Who Made the Decision? And Why?

My Recent Posts

Who made the decision not to indict Hillary Clinton?  The (left and media) spin is that her actions never rose to a criminal level and/or that her good intentions excused her "extremely careless" treatment of national security. 

 

Most would say James Comey, FBI director from 2013 to 2017 made that decision after careful deliberation of the facts and the law.  After all, his boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch publicly announced she would abide by whatever decision he (and FBI career prosecutors) decided.  This was after she and Bill Clinton had a furtive meeting on an airport runway to discuss "grand-kids and golf".

 

 

We're learning that the fix was in with Comey and the "career FBI prosecutors" (like Peter Strzok).  The decision not to indict was made well before they even interviewed Clinton, well before Loretta Lynch acquiesced to their "decision"... and everybody involved (especially Lynch) knew what that decision was.

 

But the question still remains.  WHO made the decision?  The answer is not Comey, or Lynch, or any career prosecutor at the FBI.  That decision was made by President Barack Obama.

 

 

Why?  Because (contrary to claims otherwise), Barack Obama knew about the private servers operated by Hillary Clinton and was indifferent to their use.

 

If that's as far as it went, one might ask why would Obama stick his neck out and squash an investigation for the Clintons?  There is no love lost between them.

 

The answer lies in the fact that Barack Obama found himself one step beyond indifferent and into complicity.  How?  Barrack Hussein Obama communicated with Clinton through those accounts using a pseudonym (one that could be traced back to him).  THAT, all of sudden, equates to the President of the United States knowingly breaking the same law the Secretary of State was breaking.

 

When you're committing a crime, what is the one sure way to get a pass, a get-out-of-jail-free card? 

 

To have proof (dirt) that the guy ultimately in charge of those who might prosecute to be as guilty as you are.  It also doesn't hurt that the "prosecutors" view themselves as above the law and solidly in your camp.

 

 

Everything was going according to plan... The fix was in... no indictment, meaning no prosecution, meaning no exposure of bigger fish (Obama)... until an inept candidate lost a gimme election that would have ensured everything would be kept swept under the rug.

 

With all that said... it is still very unlikely anything will ever come of this.  The corruption of the deep state, the media, and our representatives has reached that point.

 

 

Comments

Leroy Added Jan 31, 2018 - 10:16pm
Comey added intent to the law where the law does not require intent.  He was upfront with his congressional testimony.  He essentially changed the law.  Either Clinton is convicted or the FBI has to prove anyone similarly charged did it with intent, which is notoriously difficult to prove.  Either the law applies equally or it doesn't.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Jan 31, 2018 - 10:43pm
Finally something of import from chicken plant country. Good on ya.
 
Comey is a dirty cop. FBI director shortly before reviewing the memo defended McCabe saying he (the Dir.) would resign before firing McCabe then reads the memo and fires him. McCabe threatens to burn down the FBI if he doesn't get his full pension. 
 
I don't trust DOJ to do their job putting everyone from Barry Soetero down in prison either. 
 
Feral Baby Incinerators (FBI) haven't "recently" been "politicized" they have always been so. Considering the treasonous actions of much of the leadership and upper level functionaries of that corrupt organization along with the history of decades of abuse of the peace and dignity of people and the abuse of the constitution they should be put out of business entirely. Fire them all from Director to janitor. 
Leroy Added Jan 31, 2018 - 11:08pm
I heard this one the other day.  Change the name from FBI to FIB.
 
It's admittedly unfair to the rank and file.  The leadership needs to be drained from the swamp.  What's the count so far, five?  It's about to grow.  If the Republicans have what they say they have, we are in for some fireworks tomorrow.  If they don't deliver, the Republicans will be in trouble.
Mircea Negres Added Feb 1, 2018 - 3:57am
It was unseemly, unprofessional and the way I see it, downright damned illegal for the AG to meet with the husband of the investigation's subject while the investigation was going on, especially since it created the (accurate, I think) impression of political influence in and interference with a criminal case that had national security implications. As for the FBI director's subsequent actions, they reminded me of the National Prosecuting Authority in South Africa, when they declined to prosecute Jacob Zuma on 783 counts of corruption and racketeering. Man, this is what happens when politics is allowed to interfere with investigations and prosecutions, but what's worse is that the system is undermined and eventually the whole country suffers.
Thomas Napers Added Feb 1, 2018 - 4:00am
It’s more like who cares who made the decision.  Obama is no longer president, Lynch is no longer attorney general, Comey is no longer director of the FBI and Hillary’s political career is over.  Perhaps they all collectively decided they liked Hillary too much to prosecute her. You may never know the truth, but we know now that it all no longer matters.  Let’s just thank God they didn’t get away with it, afterall, Trump is our president. 
Flying Junior Added Feb 1, 2018 - 4:22am
I thought it was James Comey, the same tool who threw the election to Trump with eleventh hour shenanigans about Anthony Wiener's emails.  At least the man had the loyalty to the U.S.A. to have his own eleventh hour epiphany.
 
Only stupid people would have fallen for this.  But elections turn upon such as these.  What was Hillary supposed to do, fire Huma Abedin?  She is a good woman.
 
Explain to me Hillary's crime?  You can't be serious with this kooky rant.  Hillary for prison.  You claim you just went with the flow as far as Trump.  Calling bullshit.  You are part of the new mainstream republican disinformation coalition.
 
Bill and Hillary Clinton are honorable Americans.  I challenge any right-wing parrot to provide me evidence to the contrary.
Flying Junior Added Feb 1, 2018 - 4:33am
Why?  You would think that just about anybody would know the answer to that.
 
The Burghal Hidage Added Feb 1, 2018 - 5:00am
James Comey's only loyalty is to his own self, just like the Clintons. Previously I had considered that you were a moron, FJ. I was wrong. You're worse. You've become so immersed in the lies that you now feel comfort in lying to yourself. You're pathetic
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 7:57am
It couldn't be that she hasn't really done much wrong, could it? That maybe mountains are being made out of molehills?
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 8:03am
FJ - you are certainly right there. Comey's 'illegal' intervention at a critical point in the campaign completely took the momentum out of Hilary's surge and set her back. It was an obvious political move to bring that up at such a late time - particularly when no wrongdoing was uncovered. One has to question his motive. When elections are so close it doesn't take much to alter a result. Comey won it for Trump and I would suggest that it was an illegal move to make that announcement at that time. I am sure that without his intervention she would have won.
Leroy Added Feb 1, 2018 - 8:18am
"FJ - you are certainly right there. Comey's 'illegal' intervention at a critical point in the campaign completely took the momentum out of Hilary's surge and set her back. It was an obvious political move to bring that up at such a late time - particularly when no wrongdoing was uncovered."
 
I think Comey had an "Oh, shit!" moment.  It's come to light that Andy McCade sat on the emails on Huma's husband's computer for weeks.  He attempted to keep the emails secret until after the election.  Imagine if all this came out after the election.  It was well timed such that Comey could whitewash it by saying it was more the same and Huma had no intent, as he testified before Congress.  It should have come out much earlier.  He was just covering his derriere.
The Burghal Hidage Added Feb 1, 2018 - 8:26am
On your concluding point, covering his derriere, you are correct. He was hedging his bets in case Trump should win.
 
Its funny to watch the roaches scurry when the lights are turned on.
The Burghal Hidage Added Feb 1, 2018 - 8:28am
No wrong doing uncovered? Really? Okay, well you just keep telling yourself that. Good thing you don't have any skin in the game
Spartacus Added Feb 1, 2018 - 8:58am
"Change the name from FBI to FIB."
 
GTA V is a great game.
Bill Kamps Added Feb 1, 2018 - 8:59am
The Clintons have always been pretty adept at avoiding indictments.
 
However, just because they have never been found guilty of anything, does not mean they are innocent. 
 
