The Borg queen skates on …


"The FBI director shredded so many of the talking points that the former Secretary of State and her top aides have used over and over again throughout this scandal, including that she never emailed classified material; that information in the emails was classified retroactively; that none of the emails were marked as containing classified information; that there were definitively no security breaches; that she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department; that the set-up was driven by convenience; and that the government was merely conducting “a security review.”

Rosalind Helderman, who has been covering this saga closely, writes that Comey “systematically dismantled” Clinton’s defenses. She juxtaposes Clinton quotes since last March against Comey quotes from yesterday. (Read her full piece here.)

— While Clinton dodged a legal bullet that could have been catastrophic to her candidacy, yesterday was neither vindication nor exoneration, and it certainly will not put the matter to rest. Instead, Comey’s declaration that she was “extremely careless” in handling classified material and should have known better will dog her through November. Though the FBI director said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a criminal case against Clinton, his nearly 15-minute speech was tantamount to a political indictment."  Washington Post


It is clear to me that Hillary Clinton is an unscrupulous liar.  Are we really going to let her "skate" on this in order to avoid living with the clown Trump?  Washpost

This entry was posted in As The Borg Turns, Current Affairs, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

82 Responses to The Borg queen skates on …

  1. SmoothieX12 says:

    Bigger picture: Yesterday was just the latest reminder that Clinton would probably be trailing in the polls if Republicans had nominated a stronger candidate.
    I was flabbergasted with this WaPo statement. GOP has “stronger” candidate? As per HRC–it is obvious that she is trouble both for personal (human) and political reasons. No integrity, no competence. It is not encouraging to see where this whole election goes. Ah, yes, agree–she is a liar, runs in the family, I guess. Will sell anything and anyone for power.

  2. ambrit says:

    This does fill the requirements of a good horror story. The ‘reader’ is required to practice a “willing suspension of disbelief.” Ever since the Whitewater affair, I have been suspicious of both the Clintons. Now my worst fears are coming true. Some may say that the Union survived the troubled administrations of such worthies as Cooledge, Garfield, or Harding. However, none of those past transgressors had the ability to wipe life from off the face of the Earth.
    What will tell the tale for me is how the Conventions are handled.

  3. DC says:

    I do not believe any person of character — or of clear mind, to explain the zealotry of Clinton groupies many of whom are otherwise good people — could support a candidate who has so often lied in public statements in order to protect her candidacy. Importantly, how can her fellow democrats have clear conscience in supporting this candidate? It will be interesting to see what they say, and what Bernie Sanders does, in light of Comey’s political indictment on the facts.

  4. kao_hsien_chih says:

    I remarked before that the Clintons represent a much greater threat to American democracy than Trump. To protect democracy, having to live with a Trump for a few years is worth it, I think.

  5. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    Nope, this one ain’t goin’ away, not by a long shot.
    Here is a link to a letter from Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary to James Comey in which he poses a list of questions to which he requests a written response by July 11.
    Mr. Comey has an awkward few days ahead of him, I would venture.

  6. Jack says:

    “Are we really going to let her “skate” on this in order to avoid living with the clown Trump?”
    The Democrat partisans, the duopoly establishment and the “cosmopolitans” as Ross Douthat calls them will support the Borg Queen as she is the leader of their tribe. For them her poor judgment, “carelessness”, incompetence, bellicosity and corruption are not limiting factors. She is the lesser evil.
    Trump on the other hand comes across as clownish. And does not speak as a practised politician and someone from the Yale debating team. My feeling however is he’s connecting with the people in flyover country which is where I believe the election will be decided. We could be surprised by the turnout among the working class in Ohio, Florida and Virginia. I will also not be surprised if some registered Democrats vote for him. Of course anyone who does that will be labeled racist by the opposing side. IMO the coming election is a stop on the way to realignment in our social and political setup. Similar to what is happening in Europe. And I feel that the more the Borg use deceit and all the levers of power at their disposal to thwart this realignment the more violent the end.

  7. jeremy C says:

    Here’s a jaw dropping compilation of Hillary “Lying for 13 Minutes.” This went viral a few months ago, and is really well done and shocking. Her unscrupulous lying gets worse and worse throughout the video. I always despised her for her Borg Wars and scheming triangulations, but this shows that she is a fundamentally dishonest and deceitful person, with no credibility on anything.

