/

Ferguson Police spokesman Jeff Small said that department is not conducting a separate investigation of Head. …/

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that teachers joined the students and the Ferguson-Florissant School District provided buses to pick them up and return them to classes by mid-afternoon. It was their first day back in class after Thanksgiving break was extended a day due to bad weather Monday, when similar walkouts were staged across the country.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/michael-browns-stepdad-investigated-comments-204459408.html

Well, that took some time. They keep reporting him as the Step-dad. Crump made media appearances calling it an emotional statement. Oh, it was filled with emotion all right.

Because he was emotional does not negate his words or what he said. He repeated it enough times. You’d have to prove temporary insanity to say he didn’t know what he was saying. Most likely a planned response, IMHO.

I wonder if someone screaming fire in a theater can be excused because he was emotional? It was probably that emotion which lent even more credibility to his statements. We had a president elected largely on emotions. But when someone incites a riot, emotion is somehow supposed to be an excuse? Go figure.

PS: district school buses shuttle students and teachers from protest?

RightRing | Bullright

Nazi war criminals on Social Security

Lawmakers Seek To End Benefits To Suspected Nazi War Criminals

Thursday, Oct 23, 2014

WASHINGTON (NBC-NewYork/AP) Legislation to stop suspected Nazi war criminals from receiving U.S. Social Security benefits will be introduced soon, members of Congress announced Thursday, the latest response to an Associated Press investigation that revealed millions of dollars have been paid to former Nazis who were forced out of the United States.

A bill crafted by Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania will be offered in mid-November, when Congress returns to session following the midterm elections. House lawmakers said they are working on similar legislation.

The AP’s investigation, published Sunday, has triggered outrage on Capitol Hill, in the editorial pages of newspapers across the country, and from the White House, which said former Nazis should not be getting Social Security benefits.

“It is simply perverse that these criminals have been able to live comfortably abroad thanks to the American taxpayer,” Schumer said.

More at http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Nazi-Social-Security-Benefits-Legislation-Chuck-Schumer-280204092.html

Sometimes things can raise your blood pressure but other things just boil it. Why are these Dems the only faces on this? So they were bribed to leave with Social Security? Pretty outrageous at that. I hope this hasn’t given Barry any ideas.

If they’ve known about this, why hasn’t something already been done?