They of course are not alone among politicians in this situation.
Dino Manalis Added Feb 1, 2018 - 9:16am
The authorities made that decision, it was political, they felt sorry for Hillary and didn't wish to investigate further.  Even Trump decided she had enough!
George N Romey Added Feb 1, 2018 - 10:17am
My sense is that an investigation and potential indictment of the Clintons is so feared by Washington as it will open the tap on all of the other political criminal activities and of course tear the country apart.  Its a road that would lead to questioning the intent and abilities of our representatives in Washington and whether they actually try to rule for the good of the country or for the good of themselves and their few uber rich friends.
 
In other words, too big to jail.
TexasLynn Added Feb 1, 2018 - 10:35am
Leroy >> Comey added intent to the law where the law does not require intent. 
 
Which he legally can't do... 
 
Comey then had Strzok edit the wording of his exoneration from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless".
 
Why... because "grossly negligent" is the wording within the law that would indicate guilt.
 
Leroy >> Either Clinton is convicted or the FBI has to prove anyone similarly charged did it with intent, which is notoriously difficult to prove.  Either the law applies equally or it doesn't.
 
Actually, the DOJ has simply decided that the law doesn't apply to Clinton and does apply to others.  David H. Petraeus was prosecuted (and plead guilty) under similar circumstances. US Navy sailor, Kristian Saucier, was prosecuted (and plead guilty) for taking a few snapshots aboard a submarine.
 
Leroy >>  If the Republicans have what they say they have, we are in for some fireworks tomorrow.  If they don't deliver, the Republicans will be in trouble.
 
The Republicans are in trouble even is they have what they think they have.  The media and the system are just too corrupt to circumvent.  Give them a smoking gun and they'll roll their eyes and toss it over their shoulders... then report what they want.  Their Kool-Aid drinkers will lap it up and the massively uninformed will be spoon fed lies.  Add those two groups together and you have a majority.  Case closed.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
JG >> Comey is a dirty cop.
 
I think you're right.  Worse... he's an incompetent dirty cop.  But he's not the only one... and many are still there.
 
That said, I don't think the rank and file guys are biased or dirty; career upper level management is the problem (as Leroy observed).
 
JG >> (FBI) haven't "recently" been "politicized" they have always been so.
 
That, I can't speak to, but it wouldn't surprise me.  We know the IRS falls in the same category with the Lois Lerner crap.  There are a lot of people who should be in prison, who aren't.  It speaks to the systemic corruption.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
MN >> It was unseemly, unprofessional and the way I see it, downright damned illegal for the AG to meet with the husband of the investigation's subject
 
Unseemly, and unprofessional?  Yes.  Downright illegal?  Not the meeting itself, but likely what was discussed and agreed to.
 
But, those who commit these types of crimes (Clintons and Lynch) are smart enough to make sure nobody knows what was said.  Thus, we find out it was only "golf and grandkids".
 
MN >> ... what's worse is that the system is undermined and eventually the whole country suffers.
 
When we lose the rule of law... (which we have)... we're in trouble.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
Thomas >> It’s more like who cares who made the decision.  Obama is no longer president, Lynch is no longer attorney general, Comey is no longer director of the FBI and Hillary’s political career is over.
 
All those things are true (I hope)... but we should still care because...
 
When we lose the rule of law... (which we have)... we're in trouble.
 
Thomas >> Let’s just thank God they didn’t get away with it, afterall
 
So far, they have gotten away with it and if I was a betting man would say they likely will in the end.
 
Thomas >> Trump is our president.
 
And THAT is the only thing that gives us any probability of rectifying this gross miscarriage of justice; however slim.
TexasLynn Added Feb 1, 2018 - 10:36am
FJ >> I thought it was James Comey, the same tool who threw the election to Trump with eleventh hour shenanigans about Anthony Wiener's emails...
 
Leroy addresses this very well in his comment.  Comey was corrupt and in the Clinton camp... but he was also incompetent.  He had an "oh shit" moment and needed to cover his ass.  And think about the common knowledge at the time.  Trump had ZERO chance to win, the election was just a formality before the Clinton coronation.  Thus, Comey thought he could cover his ass and still have Hillary in office; a have your cake and eat it too scenario.  Had the media and Hillary camp been a little more competent and/or honest; Comey would have known better.
 
FJ >> Explain to me Hillary's crime?
 
Nothing I say/write will convince you... but here you go... knock yourself out.
 
18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
18 U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records
18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense
 
FJ >> Why?  You would think that just about anybody would know the answer to that.
 
Because of the corrupt media, corrupt FBI officials, and leftist obfuscation... most people don't know who made the decision (Obama) and why (because he was complicit in the crime).
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
TBH >> He was hedging his bets in case Trump should win.
 
I don't think he was... but it's possible.  EVERYBODY (including Comey) never saw the Trump win coming.
 
TBH >> Its funny to watch the roaches scurry when the lights are turned on.
 
Maybe... but it is also gratifying to watch a few of them get caught/squished.  We haven't seen that yet.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
Opher >> It couldn't be that she hasn't really done much wrong, could it? That maybe mountains are being made out of molehills?
 
It's possible, Opher.  It's possible little monkeys could fly out of my @$$.  Look at the facts or don't... it's your decision.
 
Opher >> When elections are so close it doesn't take much to alter a result.
 
Did you just write that?  NOBODY thought the election was close.  EVERYBODY (you and FJ included) would have bet your left cojone Hillary was going to run away with it.  Comey did.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
George >> My sense is that an investigation and potential indictment of the Clintons is so feared by Washington as it will open the tap on all of the other political criminal activities and of course tear the country apart... In other words, too big to jail.
 
THAT is very perceptive... and something I had not considered.
 
The criminal activities of the Clintons is organized crime level crap; and there is no telling how many, who, and at what level is caught up in it.
George N Romey Added Feb 1, 2018 - 10:39am
Yep Americans would soon learn that their emperors have no clothes.  It would be Watergate to the 125th power. 
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 10:48am
Leroy - it is my belief that any concerns regarding Hilary's emails should have been sorted well before. It should not have been deployed a few days before the conclusion of an election when there was no opportunity to refute it and clear her name. There was nothing new. She was never charged. But it cost her the election. I think that was deliberate and criminal. It was timed to cause maximum damage and there has not been any criminal charges against her. Clearly a political act. 
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 10:52am
Bill/Burger - I don't say they are innocent. I don't know. It never went to court. Likewise I do believe that Trump has committed many crimes and so far has not been in court.
I guess at the end of the day it comes down to your political bias.
If they are both guilty of the crimes they've been accused of I still think I'd prefer Hilary's crimes over Trumps any day.
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 10:53am
Dino - that is you surmising. I don't think the judiciary actually works on compassion.
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 10:54am
George - that is quite possible but it is all conjecture isn't it?
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 10:57am
Lynn - as I understand it the accusations you cite stem from Hilary using a computer that was not sufficiently encrypted? 
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 10:58am
Lynn - It was obvious the election was close. Looking at the national polls one could see that.
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 10:59am
Lynn - I've seen an awful number of small monkeys around lately. You don't know where they've come from do you?
Bill Kamps Added Feb 1, 2018 - 11:04am
opher, well the  truth is we dont know the extent of any politician's crimes, and we also dont know  what they did that was simply unethical, rather than illegal.   They are all pretty adept at skirting the rules, and hiding what they have done. 
 
It is interesting that you, like many others always cast this in partisan terms.  If I criticize HRC, the response is, oh yeah  Trump did it also.  When I criticize Trump, I get a similar response from the right. 
 
Granted, all their  hands are dirty, and picking which is worse, is a waste of time. 
Leroy Added Feb 1, 2018 - 11:11am
"Leroy - it is my belief that any concerns regarding Hilary's emails should have been sorted well before. It should not have been deployed a few days before the conclusion of an election when there was no opportunity to refute it and clear her name."
 
I agree, Opher.  If Clinton had been more forthcoming with emails and cooperating, it would have been resolved much more quickly.  Her aid, Huma Abedin, had to know that she was sending classified information to a non-secure computer to someone without security clearance who had committed crimes that would subject him to blackmail.   She was trained.  She signed off on it. Ignorance is not included in the law and is not an excuse.  She lied to the FBI.  Ok.  You can say she didn't lie; she just forgot.  I don't believe it.
 