  8. different clue says:

    Sanders will try giving her the weakest non-endorsement endorsement he can get away with giving her. That is the most he will feel he can do, given that he promised months ago to support the “Democratic nominee” if it turned out not to be him.
    I think he knows his supporters will do what they please regardless of his endorsement. The Clintonites will keep demanding that he “deliver all” his millions of voters to Clinton. They will not understand that Sandervoters are not a fan club, and we are not “his” to “deliver”.
    The question is, can umpteen million Sandervoters voting Third Party or Write Sanders In be enough to defeat Clinton? Or will Sandervoters think about having to vote ( ugh. yuck. poo. ) for Trump?

  9. Tyler says:

    Trump is going to make America so great again that he’s going to make the good Colonel head of the DIA.

  10. rjj says:

    more interesting to see what they say about Biden and how many times they say it.

  11. Herb says:

    Short answer?

  12. walter says:

    PL, one of the major problems this nation has to overcome is the dissemination of information. Go look on Huffington Post, the #1 most visited news site on internet, and there is no mention of any of the facts u are citing. My guess is that the majority of citizens are being provided false, skewed, biased information so there will be no outrage amongst the 50% (or more) of the population following liberally biased Media…and then all the people who refuse or choose not to watch/read/listen to news. So its only the vast minority of citzens getting right-leaning Media info who will be (justifiably) outraged…so there is not enough outrage=no change. What can be done to inform the citizens better?

  13. turcopolier says:

    Yes. Most people believe a great many things to be true that are just the product of memetic conditioning. I heard some idiot woman say on TeeVee today that Saddam had gassed MILLIONS of Iraqis. I would like to know where she got the number but the stupidity was not challenged because it was part of a memetic attack on Trump. what cam be done? Little. pl

  14. mark says:

    Hillary Clinton displays all the characteristics of a typical 3rd world dictator. It’s amazing how people are not able to grasp this.

  15. Ex-PFC Chuck says:

    I supported Bernie in my precinct caucus and may vote for tTrump. Probably won’t decide until shortly before the election. My state went for Bernie, but my precinct did not. Too many women over 60.

  16. different clue says:

    If HuffPo has comment sections on their news stories, and if any SST people regularly read HuffPo; then some of those SST people could-if they wish-leave short well-worded apposite comments in the News Story threads . . . and leave clickable links back to the relevant SST posts.
    People might also do that with the second, third, fourth, etc. most visited websites and just start seeding bits of counter-narrative and counter-information links in threads.

  17. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    For a useful perspective on Trump, here’s a short clip of Dilbert comic strip creator (Scott Adams) explaining Trump’s brilliant use of persuasion to Bill Maher.
    Comey served up ‘cognitive dissonance overload’ to a public already conflicted and bitter over injustices (whether those happen to be about immigration, economics, race, are in the eye of the beholder). If Trump is as skilled as Scott Adams seems to believe, all bets are off, and the ‘conventional wisdom’ pundits are the least capable of analyzing what’s happening. They’ve earned their bread and butter analyzing campaigns and election strategies, and Trump doesn’t play by those rules. We live in interesting times…

  18. Rd says:

    “It is clear to me that Hillary Clinton is an unscrupulous liar. Are we really going to let her “skate” on this in order to avoid living with the clown Trump? Washpost ”
    Typical of corporate prostitute journalism, if you can call it journalism.
    The question is not if john or jane doe are good for the presidency. The rober barons have control over the process, lobby and think tanks, etc. They are also the 6 corporate entities that own all US corporate media. this media jingoism just provides the theatrics of a supposed democracy. Unless and until the people wake up from their slumber, don’t hold your breath. but we can discuss and debate if we’d be better off 4 years from now, or was it if you are better of from 4 years ago??
    The main problem are the people who are mis-informed, ill-informed and divided and mostly dis-engaged. life is still way too comfortable for most, even with a mountain of debt. we have ways to go before any real change. most unfortunate.

  19. Bill H says:

    Let’s not forget the undue command influence that was in place when Obama endorsed Clinton for the presidency before the investigation was completed. Do you think that there was any chance that Comey was going to recommend prosecution after his boss had said of Clinton in a national forum that he had “the highest possible confidence in her judgement and integrity?” Yeah, right. I’m surprised that Comey’s statement was a critical as it was.

  20. Herodotus says:

    Knowing what is know now, how is Hillary keeping her classed briefings?

  21. optimax says:

    A large percentage of people, especially the young, don’t watch or read any news. Mark Dice videos show an incredibly ignorant group of people. All they want is to be entertained.

