“Comey’s full remarks … ” Washpost


"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."  Comey


What I heard was that Comey said that although Clinton and her staff broke the law in mishandling government secrets, there was not enough evidence of specific intent to recommend prosecution in a criminal case or cases.

He also said that given the unsecured nature of the Hillarygate system there was no reason to think that the system could not have been penetrated by just about anyone with a modicum of knowledge.

Soo, HC will be the Democratic Party candidate.

Just to be clear, when she is president/CinC  she will have unlimited access to ALL the secrets of the United States.  She will have that by virtue of her constitutional office.

IMO the GOP should start thinking of a convention revolt to find a candidate who can hold the senate against Hillary control of judicial appointments.  Forget the White House, think of the senate.  think!  pl 



This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to “Comey’s full remarks … ” Washpost

  1. John Minnerath says:

    She walks again. What a fearsome prospect.

  2. DC says:

    There is more than enough evidence in Comey’s transcript to support impeachment votes from reasonable politicians.

  3. Harry says:

    Interesting. In the case of the Drake prosecution, there was sufficient evidence of intent but in this case there wasn’t.

  4. JMGavin says:

    Hillary Clinton held a security clearance, as did her staff. Government employees with security clearances have a duty to safeguard classified material. Specific criminal intent is not a requirement of the statutes she violated. Negligence or carelessness is sufficient for a successful prosecution.
    What was David Petraeus’ specific criminal intent? He improperly stored classified material, and shared it with his girlfriend (who had an active security clearance as a Reservist).
    Long live the Queen!

  5. jld says:

    Who needs a “Deep State” with a Borg like that?

  6. Equillus says:

    Is it that you are worried a different Supreme Court might decide that corporations are not people. Or possibly that money is not free speech? Quelle horreur.

  7. robt willmann says:

    James Comey knows full well that a legal case could have been brought in court against Hillary for the statutes she violated, that it would be reasonable to do so, and that such a court action could be made in good faith and in good conscience.

  8. raven says:

    Xin Loi!

  9. turcopolier says:

    Laughable. I would like to see those decisions reversed. I do not want to see yet more levelling, and identity politics based decisions made by the federal courts. I do not want to see this country driven farther and farther to the left to feed her ego and desire for absolute power. pl

  10. Carl Lazlo says:

    “[Fifteen] years ago something terrible happened here. We did nothing about it, nothing. The whole [country] fell into a sort of settled melancholy and all the people in it closed their eyes, and held their tongues, and… failed the test with a whimper. And now something terrible’s going to happen again — and in a way we’re lucky, because we’ve been given a second chance.”
    FBI Director Comey: I have called this press conference to give the people and the press an update of our investigation into the bombing that happened in Oklahoma City. Because of the nature of the case, I have decided to provide more detail as to what has been done in our investigation than we would normally provide.
    Our investigation has revealed that, along with others, Timothy McVeigh obtained a van and materials for making an explosive device. With the assistance of the others, Mr. McVeigh loaded the van with explosives, drove to Oklahoma City and parked the van next to the federal courthouse. Mr. McVeigh exited the van, and, as he was leaving the area, either carelessly or intentionally caused the bomb to explode, killing hundreds of Americans.
    After a thorough and exhaustive investigation, we have found no evidence that those who assisted Mr. McVeigh in procuring the explosives and helped him assemble the bomb knew he was going to detonate the device in Oklahoma City. Furthermore, after a thorough search, we have been unable to find any other case where an American citizen and a veteran of our armed forces loaded a van with explosives, parked it in front of the federal courthouse in Oklahoma City and detonated it, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans. Therefore, we do not believe that any prosecutor would file charges in such a case and we are recommending to the Justice Department that no charges be filed against Mr. McVeigh or his associates.
    “Well, I know this much: the rule of law has left here and the gorillas have taken over.”
    As we gathered to celebrate the country’s birth yesterday, let us gather to mourn its passing today. Shining city, my ass. It’s nothing but a steaming pile of dogshite on a hill.
    Best of luck to all of you. You’re going to need it.
    Carl Lazlo

  11. JMGavin says:

    Chiến tranh bị mất.