The emails are a minor consideration.  Pay for play (or non-play) is the bigger issue.  Andy McCabe slow-walked the email investigation in an attempt to ensure that the information didn't come out until after the election.  He is currently under investigation for doing so.  Why?  His wife received nearly a half million dollars for her campaign from the Clinton Foundation, of which I am sure went to their bank account.  Investigations into the Clinton Foundation were encumbered.  Follow the money.  This does not include all the pay for play while she was secretary of state.
 
I agree that no politician will go to jail.  Non-politicians will.  I predict Clinton will magically develop Parkinson's and will avoid jail.   It is an easy sell since many pundits and Republicans have proffered this analysis already.
Ian Thorpe Added Feb 1, 2018 - 11:21am
George Romney, you make a point I would have made had I an interest in the fight. I think if any modern government in the democratic world (where politicians are supposed to be accountable to the voters) were to be properly investigated the whole edifice would quickly collapse.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 1, 2018 - 11:24am
If they are both guilty of the crimes they've been accused of I still think I'd prefer Hilary's crimes over Trumps any day.
 
Therein lies the root of your problem. Acceptance of evil by preferring YOUR evil over that of another. 
 
You want to see an even bigger evil in a one world gov't. You're a sick evil man. The perfect Killary supporter. 
Spartacus Added Feb 1, 2018 - 11:25am
Lynn, I was and am entirely for throwing Hillsforbrains against the full weight of the law.  She is a criminal. 
However, that situation, during the run-up to the 2016 election, was fully staged and permitted by a host of dubious actors . . . for years.  Obama, being the head of that cabal.
 
There was no good way for a guy like Comey to deal with that terrible paradox in US politics.  I will err in the center and say that Comey probably chose the course of least impact and re-opened the investigation, at the last minute, ensuring she would not become our new leader.  He knew that if she became president, the corruption would be catastrophic.  He also knew that if he pressed charges, half the nation would rise in violent protest.
 
In some ways, he kicked the legal can down the road while doing what he could to dissuade Hillary voters.
Dave Volek Added Feb 1, 2018 - 11:31am
Why is it that no one here is seeing the wrongness that an election being decided by placing by one or two timely "stories" on the front page--or maybe deliberately withholding them for a better time?
 
If a formal or informal campaign team makes the right decision at the right time, then they get to run the show for the next four years. So it is imperative to become masters of this technique.
 
The traditional political party worker is becoming less relevant. 
 
To me, this is another sign we need to change the system.
Ian Thorpe Added Feb 1, 2018 - 11:36am
Opher, I think you are letting your political bias cloud your judgement. The issue of the Clinton private server had been simmering for years but powerful friends of the Clintons (when I say friends I mean people they had either bribed or had dirt on) had been blocking a proper investigation. It was only when a Democratic Party worker (allegedly Seth Rich who committed suicide by shooting himself in the back,) disgusted at the way Bernie Sanders had been cheated out of the nomination, leaked details of emails sent from and to Clinton's private server that voters were made aware of what an utterly despicable person was being pushed into The White House.
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 11:48am
Bill - I just think people are quick to select the 'facts' that fit the case they feel. The truth rarely gets a look-in.
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 11:53am
Leroy - I don't know. Maybe she was stupid and used an unsecured computer and when she realised tried to cover it up? Doesn't seem that big a deal to me. It seems to have been bigged up.
Likewise the supposed payment. Who knows?
Time will tell.
However the timing was very convenient for Trump.
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 11:54am
Jeffry - no I don't condone wrongdoing. If they are guilty they need to be taken through the courts. At the moment they are both innocent in law. It is all conjecture.
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 11:56am
William - it wasn't his can to kick. It should have been placed in the courts to decide or not brought up. They needed to investigate - not announce.
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 11:58am
Dave - I agree. All this was political. If she, or he, has done wrong then pass it to the courts. If not - don't.
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 11:59am
Ian - maybe - and you are not letting your bias show?
Ian Thorpe Added Feb 1, 2018 - 1:57pm
Opher, when Hillary was Secretary of State she oversaw the prosecution, imprisonment of a senior military officer who had served his country loyally for using his email account to exchange messages with his mistress. It seems he had been extremely careless in choosing a woman who had some very dubious connections as a lover.
Now you, along with millions of leftist Americans are suggesting that with strong evidence having finally been obtained that Hillary Clinton conducted government business that she wanted to conceal from audit trails on a private server and she should not even be investigated because her left wing politics place her above suspicion.

I'm sure Uncle Joe Stalin, Chairman Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Honecker et al would accept that as justice. Unfortunately for Hillary it seems, Trump and most reasonable Americans see it as typical left wing hypocrisy and double standards.

Hillary will not go to prison of course, someone will ensure her case comes before a certain judge, Bill will remind the judge of the great weken they had on Jeffrey Epsteins sin island a few years back and .....................case dismissed.
Flying Junior Added Feb 1, 2018 - 2:17pm
TBH.  I thought you were going to quite responding to me.
Flying Junior Added Feb 1, 2018 - 2:19pm
I find this all fascinating.  Obviously Hillary is in no danger from the law.  But flail away.  Why does anyone still care?  Whatever damage has been done to either side, it's all water under the bridge today.
Dave Volek Added Feb 1, 2018 - 2:22pm
Opher
 
The last Canadian election was decided by one TV commercial.
 
The former prime minister had a ten-year tenure. This base was pleased with his performance Polls were looking in his favor, so he called an election a little early. His campaign team used the same kind of TV commercials that had discredited his main opponent enough to convince that opponent's soft support to stay away in previous elections.
 
Except this time, the opponent's campaign team were ready for those TV commercials. They had crafted a counter commercial. When I first saw it, I thought; "Oh, Oh. Someone is going to be looking for new job in a couple weeks."
 
We are deciding our leaders on who makes the best TV commercials. The system needs to be changed! 
TexasLynn Added Feb 1, 2018 - 2:34pm
Opher... first... thanks for the plethora of comments. :)  As well as thanks to everyone else. :)
 
Opher >> it is my belief that any concerns regarding Hilary's emails should have been sorted well before.
 
I actually agree Opher... whatever happened to the FBI saying, "It is not our policy to comment on an ongoing investigation"?  Which should have been what was said all along.
 
But I'm not so sure it cost her the election... though I will acknowledge it was a factor and possibly a big enough factor.
 
Hillary being a crook was already a well-publicized message.  How much did THIS one press conference affect that narrative?  I think not as much as some claim/think.  If you thought she was a crook before, you still did.  If you didn't you still didn't.
 
Opher >>  I think that was deliberate and criminal.
 
I think it was deliberate in that Comey wanted to cover his ass and thinking Hillary had it in the bag anyway.  I don't think it was political.  You guys are forgetting all the coverage at the time.  Everybody and his dog was saying it was IMPOSSIBLE for Trump to win based on the electoral map.
 
This was the narrative by everybody: There is no possible way Donald Trump’s team actually believes this is their path to 270 -- Washington Post
 
Now IF the news conference on the Weiner emails was done with the intent you propose (to affect the election) I believe that would indeed violate the Hatch act.  But intent is key with the Hatch act and it’s much harder to prove.  Everything found documenting Comey's intentions put him (and his subordinates) squarely in the Clinton camp.
 
It was panic and incompetence... not intentional interference.
 
Opher >> I guess at the end of the day it comes down to your political bias.
 
At least for you guys. :)  My side is as pure as the wind driven snow. :)
 
Opher >> I still think I'd prefer Hilary's crimes over Trumps any day.
 
Outside the scope of this crime (the servers) is the "pay for play" crimes through the Clinton Foundation worth 100s of millions.  When you look at the scope of those crimes, we're talking RICO level stuff.  The email servers were just low-level crimes to hide the really big stuff going on.  (Of course, they got Capone on tax evasion).
 