  22. robt willmann says:

    Tomorrow morning, Thursday, 7 July 2016, FBI director James Comey will appear before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government and Oversight Reform, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, in room 2154 of the Rayburn House Office Building, about the FBI “investigation” [sic] of Hillary Clinton–
    This is a very bad idea. Any member of Congress and staff have not had enough time since yesterday to research, plan an approach, and develop questions. The short time periods, usually 5 minutes at a time, are easy to string out and buffalo the questioner. Furthermore, predictably, there will be no witnesses to criticize Comey or what the FBI did. The people appearing will be Comey, Steve Linick (inspector general of the state department), and I. Charles McCullough III (inspector general of the intelligence community).
    Thus, Comey will be able to reinforce and expand the bulls**t he was pushing yesterday, and the congressional committee will not make any progress.
    If Representative Jason Chaffetz (Repub. Utah), the chairman of the committee, wanted to do analysis, he could call Joseph DiGenova to testify, a former U.S. Attorney (who prosecuted the Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard). CNBC TV got DiGenova on the phone at the right time yesterday when he was quite irritated, so he came out with rhetorical guns blazing about Comey’s announcement–

  23. HankP says:

    Yes, I’m going to vote for her. She’s done stuff that is legitimately wrong (but tons of stuff she’s accused of is bs propaganda promoted over the past 25 years). But the complaint that she’s merely the lesser of two evils – when has that not been the case in my lifetime? It’s naive to think that any politician who gets to the level of running for President doesn’t have severe drawbacks. That’s just the way life is, and not only in this country. Saints don’t run for high office and wouldn’t do too well if they did. Politics, especially with the money and power at stake in this country, is a brutal, vicious business.

  24. turcopolier says:

    “… tons of stuff she’s accused of is bs propaganda promoted over the past 25 years).” What would that be? pl

  25. jonst says:

    “Little” indeed. Hate to say it, but I think it is all over but the crying. My wife of 38 years, pardon going off topic, finally induced me to watch an episode of Grace and Frank. Anyone familiar with it? Like watching my own personal nightmare of not only where this nation is going. Where it is. I just despair the entire situation.

  26. HankP says:

    Col. Lang –
    Seriously? You want a list of all the fake scandals she’s been accused of since Bill Clinton was elected as President? Do you want a list of stuff she alone has been accused of, or in concert with her husband? Things like killing Vince Foster, defending a rapist as pro bono defense council, Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Benghazi, etc. etc.
    I’ll put a list together if you want, but they’re all over the internet. And with the exception of Bill Clinton getting caught having sex with an intern, they were all bs.

  27. Tyler says:

    You are why America is where it is.
    I am why America will be great again.

  28. Jack says:

    This is going to be a particularly vitriolic campaign. The corporate media is actively campaigning for the Borg Queen – spinning, attacking and using all the tools of shaping opinion to drive Trump’s negativity higher.
    In addition big money through direct contributions to the campaign and through Super PACs have over a billion dollar war chest to further the attacks on Trump.
    So, the lens through which most will see the campaign will have the filters supportive of the Borg Queen.
    IMO, most people have already made up their mind and the number of voters that can be persuaded are rather small. I speculate the alignment of voters will resemble the Brexit coalitions – working class and rural folks vs the “cosmopolitans” and urban folks. This election will likely hinge on turnout. If the primary is an indication then Trump will be competitive in the battleground states despite all the handwringing by the punditry who are more inclined towards the Borg Queen. My belief is that whoever wins will sweep all the deciding states. It’s not gonna be split. And the difference in the vote count will be small. The Borg Queen has all the institutional advantages, so, if Trump prevails it will be a huge psychological shift. He will come into office with no one owning him.

  29. Fred says:

    One does not feed the trolls for that is all that would result. You want to influence people who can be influenced not enrage the true believers.

  30. McGee says:

    Not defending HC as spent too much time investigating security leaks for military intelligence back in the day. But given the existence of wikileaks would hardly classify the state department’s internal communications systems as very secure either. To the best of my knowledge no one has pointed this out.

  31. Doug Colwell says:

    “We came, we saw, he died. (Chuckle)”. I’ve considered myself left wing all my life, but if that means supporting Hillary Clinton include me out.

  32. Mark Logan says:

    The Dept of Justice isn’t going to save us from ourselves, and if I put myself in their shoes I find it hard to fault them for that. The moment they start prosecuting a nominee then they are in the circus. Next thing they would have to do something about Trump’s pay-off of the Florida DA to drop the criminal case against Trump U. They do not have unlimited resources.
    The Constitution seems to recognize the problem, it stipulates that Congress shall determine high crimes and misdemeanors for some folks, and only some folks, and only sometimes. Perhaps that is the best of the bad options. Bottom line, I guess, is Justice is not responsible for the break-down of the system which has resulted in our current presumptive nominees and I can’t demand they fix the mess.