  12. Sam Peralta says:

    The law only applies to the little people as Leona Helmsley would say. The elites are above the law in the USA. While we play our little partisan games in the bread & circus ring, the Borg slowly but surely ensures the servitude of the little people with the coronation of the Queen in November.

  13. Nightsticker says:

    Col Lang,
    I will preface my comments by saying I have no knowledge
    of these cases other than what is available to all
    in the newspapers or the other news media.
    It was my impression, from reading public sources,
    that there were 2 FBI investigations underway. One was
    focused on the mishandling of classified documents.
    The second was focused on public corruption related
    to the Clinton Foundation. The 2 could be related in that
    examination of emails in one investigation might provide
    evidence or leads for the other.
    It was also my impression that a Grand Jury had been called
    and that they were the ones issuing “immunity” grants
    to at least one witness. A Grand Jury would be almost
    certainly be seated in a public corruption case.
    If I were in the Press and writing about all this I
    would seek on the record answers to the following questions:
    Was a Grand Jury seated? Is it still seated? Are there any
    other investigations related to Bill or Hillary Clinton
    or the Clinton Foundation currently underway?
    USMC 65-72
    FBI 72-96

  14. toto says:

    Again, a counterpoint:
    “People simply don’t get indicted for accidental, non-malicious mishandling of classified material. […] I have never seen a criminal matter proceed without even an allegation of something more than mere mishandling of senstive [sic] information.”
    “Comey’s full statement is a peculiar document because it is simultaneously emphatic that Clinton and her staff behaved inappropriately and equally emphatic that no reasonable prosecutor would want to bring a case against them. […] If she is to face accountability for her email server, that accountability will and should be in the political realm.”

  15. HankP says:

    This is why I wait for official results before I start throwing around terms like “criminal” or “traitor”.

  16. Alexandria says:

    If the elites try to take the nomination away from Trump, which probably wont happen in any event, there will a massive exodus from the GoP by Trump supporters, the replacement candidate will lose in a landslide of 1964 and 1984 proportions and there will be be no way for the Rs to hold the Senate.
    However, there seems to be a backlash against the Comey intervention with fence sitters like Ryan shaking their heads in disbelief. IMHO, the Rs will come to their respective senses and realize that, since the Supreme Court is the only game in town, the only way that they will be able to hold the Senate is coming together behind Trump and doing a massive GOTV on behalf of Rs running for office in order to block D takeover of the Senate and the evisceration of the conservative wing on the Court. After all, DT only trails by 5 percentage points.

  17. ThePanzer says:

    So let me get this straight. She runs a boiler room server for the express purpose of avoiding oversight and subsequently routes a plethora of different levels of classified into into and through the boiler room server that she set up to avoid govt records keeping rules.
    The FBI then determines that after she set up a boiler room server to avoid official scrutiny she had no criminal intent with the subsequent classified email flowing through it.
    …how in god’s green earth isn’t the use of the boiler room server criminal intent in and of itself? I’m just beside myself. If someone other than a Clinton had pulled this stunt they’d be in jail forever and they’d throw away the key.
    Obama is campaigning with her as of today, and shockingly, the FBI decided to announce she’s all clear literally hours before the president campaigns with her. Do they think we’re f-ing stupid?
    I guess when Comey met with Bill on a plane that meeting wasn’t leaked.
    This is unbelievable. Even for the in-your-face corruption of the last few years this is egregious.

  18. ked says:

    In an election year, the wheels of Federal justice in national political matters tend towards leaving it up the political system (and even the voters!). I think that’s what has been determined here – the Federal servants of the State will stand aside and let democracy take its course. We get the choices that our deep state industry (or Borg, whatever) generates. There’s nothing new in all this (“… a Republic, if you can keep it”). Which reminds me;
    “There’s nothing you can know that isn’t known.
    Nothing you can see that isn’t shown.
    There’s nowhere you can be that isn’t where
    You’re meant to be
    It’s easy.”