You show me absolute proof that Trump himself colluded with Russia/Putin (which didn't happen) ... and I'll call it even at best.
 
Opher >> I understand it the accusations you cite stem from Hilary using a computer that was not sufficiently encrypted?
 
No, no, no, no, no!  I'm looking at the law as it was literally written... which does not mention "sufficiently encrypted".  The servers simply existing (outside the DOJ) and containing government business/emails/classified information IS the crime.  Nothing more need be proven.  Encryption is irrelevant.  Intent is irrelevant.
 
Opher >> It was obvious the election was close. Looking at the national polls one could see that.
 
Now, Opher, now it is obvious the election was close.  THEN it was perceived to be the exact opposite.  Yeah, it was within a few points in the polls, but again, everybody said Trump had NO chance given a state by state examination of the electoral map.
 
Comey did not act on what we know now.  He did not have access to a crystal ball or time machine... he acted based on what he (and you and everybody else) thought to be true then.
 
Opher >>  I've seen an awful number of small monkeys around lately. You don't know where they've come from do you?
 
All my monkeys are accounted for. :)
TexasLynn Added Feb 1, 2018 - 2:35pm
Bill >> If I criticize HRC, the response is, oh yeah  Trump did it also.  When I criticize Trump, I get a similar response from the right.
 
True enough Bill... on both sides.  This post is all about crimes by Hillary and the fix by the DOJ/FBI at the behest of Obama.
 
If Trump did anything... it should be proven and he should be held accountable.  But, that's a separate issue.
 
I think I've documented much of what I've asserted (without resorting to writing a whole book)... I invite someone else to document Trumps "crimes"... but all I've seen as proof so far in that regard is conjecture (as Opher puts it).
 
JG >> Therein lies the root of your problem. Acceptance of evil by preferring YOUR evil over that of another.
 
That is a problem.  We are all susceptible to that inclination.  I'll do my best to resist it; and pray for the rest of you. :)
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
Leroy >> If Clinton had been more forthcoming with emails and cooperating, it would have been resolved much more quickly.
 
Everybody says that... as if Clinton did this for convenience pretending all the other smoke (reasons why) she's been blowing was true.  We all know that she couldn't be more forthcoming because the entire purpose of the servers was to cover up her criminal activity concerning the Clinton Foundation. 
 
Yeah... handing over the servers would have resolved this much more quickly... go to jail, go directly to jail…
 
Leroy >> The emails are a minor consideration.  Pay for play (or non-play) is the bigger issue. 
 
Bam! Right on the money...
 
As I stated above... Outside the scope of this crime (the servers) is the "pay for play" crimes through the Clinton Foundation worth 100s of millions.  When you look at the scope of those crimes, you find RICO level stuff.  The email servers were just low-level crimes to hide the really big stuff.
 
Leroy >>  Her aid, Huma Abedin, had to know that she was sending classified information to a non-secure computer to someone without security clearance who had committed crimes that would subject him to blackmail.
 
I wish I could find the article... but I read that Huma was scared %$^*less until a certain meeting with the FBI where she learned that Obama had communicated with Hillary over the illegal email accounts.  After that, she was fine... she knew a get-out-of-jail-free card when she saw one.
TexasLynn Added Feb 1, 2018 - 2:35pm
Willam >> I was and am entirely for throwing Hillsforbrains against the full weight of the law.  She is a criminal.
 
As am I.
 
Willaim >> However, that situation, during the run-up to the 2016 election, was fully staged and permitted by a host of dubious actors . . . for years.  Obama, being the head of that cabal.
 
Yes, and I think some of that has been exposed.  Is it enough for accountability?  I don't think so... but then I think with the media we have in place today; it would be very hard to hold anybody on the left accountable AND very easy to hold anybody on the right accountable (even if innocent).
 
Willaim >> I will err in the center and say that Comey probably chose the course of least impact and re-opened the investigation, at the last minute, ensuring she would not become our new leader.
 
We'll just have to disagree.  I can't bring myself to give Comey that much intellectual or moral credit. 
 
And if he did... it's not his place to make that decision; anymore that it was the place of Peter Strzok, his DOJ lawyer mistress, and Andy McCabe to give Hillary a pass and go after Trump (both for partisan reasons).
 
If he were the paragon of virtue people once thought... he would have indicted Hillary (because the evidence was clearly there) and would have never said a word about any of it to the press.
 
Opher >>  it wasn't his can to kick....
 
"And if he did... it's not his place to make that decision..."  -- Lynn Johnson
 
See Opher we agree on something.  Now… show some of that non-partisan spunk and acknowledge McCabe and Strzok kicked cans they should never have considered (for partisan reasons).  Unfortunately, for the left, the entire Russian farce is based on the cans, they teed up and kicked.
TexasLynn Added Feb 1, 2018 - 2:36pm
Dave >> Why is it that no one here is seeing the wrongness that an election being decided by placing by one or two timely "stories" on the front page--or maybe deliberately withholding them for a better time?
 
That is the assertion of some within the comments... but I just don't think that intentionally happened.
 
I will concede that if it did, then that is a conspiracy for which people need to go to jail.
 
Dave >> To me, this is another sign we need to change the system.
 
The system, as designed, is fine... the problem is when you get bad actors in the system.  And if that is the problem, no system is safe or sufficient.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
Opher >> Maybe she was stupid and used an unsecured computer and when she realised tried to cover it up? Doesn't seem that big a deal to me. It seems to have been bigged up.
 
If that is what had happened, you would be right.  It's not what happened…
 
This was the small crime to cover up the big crimes.  Hillary knew exactly what she was doing from the beginning.  Based on her plans, she had no choice.  There was no way her communications system could be in the control of anybody but her people.  When you’re robbing a bank… you don’t call Uber for a getaway driver… no telling what you’ll get and he may not cooperate.
 
Opher >> Time will tell.
 
Then you have more faith in the system than I do.  It is unlikely that time will tell.  Had Hillary won, there would have been no way in hell time would tell.
 
Opher >> If they are guilty they need to be taken through the courts.
 
Amen.
 
Opher >> At the moment they are both innocent in law.
 
Yes, but the point of the post is... what's to be done when you discover the guys in charge of enforcing the law decide not to because of their own bias?  THAT is a problem.
 
Opher >> It is all conjecture.
 
Some of it is, and some isn't.
 
- Trump collusion with Russia... conjecture at this point.
- Hillary practiced pay for play though her foundation... conjecture at this point
 
- Hillary had illegal servers... fact
- Classified information was on said servers... fact
- Obama communicated with Hillary on said servers... hmmmm, conjecture, though well sourced and documented
 
TexasLynn Added Feb 1, 2018 - 2:37pm
A much better article on this can be found here... (please spare me the complaints on the source)
 
Clinton–Obama Emails: The Key to Understanding Why Hillary Wasn’t Indicted
 
opher goodwin Added Feb 1, 2018 - 3:23pm
Lynn - well it seems to me that there was a lot of dodgy stuff going on and a lot of cover up but I do not know. The trouble is that politics attracts unsavoury characters with a lust for power.
I'll check out your link.
Mark Hunter Added Feb 1, 2018 - 5:50pm
I don't understand why anyone thinks Hillary will ever get charged with anything. Granted that she has Obama's reluctant protection now along with the media's support, but she's always been good at dodging trouble.
TexasLynn Added Feb 1, 2018 - 6:27pm
MH >> I don't understand why anyone thinks Hillary will ever get charged with anything.
 
It's like a childhood dream that truth, justice, and the American way still exists.  Who wants to give up on that? :)
 
MH >> Granted that she has Obama's reluctant protection
 
Only the remnants of what Obama put in place... which is degrading.  Obama's protection was put in place on the assumption that she would become President and seal the deal.  That misstep screwed the whole thing up.
 
MH >> ... now along with the media's support
 
Always had it... probably always will.  THIS is her ace in the hole.  If anything saves her, this is it.  My bet is this will be enough.
 