  33. different clue says:

    If someone reacts to such an informative link-containing comment with enraged emotion, the link-giver simply non-responds. There are silent lurkers who read those threads and some of them might well find useful such comments as I suggest.
    If ten thousand people read a HuffPo thread and ten of them read and follow the sort of link I suggest, then ten people are perhaps ready to make a break and think outside the Borg.
    Of course your comment does make me consider the danger that the trolls and especially the emotional true believers might ride the link back to SST to spew their bile and hatred. Perhaps not even being published at all might discourage them after a few rounds and the “ready-for-SST” ten people might come here and start reading.

  34. different clue says:

    ” Our enemies have given us a shield, and we use it with relish.”
    –Hillary Milhous Clinton

  35. Jimmy_W says:

    Hard copy kept under the briefer’s control at all times? She has no authorized storage anyway, right?

  36. Tyler says:

    You are unfamiliar with how the HuffPaint Post works.
    If you try to post it, it will be moderated if it wrecks the paradigm.
    These people live in their own little bubbles, their narratives made out of spun sugar. Witness Nancy K, HankP, and so many others here. They are paragons of wisdom compared to the comment section of that place though, to give them credit.

  37. crf says:

    If elected President, can Clinton be impeached by Congress for her conduct, which occurred during her tenure as Secretary of State?

  38. I can vouch for the lack of security of the State Department’s unclassified system several years ago. The system was over run by young hackers running wild through their servers, routers and switches. They did it for shits and grins. NASA systems were worse, but a of .mil systems were also severely compromised. To think that these systems were not “pwned” by Russia, China, Israel and others is wishful thinking. I had absolutely no faith in the security of any communications over these systems. I would hope things have improved, but the scale of the OPM hack discovered last year leaves me doubting that.

  39. TonyL says:

    I’d doubt Col Lang would give a damn about that! If he were willing to work under people like Trump , he would have been head of DIA long ago.

  40. Ken Roberts says:

    Not my choice — I don’t get a vote in the forthcoming election — I am one of those who believe Honour is appropriately spelt with a You in it. But a couple of remarks … my two cents, worth 1.4 US cents after currency exch.
    1) If Trump wants to win, this is tremendous opportunity. He can select VP running mate who can actively and credibly speak to middle-ground; maybe a well-known name who cannot easily be ignored by media, and looks a solid alternative to Trump if he is not able to complete his term. Both DT and HRC are older and that must be a concern. Woman perhaps? Hispanic, black, etc? Detail which I do not know. Capable mid-spectrum maybe most important.
    2) The great strength of US political system is, or has been in past, checks and balances. The three branches. But there is a fourth “branch”: “We the people … do ordain and establish …”. Both the DT and BS campaigns have been a reengagement of the people. Much of the anxiety and frustratino seems to me to be a concern about who might be an appropriate king or queen, as you elect someone to be monarch. We merely have to find a prime minister — who may be a bad choice, but can be replaced by colleagues, at moderate trouble, if choice turns out to be terrible. PL is correct in his insight about reinforcing the senate. Anyway you have your system; it works well in general and has proven successful over decades. Not to worry; keep engaged.
    Just from the peanut gallery. By the way, it is an error to assume that being “Left (Very)” as Facebook categorized me, is an accurate predictor of what one might do in selecting personnel.
    Best wishes in difficult times.
    Ciao !

  41. Green Zone Cafe says:

    If I get called by any pollsters asking who I will vote for, I will answer Gary Johnson and William Weld.
    Maybe two decent governors might get some traction. Cool, worldly old guys: they will not blow up the world.
    Answering Jill Stein would also be a good idea, if you prefer. Americans need real alternatives, and anything that would get more of them into the debates I am in favor of.
    If it is limited to the two of them, I prefer Trump to Clinton because his instincts on foreign and economic policy are much better.

  42. Edward Amame says:

    Emailgate probably qualifies as a genuine scandal, but the GOP won’t be able to capitalize on it because they’ve dialed every other BS Clinton scandal (ie: Vince Foster, Travelgate, Whitewater, Benghazi!, etc) up to 11 and their own candidate is a FUup.