  19. ISL says:

    Dear Colonel,
    Sad to see the FBI confirming that laws are for the little people only.
    From the article,
    What is even more shocking is that according to Comey, “we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.”
    Well, we did. Here is the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charging one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to “unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials” without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did (h/t @DavidSirota):
    Well, the Italian disease that has been slowly infecting our society, is now out in full daylight.

  20. turcopolier says:

    Well, I don’t agree. IMO the masses reject Hillary and in the absence of Trumpian stupidity would sufficiently rally to their senators to hold the place. pl

  21. different clue says:

    I wonder if
    someone put
    a horse’s head
    in Comey’s bed.

  22. Allen Thomson says:

    Comey said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
    Since the chain of events, AIUI, is that the FBI hands the results of its investigation, along with recommendations, to DOJ and its prosecutors for action, doesn’t that statement potentially set up a bit of tension between FBI and DOJ? What if, on getting the FBI findings, the DOJ prosecutors nonetheless decide to seek an indictment? Is Comey going to say that they’ve acted unreasonably?
    I’d have thought that, if anything, Comey might have said, “based on our investigation, we are not recommending that DOJ seek an indictment, but of course that’s their call to make.”

  23. BabelFish says:

    Interesting point and no sarcasm meant by me. What I think you are saying is that this is the political equivalent of NFL refs ‘just letting them play’. Am I off base on that?

  24. Peter C says:

    What is the payoff, Lynch or Comey, Supreme Court nominations offered.
    I’m a bit disappointed in Comey.

  25. kao_hsien_chih says:

    The notion that “accountability should be in the political realm” is usually used as a dodge when lawyers, judges, and prosecutors are dealt a hand that’s too politically delicate to handle. So Comey doesn’t want to deal with this hot potato would rather that the voters deal with the mess. What fine choice we have: an unindicted criminal vs. an overt rich a$$hole vs. protest vote.

  26. Swampy says:

    LOL, Don’t want to be caught on the wrong side of history, natch.

  27. Tyler says:

    All due respect but all the Senate is going to do is make a lot of noise while it passes HRC’s globalist agenda. The people, the rough, uncouth people, have decided that Trump is their nominee. The Senate will roll so hard and so fast for the Borg Queen you will regain your capacity for surprise.
    The Senators are already sharpening their daggers for Julius. Who is the Augustus waiting in the wings?
    Our America that we grew up in is dead. Has been dead. Anything but Trump is voting for more midwit Imperial ambition. Trump might not be some Founding Father ideal, but he acknowledges the US is a country and not a bazaar with a flag and a song.

  28. The Beaver says:

    From the Observer:
    FBI Counter-Intelligence serves as America’s frontline domestic defender. It is tasked with destroying enemy spy rings, tracking potential terrorists and stopping terrorist attacks on U.S. territory. The Director’s failure to encourage prosecution makes his own department’s job much harder. It will undermine the morale of U.S. security personnel.
    Comey’s kowtow to the partisan political interests of the Obama Administration and its powerful elitists will add to the erosion of faith in the American system and embed a bitter partisanship that will take a decade or more to bridge.

  29. raven says:

    Yep, this liberal in on the take for sure:
    “James Brien Comey, Jr. (born December 14, 1960) is an American lawyer. He is the seventh and current Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    He was the United States Deputy Attorney General, serving in President George W. Bush’s administration. As Deputy Attorney General, Comey was the second-highest-ranking official in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and ran the day-to-day operations of the Department, serving in that office from December 2003 through August 2005. He was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York prior to becoming Deputy Attorney General.”

  30. irf520 says:

    With all due respect, the prospect of HRC getting her grubby hands on all the US’s national secrets isn’t top of my list of concerns. I’m more concerned that the probability of me seeing my 50th birthday has just undergone a step change to the downside …
    So it seems there is no one left with any honour. I honestly believe no one gets into a position of any influence unless the controllers have a way of keeping them on the reservation.