BUT... if there is one thing about the left (which includes the media) it will eat its own.  (See Hollywood right now) And when it does, it's not a pretty site.
 
MH >> but she's always been good at dodging trouble.
 
To that truth, there is no doubt.  If I had any incriminating information on all of this, I'd be calling a press conference every other day announcing how happy (and not suicidal) I was.
wsucram15 Added Feb 1, 2018 - 9:39pm
Lynn:
This is my background, federal law, specifically labor and bankruptcy law..but Con Law is something I have repetitively studied as its part of a law degree.
With that said, I have one thing to say and a discussion separate from that, Things I want you to think about.
First many of us on here are Constitutionalists, I know you are because we have discussed this. now its in my background to be this way. 
starting from there..What you are talking about..is politics. While we have standards of law that must be met, sometimes what WE feel is a good case, wont hold up in front of a judge.  As politicized as things are right now, do you seriously think  that if there is something they could prosecute her on, they would not? Aside from the law, its just good optics for GOP. 
So what you are hearing now is politics.neither side is trying to do anything to the other..except fight in the press for points with the public.
Now I believe in the rule of law..but people like Clinton and Trump will never go to jail or even be smacked on the wrist. Our system just does not function that way anymore. It functions on money from pmts on incarcerations to high dollar payoffs and everything you can imagine in between.
 
The only time we hear about stuff is an occasional slip or problems politically.
A constitutional govt cannot function as dem vs GOP only format.  Its not set up that way. Its set up as a SYSTEM of three tiers with checks and balances that works co equally to serve the people.
None of this has happened for a long time, Im sure longer but for the purposes of my point since the 111th Congress and each Congress has become weaker as far as their job under the Constitution.  Meanwhile, in various Presidencies, executive powers have been expanded and judicial reduced. 
It has been weak for some time, but the arguing and fighting has to stop. 
The end game I believe is to destroy our foundation and its a wonderful idea, but I have a parallel for that and we would never return to a democracy or the America people have grown up in.
So is she guilty of something..most likely, is trump guilty..most likely..will we ever know for sure ...NO, there is no profit in it.
TexasLynn Added Feb 2, 2018 - 12:03am
Jeanne >> This is my background, federal law, specifically labor and bankruptcy law..but Con Law is something I have repetitively studied as its part of a law degree.
 
Thanks for the background info.  I'm simply a law and political junkie BUT I was actually a pre-law political science major before I changed my mind and went into (IT) Information Technology.  That is a story unto itself... :)
 
Jeanne >> With that said, I have one thing to say and a discussion separate from that, Things I want you to think about.
 
I'll do my best.  But I'm probably not in a compromising state of mind on this issue.  (I hope you understand, just as you feel strongly enough not to support the compromise DACA for border wall.)  For me we are stomping on the toes of principle here.
 
Jeanne >> First many of us on here are Constitutionalists, I know you are because we have discussed this.
 
Agreed... and thank you for the compliment.
 
Jeanne >> What you are talking about..is politics.
 
I don't think I agree with that.  Politics is documented as entering into the decisions of the players, but at its core... this (post and thus what we are talking about) is about crime and the lack of enforcement of crime and why.  Politics is a factor, but not the main subject.
 
Jeanne >> While we have standards of law that must be met, sometimes what WE feel is a good case, wont hold up in front of a judge. 
 
Agreed, that happens... and if I thought that was the main factor in not indicting Hillary Clinton, I think I could/would accept it.  It is a good prosecutor who can and will make those type of decisions.  And I think it happens all the time.
 
BUT... based on the actions, and words of the prosecutors in this case, I think it is obvious the strength of the case was not what influenced their decision on indictment (or the lack of one).  At most, it was written into statement presented to the press/public.  Outside that, the strength of the case was rarely (if ever) mentioned.
 
Peter Strzok and his lover aren't lamenting that the evidence is lacking or that no judge would hear the case... no... their concern is that they had better go easy on Hillary in the interview and hope she will remember their cooperation when she becomes President.
 
And these people not only still have jobs, they were given authority to persecute the people they didn't like when everything went astray and Hillary lost.  I'm sorry, but corruption at this level is not to be ignored or brushed aside.
 
Jeanne >> As politicized as things are right now, do you seriously think  that if there is something they could prosecute her on, they would not?
 
Yes... Absolutely yes.  And again... I think their words and actions prove that is exactly what they did.  At a minimum I think the evidence begs for a special prosecutor to look into their actions.  At a minimum the evidence begs that they be suspended, if not fired from their posts.
 
I think any objective prosecutor worth squat would have seen this as a slam dunk case (based strictly on the law).  They took a different tack.  They chose not to prosecute strictly on a partisan basis.  Even worse, they spent their efforts not building a case, but doing their best to undermine it... the law (and justice) be dammed.
 
Jeanne >> Aside from the law, its just good optics for GOP.
 
I'm unconcerned about the optics, GOP or otherwise.  I'm concerned for the republic and the foundational principle (the rule of law) that has been severely undermined with no remedy.
 
I'll remind you, I'm not a Republican.  I'm one of the biggest supporters of 3rd, 4th, and 5th parties I know.  I wish a pox of both parties.
TexasLynn Added Feb 2, 2018 - 12:04am
Jeanne >> So what you are hearing now is politics neither side is trying to do anything to the other..except fight in the press for points with the public.
 
I grant that this is happening and always will... but fighting partisans doesn't mean there isn't truth somewhere in all of this.  If what many of you suspect is true; they're all dirty... then I want them all to go down.
 
Jeanne >> Now I believe in the rule of law..but people like Clinton and Trump will never go to jail or even be smacked on the wrist. Our system just does not function that way anymore. It functions on money from pmts on incarcerations to high dollar payoffs and everything you can imagine in between.
 
I think that is very cynical, but also suspect (fear actually) you may be right. 
 
Jeanne >> A constitutional govt cannot function as dem vs GOP only format.  Its not set up that way. Its set up as a SYSTEM of three tiers with checks and balances that works co equally to serve the people.
 
I agree.  We cannot continue on the path we are on and think the republic will survive.
 
Jeanne >> None of this has happened for a long time, Im sure longer but for the purposes of my point since the 111th Congress and each Congress has become weaker as far as their job under the Constitution.  Meanwhile, in various Presidencies, executive powers have been expanded and judicial reduced
 
Yep... but understand what you are describing is that we are getting further and further away from the republic gifted to us by our founding fathers... one they expected each generation to protect and pass on to their posterity.  What you are describing is our generation failing at that.  I've decided, if we're going to fail... I want to at least try and save it; not just throw up our hands.
 
Jeanne >> It has been weak for some time, but the arguing and fighting has to stop.
 
I agree that it has to stop if the republic is to survive.  BUT for the republic to survive, the rule of law must (including equal protection) also be re-established.  Either will be our destruction.
 
So now we get the heart of the matter.  What do we do?  You seem to be advocating acceptance of a new norm in the spirit of harmony and saving what we have left (as a nation).
 
And... I'm not willing to accept this %^&(@ as the new reality, the new system.  I'm just not there.
 
I'm already at the point that I think the republic is lost (we are just in our death throws).  And I've been there for a long time. 
 
The Texas flag with the word "Secede" has been a constant message exuding from my vehicle bumper for well over a decade.  Is that what I want... no ... but I also realize it may be the only way to save some portion of the original idea (the republic) gifted us by the founding fathers.  A portion of the nation moves on to continue those ideals and the rest move on with democratic socialism.
 
Sooo... if I'm there already, why would I settle for such a corrupt, despicable norm for the sake of a little harmony.  Me just shutting up and letting both sides do their thing equals me surrendering, equals my side losing.  No, I'd rather it all burn, in the attempt to reclaim what we had; or better, an amicable separation.
 
So, if you asking me to just accept this new norm... my answer is a respectful, no thank you.
 
Jeanne >> The end game I believe is to destroy our foundation and its a wonderful idea, but I have a parallel for that and we would never return to a democracy or the America people have grown up in.
 