  43. turcopolier says:

    Ken Roberts
    As you know, I am a Canadian citizen who can’t vote outside Canada. Soo, I have some interest in Trudeau’s behavior. Do you find his behavior was appropriate during Obama’s visit? pl

  44. kao_hsien_chih says:

    That’s a fundamental problem with the Republicans (and the current political environment in general, actually).
    The incident at Benghazi, for example, was a genuine crisis not so much on the account of pinning the blame on Clinton or he administration but because it was one of early signs that our intervention in Libya was going horribly awry. But the Republicans saw it only as an opportunity to embarrass the political enemies and the administration’s response, fronted by HRC, was equally obtuse. Everyone could see it, I think, even then, that there was something genuinely wrong that nobody was paying attention to in favor of political mudslinging.
    Same problem with the email gate: while there is a genuine problem and lawbreaking, once it becomes politicized, it becomes muddied.

  45. Ken Roberts says:

    PL … You are more diligent about following the news than I am. What is the behaviour you are referring to? I only saw a photo, and I admit it ticked me off a bit, as it showed Obama marching along with his Mexican and Canadian wingmen. But that’s just optics. In general, I’m sure Justin Trudean has a lot to learn, but believe he is up to the position and its responsibilities. He seems to be acting as a prime (ie first) minister, not the only decider, and to be relying upon and trusting his cabinet colleagues. That is good !

  46. raven says:

    You are one sick puppy.

  47. turcopolier says:

    ken Roberts
    He looked to me to be a shirt ad model who somehow became PM. pl

  48. Ken Roberts says:

    Well, he does have some substance. I’ve only had limited non-media info flow. My wife heard him speak at a conference, years ago, and was impressed. When JT was running for Liberal leadership, and I was concerned about youth, I asked someone very experienced, former MP now/then retired, and she supported JT — that was very influential on my thinking, as she had worked with him and I trust her judgement more than my own in most political ear-to-ground matters. And, when the Cons were bashing JT for being invited to speak to a Muslim group, he went and spoke anyway, and I read transcript of his remarks, and was impressed about how he handled the situation — appropriate for one who aspires to be leader of whole country, not just one majority religion. So I think he is capable of being a politician, despite looking young and being in good physical condition. We have to go with the choices in front of us, and S. Harper was a disaster, long after sell-by date, but he refused to listen to voices of others in his party. SH smart but was seduced by the concept of “the Harper government”. I think JT knows he is responsible for “government of Canada”. Humility is a good thing.

  49. Tyler says:

    You are fine with the castration of five year old boys if they claim they are girls.
    You have zero moral authority, you freak.

  50. robt willmann says:

    To make the obvious more obvious, attorney general Loretta Lynch, formerly on the board of directors of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve Bank, put out a press release on 6 July 2016 saying that, “Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State. I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”–
    “…[N]o charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation”. They are all off the hook.
    What is meant by “within the scope of the investigation”? Hillary’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as secretary of state? If so, there should be an investigation of the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, and associated organizations and their money-shuffling operations. Is such an investigation going on?
    With other things to do right now, I glanced at the television when walking by it, and the print at the bottom of the screen while the testimony was going on said something like, the FBI believed Hillary Clinton set up the private e-mail computer server at home “for convenience”. Does James Comey really believe that? Another typed phrase referred to Gen. Petraeus, and that he had “a vast amount of classified information” at home, or something along those lines. Did Thomas Drake have a vast amount of classified information, if any, at home? Did Jeffrey Sterling?

  51. different clue says:

    Well . . . that is disappointing to learn. I never went there because of time limitations and such. I just assumed that any comment sent there would show up.
    So . . . what are the second most visited newsy websites? The third most? The fourth most? etc.? If any of those permit comments to show up without pre-screening, would the approach of seeding their threads with outside-the-borg comments and links be useful?

  52. HankP says:

    Tyler –
    I saw an entire Trump speech the other day. I wouldn’t let someone who rambled and contradicted himself like that be a substitute teacher for my kids, let alone President of the country.
    As far as “greatness”, that’s vague enough so that anyone can project their beliefs onto it. Trump is just a con man, it is pretty worrying that so many people can’t see that.

  53. HankP says:

    different clue –
    I don’t think that’s an actual quote, but yes she’s been extremely lucky in her opponents. Actually the opposite of Nixon.

  54. turcopolier says:

    I think you are right about Trump, but you do not seem to see how bad HC really is. pl

  55. HankP says:

    Doug Colwell –
    Everyone has to make their own choice as to what’s “too much”. Personally having a candidate call for torture and war crimes is more important to me than an offhand comment about an awful leader that supported terrorism for decades.