  31. turcopolier says:

    “honour.” you are not American so why should we care what you think about “American national secrets?” pl

  32. turcopolier says:

    I respect you also but IMO Trump cannot be elected in the face of Black, Latino and media campaigning against him. I want to save what we can. pl

  33. Eric Newhill says:

    Unfortunately, while I agree with your sentiment, my sense after today is that Trump won’t win. Even, if he gets more votes, the software in the machines will alter the result. Who would investigate? Comey?
    I agree with you, though, that there is pretty much no one in Congress that will stop the Borg Queen because they largely agree with her where it counts – where the big money is, globalization and imperial aggression/war. So she will get her way.
    The only solution is to throw them *all* out as soon as possible, but that won’t happen either. Too many depend on them for handouts.

  34. turcopolier says:

    Some have suggested to me that secession and civil war are coming. pl

  35. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    There is an expression attributed to the original Pyrrhis, king of Epirus, who after ‘winning’ a town at too great a loss of men and provisions, exclaimed, “One more such victory, and I am lost!”
    Hillary gets another Pyrrhic victory.
    She’s off the hook, “legalistically”.
    But what she won legalistically, she lost in trust and credibility.
    She can’t sustain many — if any — more such ‘victories’.
    Should she ‘win’ the November election, she’ll be at least as delegitimized in the eyes of the nation as GW Bush after SCOTUS anointed him in 2000.
    More leadership crises ahead.

  36. Eric Newhill says:

    Many feel that the federal govt does not represent them. Yet they are taxed. And the federal govt increasingly imposes unwanted policies and attitudes. Many see the federal govt acting as elitists beyond the law. There are many who are poor or rapidly becoming poor while the federal govt continues to pursue the policies that put the people in those precarious positions.
    All of these are, historically, conditions that can to civil wars or revolutions.
    There are states in the union that could do well, perhaps even better, on their own (TX for example) and where a significant proportion of the population perceives themselves enduring an increasingly tyrannical non-representative federal govt.
    I have no idea if it actually leads to civil war, but I can’t imagine the trend continuing as it is indefinitely and I don’t see the federal govt giving an inch. So what happens? Something, but what? The more the pressure builds, the more violent the release.
    I guess probably the Borg Queen attempts starts a big war overseas to divert attention from these things.

  37. John Minnerath says:

    Valid feelings for sure, but that same populace that would put HRC in power would not and could not support such a thing.
    Some of us will be a lonely group wondering if the nation can survive.

  38. HankP says:

    Swampy –
    I just prefer the facts to accusations from internet lawyers.

  39. HankP says:

    Col. Lang –
    Trump certainly can get elected. It’s just incresingly unlikely because of the things he says.

  40. Kooshy says:

    Colonel I am deeply sorry to say that correctly said crooked HRC and WJC are our next president(s). The US media and US administration have nothing better to do then protect and elevate HRC and knock on head and reduce Trump, to me this was obvious from get go. I was sure HRC will not be “allowed” to be touched. Unfortunately the political system in this country now is corrupted to the bone, and people who know, ( including Trump or Bernie) have no power to reverse and retain back the constitoutional system that has been placed by the founders. IMO, what may reposes and regain back the US congress is a refusal to participate or refusal to vote for any local or national major party candidates. Anyway else IMO will be rough and bloody.

  41. Cee says:

    And Jeffrey Sterling

  42. Tyler says:

    “Throw them out” is a euphemism for something else, I’m sure.

  43. Tyler says:

    I think blacks identify more with a “Big Man” who oozes wealth vs. a shrill grandma hectoring them about transgender Muslim illegal aliens.
    I believe the “hispanic tidal wave” that has been predicted since 1994 will once again fall short.
    And finally, I believe the media is throwing itself towards Pravda irrelevance in their haste to crown Hillary. They’ve already called Trump HitlerNaziRacistBigot a million times. What’s another million?
    We will see what happens in November, but even while I keep my powder dry I won’t lose hope. But even if the worst case scenario goes down, what’s three wars in my life time?