I agree with that as well.  The left has never been a huge fan of the republic, the founding fathers, the Constitution, the rule of law or America for that matter.  They want all of that "fundamentally changed" and have largely succeeded.  If what we had is destroyed... it's on their heads.
 
Jeanne >> So is she guilty of something..most likely, is trump guilty..most likely..will we ever know for sure ...NO, there is no profit in it.
 
Granted... as the system stands now, they all walk.  So, let's change it... or tear it down.  I have my preferences, but I'm OK with either.
 
Probably not what you were hoping for, but hopefully my comments prove I did listen and think about what you are saying.  Whack me upside the head again if you think I need it. :)
 
Thank you for the comment.  It
Flying Junior Added Feb 2, 2018 - 3:35am
I'm glad to hear you do not wish for secession.
 
Back to topic.  Mrs. Junior explained to me that the most likely reason that Hillary chose to use her own email server instead of the WH server was the simple reason that there is no privacy whatsoever associated with emails.  Given that Washington is actually overrun with right-wingers despite Trump's comical assertion to the contrary, she didn't wish for her communiques to be seized upon and used against her by some hardcore activist like James O'Keefe.
 
That probably made good sense at the time.  In light of all that has happened since, I'm sure that she regrets the decision.  Shit, she would president right now.
 
So Clinton was absolved by the republican-dominated FBI and the best Trump and his followers can come up with is that the FBI and CIA have been infiltrated by insidious democrats?  What do we have so far, three democrats?  Trump acts like being a democrat is a reason for recusal.
 
Do you guys really want democrats to be completely marginalized so that Trump can simply proceed with his fascist agenda without any checks or balances?  You seem to resent California because we are the most solidly democratic state in the Union.  It probably pisses you off that we are also the most prosperous, sporting an economy to rival that of developed nations in Europe.  U.S.A.  Founding Fathers.  The Constitution.  Get ahold of yourselves.  You have lost your way.  It doesn't matter if Clinton was or was not guilty of any crimes as laughable as that sounds to even consider.  Y'all can thank Nancy Pelosi for being the first democrat in power to dismiss the preposterous notion of impeaching GWB.  Believe me, serious, mature democrats have no plans whatsoever to impeach Trump.  It would be nice, but that's not how we roll.  Not as democrats.  As Americans.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 2, 2018 - 4:31am
 It probably pisses you off that we are also the most prosperous,
 
Number One highest poverty rate at 23.5%. Man, ain't that livin'!!
 
 It doesn't matter if Clinton was or was not guilty of any crimes
 
The fuck it doesn't. 
 
Flying Junior Added Feb 2, 2018 - 5:02am
Good point Jeffry,
 
According to wikipedia, we are number 16.  (I counted that backwards from 51 including D.C.)  Close enough.  Funny thing is our Latino population raises healthy, happy, productive kids on a lot less money than we white folk seem to require for the same result.  Right now white population roughly equals Latino population.  At least the poor don't have much to worry about covering heating costs.
 
I get your number one figure.  It factors in cost of living and housing.  The poverty threshhold for California is $30,000 per annum.  This is higher than the national average due to the high cost of housing.  You can guess what is driving that.  I don't know for the life of me how people manage to get by.  It defies credibility.  Many make sums of money that I could never have dreamed of.  Others live humbly.  If I were a young man without any help in my city today, I would be out-of-luck.  But somewhere, somehow, most of the people that are working have a roof over their heads.  I think it's around $1,600 a month for a one-bedroom apartment, probably more by now.  Median cost of a home in desirable areas is upwards of $500,000.  Homelessness is a very real problem.
 
May the Goddess bless proposition 13.  My home could easily be sold for $600,000 without any renovation.  Still my property taxes are less than $850/year.  That is one good thing about being older.
 
Oh for the beloved 1980s when a person could buy a home in the desert for under 200k.
 
Hillary for prison.  Yay!
Shane Laing Added Feb 2, 2018 - 5:07am
Surely with all the changes to the DOJ can they not be compelled to open the case again? Surely there is a moral obligation to set the record straight. Just put her on a stand and get it over and done with. 
If she is found innocent her chances of becoming president next time round would increase significantly.
By not wanting to clear her name she just looks guilty.
opher goodwin Added Feb 2, 2018 - 7:36am
Shane - I agree - get the whole silly business knocked on the head one way or another.
TexasLynn Added Feb 2, 2018 - 8:32am
FJ >> I'm glad to hear you do not wish for secession.
 
It is not my preference... but I also look at it as bad tasting medicine just sitting on the counter.  I would rather the illness subside, but... that or the medicine needs to happen soon.
 
FJ >>  Mrs. Junior explained to me... own email server instead of the WH server ... no privacy whatsoever associated with emails
 
No disrespect meant towards Mrs. Junior, but I think she is off on this one.
 
The Secretary of State would use a DOJ server... not a WH server.  The whole purpose of the DOJ server is privacy, to the point of national security.  If James O'Keefe could hack those servers... we've got major problems.  If internal DOJ people hack and share that information, we’ve got a major problem that can be solve by Leavenworth (or similar facility).  (At least until they switch sexes and get a Presidential pardon...)
 
FJ >> That probably made good sense at the time.
 
Committing a felony and putting national security in jeopardy made sense at the time?
 
FJ >> In light of all that has happened since, I'm sure that she regrets the decision.
 
Yes... having your own servers to cover up other crimes would make since pretty well any time.  As for regrets?  She regrets getting caught; but not having her own server was never an option.  She is grateful that Obama got caught up in it... so she had leverage to get out of it.
 
FJ >> Shit, she would president right now.
 
Had she not been caught... maybe.  Let’s not forget there’s still the Clinton Foundation  pay for play crimes… and the observation that she’s a $%&$!
 
FJ >> So Clinton was absolved by the republican-dominated FBI ...
 
As for the rank and file, I suspect that is likely true (republican-dominated).  As for the leadership, I think that's been proven false; if you’re willing to look at the texts, and communications, and actions.
 
FJ >> As for resenting the Peoples Republic of California...
 
Yep... people are just racing to get into California. :)
 
JG >> The fuck it doesn't. (matter if Clinton was or was not guilty of any crimes)
 
Well said Jeffry.  And FJ wouldn't say that if the roles were reversed... in that case it would be a "fascist" agenda or plot.
 
Shane >> Surely with all the changes to the DOJ can they not be compelled to open the case again?
 
Yes... that should happen.  But beyond that, the people who screwed it all up in the first place should be fired (at a minimum).  If crimes were committed, they should be prosecuted.
 
While we at it… it’s time to re-open the Lois Lerner case too.
 
So, Opher and I somewhat agree again. :) 
opher goodwin Added Feb 2, 2018 - 8:40am
Lynn - it's becoming a habit.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Feb 2, 2018 - 9:51am
Check out @Holdonamo's Gab: https://gab.ai/Holdonamo/posts/19114575
John Minehan Added Feb 2, 2018 - 12:01pm
This could be worth reading . . . . 
 
Mrs. Clinton's issues with the e-mail system fall well short of the legal requirements for a prosecution for gross negligence, due to the lack of foreseeability and the supervening conduct of others on whom she could reasonably rely.
 
On the other hand, the fact that the State Department IG found that her e-mail system was set up with the intent of getting around FOIA is a good reason to be glad she was not elected , even considering who was.
John Minehan Added Feb 2, 2018 - 12:19pm
There is probably something to this
 
Many things that make no sense, make sense in this context.  HOWEVER, if this is true, it means it is virtually CERTAIN, Trump colluded with the Russians, as no one would do this for anything less.
 
The Legitimacy is hemorrhaging from the System . . . .
John Minehan Added Feb 2, 2018 - 12:41pm
Nothing much in the Memo that can't be refuted.  But the Dossier is also a kind of unusual thing to base a FISA Court Warrant on.
 
Almost like they were trying to back into a known result . . . .
Dave Volek Added Feb 2, 2018 - 1:05pm
Lyn
The system, as designed, is fine... the problem is when you get bad actors in the system.  And if that is the problem, no system is safe or sufficient.
 