  56. HankP says:

    Col. Lang –
    That may be. After the Presidents of my lifetime (since 1958) I just don’t see the giant leap of awfulness about HRC. She is way too hawkish for my beliefs, but the fact remains that there are only two people who will be the choices for President, and it isn’t even close.
    I think George W Bush was an absolutely terrible President, but I’d choose him over Trump if that was the choice.

  57. turcopolier says:

    IMO we will go to war against Russia during her presidency. Nothing is worse than that. pl

  58. HankP says:

    Col. Lang –
    That would be horrible. I don’t think it’s likely. For one thing there would be no support in either party for that, it’s about the only thing I could see Democrats agreeing to impeachment over.

  59. kao_hsien_chih says:

    A shirt ad model and a son of a former PM. I hate generational politicians who have nothing to sell but connections and names…

  60. kao_hsien_chih says:

    I honestly think the current crop of Democrats would rather see the rest of the country as a heap of molten glass than join together with the Republicans to impeach their own party’s president. (Granted, the same is true with the Republicans too.) I think, in this presidential race, there are/were two truly evil people, one in each party–Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton. I don’t see myself voting for Trump, but I will NEVER ever vote for a Clinton.

  61. Fred says:

    Freddie Grey justice. She’s white and a woman so she has uncheckable privilege.

  62. Barish says:

    Any read on this here?
    “APNewsBreak: State Department reopens Clinton emails probe
    Jul. 7, 2016 7:30 PM EDT
    WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department is reopening an internal investigation of possible mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and top aides, officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.
    Although the former secretary of state’s closest confidants have left the agency, they could still face punishment. The most serious is the loss of security clearances, which could complicate her aides’ hopes of securing top positions on her national security team if she becomes president.
    Additionally Thursday, Republican lawmakers said they would now ask the FBI to investigate whether Clinton lied to the committee. That announcement came in a testy hearing with FBI Director James Comey, who defended the government’s decision not to prosecute Clinton over her private email setup.
    Clinton was secretary of state until early 2013. Most of her top advisers left shortly thereafter.
    But Kirby said this week former officials can still face punishment. Options range from counseling and warnings to the revocation of an individual’s security clearance.
    Beyond the Democratic front-runner, the probe is will most likely examine confidants Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin — who wrote many of the emails to their boss that the various investigations have focused on. Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, has been viewed as a possibility for the same job in the White House. There is speculation that Sullivan, Clinton’s former policy chief, could be national security adviser.”
    Reading through that, I am on one hand impressed how little exposure potential consequences for HRC receive here. On the other, seems that someone’s ready to let some of her aides’ heads roll so HRC can move on like nothing happened.

  63. Cortes says:

    Towards the end of the piece linked below is a reference to the Clintons’ evasive measures re the US FOIA. Perhaps ammunition for opponents?

  64. Cee says:

    Glad to report that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation funding is not over.

  65. turcopolier says:

    Marcy thinks the McDonnell case would e a bar to prosecution. In McDonnell’s case the absence of a quid pro quo was the deciding issue. pl

  66. jld says:

    For one thing there would be no support in either party for that,

    In the situation as of today!
    But if things turn sour and after “unexpected” Russian “agressive” actions in response to “legitimate” concerns of the likes of Kerry and the Harpies there will be plenty of support for gung ho suicidal initiatives.
    This is how the sleepwalking worked in August 1914.

  67. Diogenes says:

    If the Senate could muster 60 votes to convict Hillary for “high crimes and misdemeanors” based on FBI Director Comey’s verification of her multiple lies concerning use of her email server, the US law allows for banning the defendant from ever serving in government again as a consequence of the conviction! This is a much simpler process that Congress making a referral to the FBI for perjury and the legal complications for prosecuting this. Impeachment is strictly a political judgement and that reduces the problem of having enough votes. Check reference below and the UK deliberation on whether to impeach Tony Blair on the evidence in the Chilcot Report to prevent him from ever holding office again in the UK government.
    Does it sound farfetched for Congress to impeach and try someone who is no longer in office? It has happened! In 1876, Secretary of War General William Belknap [who served in the scandal-plagued Republican administration of Pres. Ulysses Grant], accused of accepting a bribe, resigned just hours before the House was scheduled to consider articles of impeachment. The House went ahead and unanimously impeached him, and by a vote of 37-29 the Senate rejected the argument that Belknap’s resignation should abort the case. The Senate proceeded with the trial, but Belknap was narrowly acquitted.