  44. Edward Amame says:

    Chances of a #NeverTrump convention revolt are small. 1/4 of the convention Rules Committee would have to OK a vote on a resolution on the floor that changes party rules binding delegates to the primary/caucus results after the convention’s begun. Trump’s campaign and the RNC have been working together to make sure that doesn’t happen. See the Hill for more on that: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/286054-never-trump-plots-its-last-stand
    Odds are it’s going to be HRC and DT, just as primary voters wanted.

  45. ked says:

    In a nutshell, no, you are not off-base. The strike zone is different in this league, in this series. I realize how & why it is so disturbing to those who have been inside the stadium of classification throughout their careers. Things that have been exceptional over the past 20-50 yrs are now accepted, even un-respected. In this case my suspicion is that if prosecuted to the “full extent of the law”, there would be a great discovery of so many similar (& worse!) cases in the recent past that even greater, wider damage would obtain, for no good purpose. Such a scenario is impossible for Hillary-haters to fathom – no price is too high to get her. Col. Lang’s pov is (as I read him) not simple Hillary Derangement Syndrome, but rather is founded on a straight reading of the rules & the law. My guess is he wouldn’t be in the least disturbed if hundreds of cases were uncovered & prosecuted. He’s serious when it comes to playing by the rules you swore an oath-to. & as Bob Dylan pointed out, “everybody must get stoned.”

  46. Freudenschade says:

    This use of private email to avoid scrutiny is out of control. No one is ever prosecuted for this, it seems. (See the millions of emails lost in the GWB White House for a truly large scale breach of federal law: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy.)
    At the same time, willful violation seems to be very important here. See James Melendres (who prosecuted Petreaus) for a good explanation of the difference between this case and the Patreaus one: https://youtu.be/Ep6jFkGRwyo
    For Drake I have no explanation.

  47. different clue says:

    Colonel Lang,
    But if the division is between blue zones and red zones which don’t neatly track state boundaries, how would secession be attempted along the much more ragged and lumpy borders of sub-state regions?
    For example, a co-worker from upper New York State originally is an apparently-knowledgeable gun enthusiast. He is very resentful about the anti-gun laws forced upon New York State by New York City with the assistance of a couple other Blue Zones within the Big Red State of New York. So how would a division of the Red and the Blue be achieved within New York State?
    Or Ohio . . . which has three regions. If Ohioan Appalachia and the Ohio Valley Zone and the Lake Erie Coast regions wanted to go three separate ways, would secession minded people beyond Ohio accept that the three pieces could go in three directions? Or would bigger players try to claim an undivided Ohio for themselves?
    I wonder if thoughts of secession wouldn’t lead to thoughts of many more much smaller divisions and partitions this time around. And class conflict divisions would emerge even if wished away.

  48. elaine says:

    ISL, Please forward all info on the Bryan H. Nishimura case to Judicial Watch & Speaker Paul Ryan.

  49. Fred says:

    You have the wrong imperial analogy. In the best tradition of Empress Theodora the khalessi convinced the (not eunuch) Narse, aka “bubba” to have the gold delivered – this time to the greens.

  50. Fred says:

    It is not just the federal government. Look at the recent anti-gun legislation in Hawaii and California. They aren’t the only states pushing to disarm the populace.

  51. VietnamVet says:

    Globalization, the free movement of people and capital, is incompatible with sovereign democratic nations. In the face of a corporate media onslaught a majority of Englanders and Republicans repudiated it. Succession isn’t applicable. Washington DC, City of London and Brussels must have the consent of the people in order to govern. There are only two options; 1) the rule of law for all with honest elections or 2) tyranny. When we are long gone, North America may well split asunder into ethnic enclaves but history matters. The past is always with us. As long as there is hope, there will be living dedicated to the great task that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

  52. There’s still a chance that the federal prosecutors will be of the overbearing, hyper-aggressive type that go after Jeff Sterling and others who care only about prosecuting somebody… anybody. I hate those people, but a pack of these jackals is just what we need now. Having said that, I don’t have a lot of faith of that happening. We have had years of both one percenters and borg types getting away with all matter of crimes. Prosecution is clearly not for the rich, powerful and connected.