American has 320 million people. Surely there are a few that have good character and capacity for governance. If the system can't find them, then it is broken.
 
In my political days, I had a little meeting with Orville Kennedy. He was the behind-the-scenes guy for the Alberta Social Credit Party. This party ran Alberta for 40 years. Mr. Kennedy said their culture was: "Don't do anything you don't want to see on the front pages." Or maybe in other words: "Just assume you will get caught."
 
The Social Credit Party had their fair share of controversial issues. But very few scandals.
 
Micahel Dolan Added Feb 2, 2018 - 2:41pm
Crooked Hillary needs to be in prison. She is a complete corrupt mentally sick wacko. Hillary and Bill-Bonnie and Clyde-sick birds of a feather. Dossier Crooked democrats have been crushed.
TexasLynn Added Feb 2, 2018 - 3:29pm
John, I read through your analysis from about 9 months ago.  It was very detailed and revealing.  Thank you for the link.
 
I will say that one thing I learned is that it is not necessarily illegal to use servers outside the control of DOJ (which I thought was the case).  I will need to look further into that.
 
This does not change my opinion that the "gross negligence" standard was met.  I also look at this from multiple statutes (other than just the Espionage Act).  Again Thanks...
 
I also listened to the Dan Bongino podcast...
 
What I'm getting from the "memo" so far that all the warrants were largely dependent and based on the Steele dossier.  None of the warrants would have been approved without it.  So, the "documentation" presented to the courts as justification for the surveillance... was nothing but HRC/DNC erotic fiction.
 
So, the FBI and the Obama DOJ basically tossed that little check and balance aside and spied on American citizens and their political opponents with less than nothing to justify it.  Despicable...
 
Let the leftist media spin begin...
TexasLynn Added Feb 2, 2018 - 3:43pm
Dave >> Surely there are a few that have good character and capacity for governance. If the system can't find them, then it is broken.
 
I don't mean to imply finding people of good character to do any job (even government) is impossible.  My wording was terrible... I didn't even mean to imply the system may not need to be tweaked, changed, or possibly even overhauled.
 
My intended point was to focus attention on the dirt bags in positions of power.  When one finds this is the case, said dirt bags are going to abuse whatever system is in place, so until you deal properly with them (firing and/or prison) doing anything to the system is immaterial.
Leroy Added Feb 2, 2018 - 7:09pm
It seems the British interfered with the US elections, not the Russians.
 
There is a second dossier (we will skip the third one for now) written by Clinton hack, Cody Shearer, that closely parallels the Steele dossier.  Shearer is a long-time Clinton hack that dug up or fabricated dirt on the Clinton women after the bimbo eruption.  He is completely disreputable.  One theory is that no one would have believed Shearer and the FISA court would have never approved any applications based on his work, so the Shearer dossier was given to Steele who had a good reputation at the time.  In essense, the dossier was written by Clinton to smear her opponent.
 
The memo issued today was very damning.  I can't wait to see how Opher spins it.  
Eric Reports Added Feb 3, 2018 - 5:16am
Obama hired Hillary as Sec't of State because he had to.  The Clintons had plenty of bad info on him. Part of the deal was that they would protect each other. Also, that Obama would back her instead of Biden for president in 2016.
John Minehan Added Feb 3, 2018 - 8:33am
My understanding from people who do this for a living is that the things related to contacts with Russia generally (and specifically related to what they wanted to look at Carter Page about) were corroborated by multiple sources (I've heard the FISA application ran to more than 1,000 pages).  That does not necessarily apply to everything in the Dossier ("golden showers," etc.).
 
As those specific points were corroborated by other sources, the facts that the Steele Dossier had its origins as opo or that Steele himself had an agenda or later wore out his welcome with the FBI are not dispositive.  All of that  goes to credibility, but if the information is confirmed by other credible sources, there still could be probable cause to issue a warrant. 
 
Do I suspect that there may be more to this?  Yes, Dan Bongino's suggestion that there may have been wrong doing on the Trump Administration's part seems possible.  One "off the street" Australian report seems a little weak to get this rolling.  Possibly, allied Intel services were watching Trump and all of this is an attempt to "back into" a  known result.     
John Minehan Added Feb 3, 2018 - 8:34am
Sorry, should read: "Yes, Dan Bongino's suggestion that there may have been wrong doing on the Obama Administration's part seems possible." 
wsucram15 Added Feb 3, 2018 - 10:47am
ok..Lynn..NOW WE can start a discussion.
This is where it begins.  (you will have to forgive my intermittent replies I am back to typing with one hand and its not my predominant hand)
I genuinely believe (and have for a long time before Trump) that we have a problem.  I have talked about it on here, (largely dismissed) but have seen the legal system in action up close and personal, from back room negotiations, dinners, how prison system works (as explained by former prosecutor AND inmates, what the judges job really is now, and at least here, how cops work.  This MADE me leave the law for almost 16 years and work in finance. No shit..but this stuff follows you..and I ended up in politics working campaigns. 
Dirtiest game I have ever seen by far.
Some of the people you have seen on the news, I have met. Some I have even worked with, like Bernie Sanders on issues 2 years before his Presidential run.  Others as well..but it was then, that I knew the problems at the federal level were so politicized and childish that it was why Congress was passing 1-2% of their proposed bills.  Normally they pass at about 6%, but they arent in session very long and there are serious reasons for that which MUST be the first conversation for ALL Americans.
Congress members have passed budgets for themselves and raises that should not occur if being paid on merit.
 
To change it, I am convinced we must either clean the slate of current Congress and Immediately convene States for convention to change specific laws that have allowed such corruption.  returning original rule of law.  Will that happen..13 states have laws on the books, there is legislation in the house to do something similar and there have been two law suits, one going to SC on CC.  So most likely not.
Will protesting work..its a very slow process and the actual people in power dont care about "the people", they took no oath of office and could care less.  It works on "issues"..not overall.
 
It will take a nation to stop this and I genuinely believe this as much as I believe in the words that our forefathers wrote. No matter what we believe in, how we feel about those "issues", we have much larger problems as a unified nation.
 
I believe most people are civilized and given a chance can discuss things when you find common ground.  But like I said, first we must solve the larger issues as a collective. Once that is done, then we can either kill each other or sit down with that document and hash it out. ..again.
 
While I care about clinton and Trump..and their tweets, battles and all the politics, this is NOT the real issue. It is the show we are meant to see.  People much more involved in this and educated are very alarmed at the weakening of the other two branches of government. Some arent..but most agree, all of this is nonsense.
Now Im not saying I agree with the latter, but just that none of this makes sense.
 
Leroy..thats insane. The document was provided as information to a private entity.  Steel also released it to the FBI however, 2 of the subjects "were subjects of interest" long before the information provided.  Try not to believe everything you hear. Russia has cracked our systems twice I think in interesting ways..this was just an attack that worked.  Not just on us but overall, by Russia including China and I am sure others.  Which makes sense if you really put some thought into the debt they purchased and what they own, sanctions (that havent been released yet) that hurt them in the hundreds of billions. Its not personal..its just business.
 
Our elections and system of govt are personal to US..no one else. There are only a handful of nations that have our type of govt, and even less that function on an evolving set of laws. The UK works on civil law..not common law (as in Aristotle and Cicero) or laws of religion.   It is the rule of law and our foundations that are being attacked, whether that had something to do with Trump or what document did what..is the least of our problems right now.
 
I know you wont listen to me..leroy, but remember what I said.
 
Lynn..think on it...Its all I asked. In fact for anyone..you dont need to agree with everyone, you just need to think.  Put this all into perspective. Thats all..
wsucram15 Added Feb 3, 2018 - 10:50am
I wanted to add..on the campaigns I have worked more Republican or Independent campaigns than a Dem campaign.
George N Romey Added Feb 3, 2018 - 10:57am
We had the murder of JFK, the stories of Lyndon Johnson, the inconsistencies with the official 9-11 report, the war lies of both Johnson and Bush. etc. There are stories by former CIA agents that many big names in politics, business and entertainment are involved in pedophile rings.
 