  68. Lefty says:

    Expect EW’s right that the DoJ will not indict a major party presidential candidate in an election year.
    In this case it will be millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation or “speaking fees” and billions in export licenses from Sec State. Guess we’ll find out if those pass the new “standard” for a quid pro quo in a corrupt act. The dollar figures will certainly be large enough to attract attention.
    Any doubt that 100% of the emails involving the Clinton Foundation were categorized as personal and deleted? Without a smoking “give me this and I’ll do that” email Comey will not likely find any closely linked actions as evidence of intent.
    Amazing that Comey turned 793(f) on its head and read it as requiring intent where it explicitly does not.

  69. Cee says:

    The Blowback Begins: Marine Demands Same Treatment As Hillary
    Marine Corps officer Jason Brezler has been locked in a legal battle with his service after self-reporting that he improperly disseminated classified information now intends to demand the same treatment that Hillary received.

  70. Dante Alighieri says:

    Esteemed Colonel Lang, in politics, between a liar and a clown, I would always choose the liar. But I agree the choice is a very unpleasant one. Whatever makes you think that Trump, in addition to being a clown, isn’t also a liar. Your current choice is actually between a lying serious person and a lying buffoon. We over here in Europe – even those of us like myself who are fully aware that we are largely ignorant about the USA – believe you will have to swallow the toad named C. The future of reasonable American politics isn’t starting now but, at best, in 4 or more likely 8 years. Don’t get hysterical now, get prepared for then.

  71. turcopolier says:

    I actually know Hillary. I would never vote for her. Nor will I vote for Trump. How did you miss that? What I said was that these were left wing talking points. IMO she actually believes in nothing. pl

  72. ‘Dante Aligheri’,
    You write:
    ‘We over here in Europe – even those of us like myself who are fully aware that we are largely ignorant about the USA – believe you will have to swallow the toad named C.’
    Speak for yourself.
    In recent British elections, not living in a marginal constituency, I have been able to avoid having to choose between alternatives both of which I much dislike. How I vote would not make any difference.
    If I was in a similar situation in the United States, I would probably ‘write in’ a candidate I knew had no chance of winning.
    If I was not, however, there is a fundamental consideration.
    I do not think it is that likely that Hilary Clinton would get us into a war with Russia – but I do not think it is entirely impossible.
    Such a war would be quite likely to escalate to nuclear exchanges.
    Let us suppose that there is a 10% chance of her getting us into a war. And a 30% chance of such a war, if it started, escalating to nuclear confrontation.
    (Whether nuclear war, once started, can be limited, is an interesting question, but a great deal of evidence suggests that all-out escalation is the most likely outcome.
    This is too complex a question to go into here. But, for the purposes of argument, I will assume that escalation is unlikely to be controllable.)
    What would then follow is that voting for Hillary would imply a 3% chance of the end of the world.
    In contrast, nothing that Trump has said makes me think there would be any serious chance of his getting into a war with Russia.
    Let us however not be overoptimistic, and suggest that there would be, say, a 2% chance of his getting into a war with Russia – with still a 30% chance of such a war escalating to a nuclear exchange.
    So what is my choice? A 3% chance of the end of the world with Hillary, and a 0.6% chance with Trump.
    What then do I do?
    Short answer, have a few stiff whiskies, and – swaying slightly from side to side – go into the voting booth and vote Trump.
    Which part or parts of my chain of logic to do you want to dispute?

  73. different clue says:

    There are many people who CAN see that and DO see that and may well vote for Trump regardless. Some of those people detest Clinton just that much. Other of those people are SanderBackers who are well aware of the primary election-rigging against Sanders in Clinton’s favor, of Debbie-poo Wasserschultz’s steady bias against Sanders in terms of trying to schedule the fewest possible debates at the fewest-viewers possible times, of lying fake reports of Sanderbacker “violence” “against” Clintobackers, etc. They (maybe me among them) may vote third party or write Sanders in. Or if Clinton presents the threat of being more-dangerous-enough a President than Trump would be . . . a few of us ( maybe even me) may vote for Trump. ” Vote for the Con-Man. It’s important.”)
    Trump will also get the Burn This Mother Down vote. I don’t know how large that vote will be. There are people who will vote for Trump because Fork this Sheet. They will just want to see a President Trump kick some sheet over sideways and stomp on it. Just to see if something changes.

  74. different clue says:

    It is an actual quote. But it is not her actual quote. It is my actual quote which I made up to illustrate my point.

  75. different clue says:

    A President just has to force a firefight between American and Russian forces into existence, and the war takes care of itself and maybe even goes thermonuclear before Congress can even be convened.
    A President Clinton would be her own General Jack D. Ripper.