  53. For an idea of what modern secession may entail, we can see how Brexit turns out. Will the young British professionals opt for German citizenship? How will EU and GB resolve trade regulations. Will BG really get control over immigration and residency? I have a feeling secession will be more like the partition of India. There will be a lot of population movement.

  54. eakens says:

    She’s going to get away with not debating Trump either.

  55. Richard says:

    Frankly I’m totally confused by Comey’s remarks. Where I worked a document had to be properly classified before it could be distributed. If there was any doubt the document had to be created on the classified server where everybody with access to the server had at least the classification of the information the document might contain.

  56. jonst says:

    what “facts”? I see very few of them. “Facts”, in this case, would, in a traditional legal phrase, be contained in the ‘reconciling of the holdings’. i.e. show me the legal opinions (holdings) relied on to differentiate “extremely careless” from “grossly negligent”. The latter gets you indicted, assuming the statute governs (and it might not, based on capricious decisions, otherwise known as ‘prosecutorial discretion’)…the former, “extremely careless” gives you a pass to walk. Somewhere within the FBI, there is a legal memo detailing the reconciliation process. i.e. a legal brief. THAT is the document that should have been released. So we can see, if we desire, the reconciliation ‘logic’. Simply to come out an announce the results of process, i.e. ‘runner is safe’ (extreme carelessness)…runner is out (gross negligence) is not presenting a ‘set of facts (holdings). It is merely announcing a conclusion. Perhaps a right one…or a wrong one. Perhaps a fair one or an unfair one. But until we see the cases relied on we’re flying blind. The DOJ can do that, or we can do it ourselves, at significant cost in time and perhaps money. Or we can fly blind…as the Borg usually wants.

  57. turcopolier says:

    How would she avoid debating him? pl

  58. turcopolier says:

    Interesting polls? Where do you stand on this? pl

  59. Edward Amame says:

    I’m guessing a lot of people in the north wouldn’t object to secession. Especially if it’s Texas. I’m also guessing the majority in north + south would not support it. Plus, I thought that the SCOTUS has said there’s no legal right to secession.

  60. Swamp Yankee says:

    Col. Lang and Cee,
    I think a peaceful break-up of the United States is far from the worst thing facing us right now. It’s not only Texas that could be a powerful independent country, but also the Great Lakes states or the Upper South or my own New England (which is small, but has a GDP up there with a small to medium power like The Netherlands or Australia). I can even see, like different clue says, secession within states, e.g., my part of Massachusetts, the Old Plymouth Colony, along with the Berkshires and Western Mass., are different than, feel very left out by, and have negative feelings towards, the Beacon Hill powers that be in Boston and environs. I can see something similar happening in New Hampshire with the White Mountains and North Woods having a different geography and political culture than the southern part of the state. Couldn’t a Texan Republic have two (or more?) constituent states, say East Texas and West Texas, which seem to be pretty widely agreed-on divisions?
    It’s not the most unreasonable idea out there. Perhaps this is overly optimistic, but as long as each state or new polity had a republican form of government I think we could all just live and let live.

  61. turcopolier says:

    Edward Amame
    A majority of the colonists did not support secession from the UK. they were rather closely divided among separatists, loyalists and those who wanted to be left alone. SCOTUS? Texas VS White? The side being rejected always say the act is illegal. pl

  62. Nancy K says:

    I don’t think this scenario would work at all. In most states the financial engine that drives the state is located in the larger cities, which very often go Democratic and the rural areas are Republican. These rural areas often need financial help from the Federal Gov and large cities, ie in my state, Raleigh, Chapel Hill and Durham, and Charlotte are really the power houses of the state.. How will small rural areas sustain themselves if they leave the US and what kind of country or countries will they represent if they are scatted in isolated areas through the US? States like Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana, might like this idea but these are states that take more in taxes from the federal gov than they give. What happens when a huge disaster hits or a terrorist attack, who will come to their aid? These areas are also have older populations, where will they get the money to provide for an again population or from educational system for the young. Would England survive if London left?