Tear this wall and the US will look like the country of cockroaches, But that’s where our country is probably heading as those at the top run for cover.
wsucram15 Added Feb 3, 2018 - 11:16am
George..no one has run for cover...not yet.  some are saying they will, but lets see- there is 400 billion on Koch side alone going into 2018, does that sound like people are running to hide?
They are a HUGE part of the problem along with many others.
Leroy Added Feb 3, 2018 - 12:07pm
"Leroy..thats insane. The document was provided as information to a private entity.  Steel also released it to the FBI however, 2 of the subjects "were subjects of interest" long before the information provided.  Try not to believe everything you hear. Russia has cracked our systems twice I think in interesting ways..this was just an attack that worked.  Not just on us but overall, by Russia including China and I am sure others."
 
Therein lies the problem.  The Mueller investigation is NOT about Russia or China or any other nation meddling in our election.  It is about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia; i.e., that Trump was/is a Russian asset.  If you and Bill and Opher and Junior can be honest with yourselves, you will admit that it is untrue.
 
The document was not information for a private entity.  Steele gave it to the FBI, presumably at the request of GPS.  He then peddled it to the media with the direct assistance of GPS.  MSM gladly assisted without questioning it.  McCain has culpability in the matter.  Because he is on his deathbed, he will never be implicated.   In the end, I predict we will find that the document was not written by Steele.  His only involvement was to sensationalize it and lend it credibility based on his reputation into the soccer investigation against Russia.  Even that is called into question now.  How much of that information was fabricated?  His days may be numbered.  I predict that it will lead to a Clinton hack.  We already know that Clinton was involved with the Russians.
 
What we needed all along is an independent or bipartisan commission to investigate foreign influences on our elections.  It would seem that the DOJ and FBI and CIA should have been well-suited for this, but their blind hatred of Trump got in the way.   It begs the question of what good are they if they can't protect us from foreign influences and terrorism.  It has been said that foreign influence was less than it has been in recent years.  Maybe it is all a tempest in a teapot.  Nevertheless, a commission needs to evaluate it.  If it leads to Trump, so be it.  If it leads to the FBI, so be it.  If it leads to Britain, so be it.  If it leads to Russia, so be it.  If it leads to Clinton, so be it.
 
 
 
Doug Plumb Added Feb 3, 2018 - 6:22pm
re "Feral Baby Incinerators (FBI) haven't "recently" been "politicized" they have always been so. Considering the treasonous actions of much of the leadership and upper level functionaries of that corrupt organization along with the history of decades of abuse of the peace and dignity of people and the abuse of the constitution they should be put out of business entirely. Fire them all from Director to janitor. "
 
That's what I would do.
TexasLynn Added Feb 3, 2018 - 7:29pm
 
Jeanne... so if I'm understanding what you're telling me, our legal and political system is even more screwed up than I think; with the players on both sides being the problem (politicized, childish, etc)  You think drastic measures are called far.  You suggest for starters that we "start with a clean slate" in Congress.
 
Interestingly enough, back in November I suggest just such a thing... Hey, Hey, We're the Monkeys
 
From that post…
"I’d actually be in favor of doing this (replacing EVERYBODY in the House and Senate) Not just term limits (which are also a good idea); but set a time frame (like years ending in 00, 25, 50 & 75… or whatever time period) AND on those years ALL House and Senate members are replaced." … "When those years roll around, no one who has ever held a position in the House or Senate is ever eligible to hold either of those offices again. That would include all current office holders and would mean that House members could not just run for Senate (and vice-versa). We basically clean house (pardon the pun) every quarter of a century.  The new members start over in deciding how the sausage of government is made."
 
As for assembling the states for convention... I don't think I'm following you.  How do states change bad federal law... or are you saying states need to change bad state law?  I'm against a Constitutional convention since our Constitution is about as close to perfect as you can get.  The problem being we aren't living up to it.
 
Your assertion that the Executive branch has grown in power at the expense of the other two is a valid concern... which gets back to our getting further and further away from what the founding fathers intended.  I'll add another branch (a fourth branch) one that didn't exist when the founding fathers set everything in place, and one they never would have approved of has also greatly grown in power... that being the massive bureaucracy (the deep state).  It might be argued that all the squirrels we are chasing are directly tied to this expansion of power of these two branches.
 
Correct me on anything I missed.
 
A couple of questions...
 
What would you have each side do to step back from the brink? 
 
You mentioned that Russia cracked our systems twice.  What is the definition of cracking our system?  I've never considered hacking the DNC or John Podesta our system. I don't see a few Facebook ads as hacking our system.  Now if they hacked Hillary emails, or some entity that actually changed votes... I'd like to know more about that.
wsucram15 Added Feb 3, 2018 - 9:39pm
intelligence systems, once was defense and the others Im not positive, I think one was an Embassy, the dept of defense once.  1988, 1995, 2008 and so on...The stuff I am talking about is offline stuff, unbreakable stuff. 
They setup outside a compound and were somehow allowed to sell flash drives..we were jacked and able to be infiltrated once used by unwitting employees. Ive written about it. The US was really complacent for a long time with Russia, we really thought the competition, coldwar..whatever you want to call it was over.  Until we found their under ground cables.  China also. 
___________________
on Con Cons- re read what it is., I have some issues also, but its NOT to hurt foundation of Constitution, its to amend it. Ive worked with a group a long time over this, and because of a reservation or two, I stepped back from the group.  That does not mean to some degree, you cant use some of the ideology.  But this, like with with anything, you risk 34 states amending law for the remainder of the states or then there is the initial problem we began with..bribes.  No one will ever be as guarded as were the framers to our foundations.  No one.
 
We do need to clean the slate and then and only then, could we made any amendments and/or changes in at the time of a new balanced government.  We need to fix some things...first the party system.  People can do the difference of opinion thing w/o labeling and fundraising for it.
Hard as it is to believe I have a very conservative opinion about these things, in a little bit Ill get into why NOW is so critical.  My arm is sore. 
But nothing can be done as long as everyone buys into all the crap on tv and whatever.  You need to understand the media on both sides is going way overboard.. Ive always looked at it like this..if there is such a huge ordeal going on that amounts to nothing, WHAT was really going on?  I can usually find some sneaky legislation that got passed under the radar, something. 
I just think this is worse.   Not for one side..but for everyone. Its the one thing that no one expects.
wsucram15 Added Feb 3, 2018 - 9:54pm
on states changing law..there are 28 states (not 13) currently calling for a Article V or Amendments Convention.  It has to be within a certain time frame though. It was Masons intent ( along with others who unanimously voted for it) that the states have the right IF NECESSARY, to make an Amendment with 2/3 of state legislatures.  Not alter the Constitution.
wsucram15 Added Feb 3, 2018 - 10:10pm
Flying Junior Added Feb 4, 2018 - 2:27am
That's wild.
The Burghal Hidage Added Feb 4, 2018 - 8:38am
Trey Gowdy not running for re-election. Hmm.  Might need a good prosecutor sometime soon. Just sayin'.....
wsucram15 Added Feb 4, 2018 - 8:53am
FJ..its not wild, depending on how you really feel about it, its potentially dangerous.  Especially with some of the people currently pushing for it..
Look, PEOPLE, its time to step up..its that simple.
TexasLynn Added Feb 6, 2018 - 2:00pm
>> Lynn your state is actually one of the states in line for this. As of last year
 
Took a look at your link and it seems right in line with your (and my) thinking.  I think this was for the last session (2017) ... is it still applicable for the 2019 session (Texas legislature only meets every other year).
 
Our governor seems to agree as well...  He supports calling the convention.  I’m skeptical, but would also.
 
"All three branches of government have so far strayed from what the Constitution provides [that] it's impossible to put that genie back in the box by just one president. It's going to take far too long." - Greg Abbot (Texas Governor)