  63. turcopolier says:

    A remarkably condescending attitude toward those who do not live in large urban area. In fact groups often choose secession when their economic interests are threatened by the separation. “Not by bread alone does man live…” Did it make economic sense for the Philippines to press incessantly for independence from the US? Did it make sense economically? pl

  64. eakens says:

    by simply refusing to do so, and watching the people and media do nothing about it.

  65. TV says:

    Comey: “I don’t want to die suddenly and mysteriously.”
    Welsome to Venezuela north and remember the Venezuelans voted themselves into that disaster zone.

  66. Nancy K says:

    What are you talking about, she wants to debate him. She will debate circles around him. He is incapable of formulating a complete thought or sentence, and has no knowledge of domestic or international affairs other than fear mongering and name calling.

  67. Allen Thomson says:

    I hope, but don’t expect, that at some point we learn more about the classified information that the FBI found on the servers. Was it actual documents, verbatim quotes from documents, paraphrases that someone made from identifiable documents, general information about classified matters that couldn’t be traced to a specific document, or what?
    Possibly relevant anecdote: Long ago I worked for someone who had been a CIA case officer in Saigon and was talking to him about sending classified information by unsecure means, in that case the telephone. He said that they tried to be conscientious about it when they could, but there were times when classified information urgently needed to be communicated in order to get the job done and secure means weren’t available. In which case they picked up the phone and took their chances.
    He later became COS Moscow, so apparently such practices weren’t career limiting.

  68. Nancy K says:

    I don’t think I was being condescending towards either rural or urban areas, if so interrupted, it wasn’t meant. Man may not live by bread alone, but they don’t do very well without it.

  69. turcopolier says:

    Allen Thompson
    for a clandestine case officer to use insecure communications in an operation is a calculated risk for which he/she is subject to punishment. For a cabinet officer to do so routinely as a matter of course is quite different. pl

  70. jld says:

    It looks like you haven’t ever read Scott Adams on Trump/Clinton

  71. Fred says:

    “These areas are also have older populations, where will they get the money to provide for an again population…”
    These newly independent states will tell these folks that they are not paying for unfunded federal (US) mandates and if they want them go back to where they came from. Which will shift the burden right back to the originating state. Then if you want to retire in sunny where ever you’ll have to foot the bill yourself, just like lots of foreign countries require of immigrants right now.

  72. Fred,
    “Go back where you came from” wouldn’t work for an aging native population. They are where they came from. Also, a lot of retirees moving to other states have fixed incomes well above many in the states they migrate to. This is certainly the case with my father moving from Connecticut to Maine with his Pratt & Whitney Aircraft pension and SS payments. He did this to escape the onerous tax burden in Connecticut. Old people bring a lot of purchasing power to the gaining state. With the demise of the pension system, this will undoubtedly change.
    Your point about requiring some kind of buy in to receive state benefits is well taken. Ithink that would be a good policy even without secession.

  73. Alexandria says:

    Dear Colonel,
    I would beg to disagree. The Trumpian “masses” that I know, some of whom are family members, would make Cincinnati look like Chicago 1968 if the elites try to steal the nomination. I was surprised today that Mika and Joe gave HRC such a beating and they even jumped all over the miserable Rattner who tried to make the case that at least HRC wasn’t indicted. I would wager that you would see the GOP begin to coalesce around the nominee, but then DT will have to abandon his usual self-destructive campaign tactics and step aside while the media makes his case for him.

  74. HankP says:

    jonst –
    That may be true, and if so there will hopefully be a formal written report that contains the information you mentioned. But the head of the investigation certainly has more facts about the issue than people calling for treason trials.

  75. turcopolier says:

    What’s with the “Dear Colonel” Bob? I have already said I disagree with you. pl

  76. Fred says:

    I agree with your points. Your other comment about about a migration of people similar to what happened after the partition of India would probably be a more accurate projection.

  77. rjj says:

    Promo Ludens blurb:
    With a de- & re-constitution to an Olde Worlde system of dispensations, indulgences, perquisites, privileges, and edicts/decrees/ukases, this latest launch of the New World Order® product line has a decided retro feel ….

  78. Swamp Yankee says:

    Nancy K – Re: London and bread alone. You ask: What will London do without the rest of England? Are you serious? What will London do without food, water, and breathable air? England would do fine without London. The opposite would not be the case. Norfolkshire grows the potatoes, not Notting Hill. Where do San Franciscans, New Yorkers, and Bostonians think their water comes from (Hetch Hetchy, the Catskills, the Quabbin, respectively)? Do they think there’s an app for that? Or do they realize they are colonizing an entire landscape and its people in order to get the essentials of life from it, often at deep cost to those who came before?
    Yes, I think it was, probably unintentionally, condescending to rural or non-metropolitan urban people (e.g., New Bedford, Mass. — a city, but not metropolitan.) More importantly, the statement’s just wrong on the facts about the actual material basis of the metro/non-metropolitan divide, e.g., cities rely far more on the countryside for material needs than vice versa. Non-urban human societies precede urban ones by many tens of thousands of years. Urbanity grew out of them, not the other way around. I note also all your examples of rural areas tend to be poor and in the upland or deep South. I have no problem with those areas, quite the contrary, but it shows a certain set of blinders in your analysis. For that is just one subset of rural America. But there’s a whole panoply of rural areas in this country that you neglect, some quite prosperous and well outside major metro areas, e.g., the Traverse City area in northern lower Michigan, the valley of Vermont, and others, that will do fine on their own. Finally, and above all, this pure economic utilitarianism may not matter much compared to self-determination: as both Brexit and Tom Paine have shown, cost-benefit analyses tend not come up with a proper valuation of “so celestial an item as Freedom.”
    In short, I do hope you realize that those hip financialized metro areas are epiphenomena on the surface of larger human and ecological realities that could give a damn about the current political landscape in terms of TeamBlue and TeamRed. This reminds me of a Californian smugly asking recently what we would do without all their avocados and lettuce-in-the-dead-of-winter? Well, in places like Plymouth, or Virginia, or Michigan or Iowa, they’ll do what they’ve done since the last Ice Age: survive and prosper. We’ll do just fine. What will California do without all that water provided by 20th century federal mass-engineering projects (read: continental scale water-theft)? The divorce of so many in this country from actual material conditions, the farming and fishing, the woods and waters, let alone the people who farm and fish and generally tend to the natural world that sustains all of our tottering civilization, is in no small part a symptom, or perhaps even a cause, of the current crisis. If having most of our people live in suburbs or metro bubbles means they have forgotten the hewing of the wood and the drawing of the water, we are in deep trouble indeed.
    But, because life is short, I’m going to go weed the squash plants and maybe fish one of the kettle ponds on our first 90+ day here, as those who came before me have for many centuries on hot summer days.

  79. Tyler says:

    Nancy K,
    Trump will alpha her so hard and so fast that she will cough herself into the grave on stage.
    The DNC will claim this is all part of their strategy to win the women’s vote.

  80. Eric Newhill says:

    Tyler, Nah, just voting for anyone but an establishment type. They’re all snots from the same nose (left or right nostril makes no real difference).

  81. Eric Newhill says:

    Fred, Yes. That is true. Some states are very much aligned to the same vision that the Federal Govt has. With states people can still vote with their feet. No possible when it comes from the federal level, unless one wishes to become an expat.

  82. Swamp Yankee says:

    I’d also just add that much of that missive above was less directed at you personally, Nancy K, than a lot of folks I deal with who put forth arguments quite similar to the ones you made above. So it’s nothing personal, but yes, those arguments do get me exercised. Still, I wish you well.

  83. Cee says:

    I haven’t formed an opinion yet. I have thought about leaving the country if things get worse. Spain perhaps.

  84. Cee says:

    Swamp Yankee
    What you said about the Great Lakes area made me think of coming water wars. I remember Jennifer Granholm talking about grabbing her gun before she would let Michigan water be drained South.

Comments are closed.