  76. different clue says:

    Clinton is the Overclass’s designated Obama 2.0 President. They expect her to be worth as much money to them as Obama has already been to them. They will use every bit of the power they have to inject her into the Presidency no matter what.
    No Clinton will ever be indicted by anybody for anything, ever. Ever.

  77. different clue says:

    Again I ask . . .
    Could it be
    that someone put
    a horse’s head
    in Comey’s bed?

  78. Imagine says:

    Biden got his son named Director of Burisma, Kolomoisky’s oil company. They stand to buy oil land for pennies on the dollar and make millions if ethnic cleansing in east Ukraine is completed successfully. I can look the other way at the tobacco funding, or Biden’s brother getting contracts to rebuild homes in Iraq, but: Ethnic cleansing for personal profit is a level of depravity I have to draw the line at.

  79. Tel says:

    In reply to the comment:
    “It is clear to me that Hillary Clinton is an unscrupulous liar. Are we really going to let her “skate” on this in order to avoid living with the clown Trump? Washpost”
    Do not underestimate clown power.
    When everything else seems lost, a sense of humour still remains useful.
    But more than this, the Jester has a special and irreplaceable role to fill… in a world where everything is right and proper, strict and controlled, the Jester is the only one who can speak the truth.

  80. Dante Alighieri says:

    Mr. Habakkuk:
    Thank you for responding to my post!
    Yes, I do think there is a flaw in your logic. What you fail to consider is the _overall_ likelihood of a US/Russian doomsday scenario, given the total aversion of 99.9% of both Americans and Russians, not to speak of all other international actors, to such an outcome. Formally speaking, this reduces your odds to 0.03 percent with Prez HRC and 0.006 percent with Prez Trump. Which amounts to an absolute risk difference of 0.024 percent! Honestly, after a couple of stiff whiskies, would such a trifle still matter to you?
    Besides, consider the price of this 0.024 percent discount. You can have at present no idea what the impact a Trump election would have on markets, the economy, domestic politics (including especially the Republican party) and general foreign politics. But to predict it will be positive is adventurous to say the least. Here the negative risk is in double-digit percentages.

  81. Dante Alighieri,
    I am afraid your response to my comments reflects a more general failure of Western publics to absorb what has emerged about the actual truth about the Cold War nuclear confrontation.
    At no point in that confrontation was there enthusiasm among either Americans or Russians for a nuclear war. It has however become quite clear that there were very serious dangers of such a war breaking out, despite this fact.
    A good starting point here is a review of Eric Schlosser’s 2013 study ‘Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety’, by Bruce Blair – a sometime Minuteman launch control officer who became one of the world’s leading authorities on nuclear command and control. In conclusion, Blair writes:
    ‘Eric Schlosser deserves a medal for exposing the popular narrative of the Cold War for the fiction that it is. The nuclear confrontation was anything but stable. It teetered on the edge of conflagration. Unleashing the forces took priority over preventing their use by accident, mistake, or without authority. Safeguards and safety features fell short in peacetime and degenerated in a crisis. And because of the uncertainties of retaliation – whether by means of pre-delegation, doomsday machinery, or launch-on-warning – both sides stood all too ready to initiate a first strike in a crisis.
    ‘Schlosser thoroughly captures this shrouded arc of Cold War history. Would that the major institutions of society and government (media, academia, think tanks, Congress) and key civilian officials most responsible for nuclear policy possessed Schlosser’s grasp of the extraordinary danger lurking beneath a false sense of security. Extreme secrecy hid the truth from them. Only a small coterie of nuclear mandarins knew the score. Excessive secrecy remains a serious obstacle to exercising democratic control over nuclear weapons, and it undermines our security, but less so thanks to Schlosser’s exposé.’
    (See .)
    The review was however written prior to the movement back towards full-scale confrontation with Russia, resulted from events in Ukraine and Syria, which was initiated by the Obama Administration and which Hillary Clinton would almost certainly continue, and Donald Trump most probably would not.
    On this, I would recommend the writings of one of the most distinguished American scholars of Soviet and Russian affairs, Stephen F. Cohen. From a summary of one of the regular appearances Professor Cohen now makes on the John Batchelor Show:
    ‘Batchelor and Cohen conclude by asking what current US presidential candidates have said about the deepening crises in Syria and Ukraine, or in Europe. Cohen argues that only Donald Trump has said anything meaningful and critical of US bipartisan foreign policy. In effect, Trump has asked five fundamental (and dissenting) questions. Should the United States always be the world’s leader and policeman? What is NATO’s proper mission today, 25 years after the end of the Soviet Union and when international terrorism is the main threat to the West? Why does Washington repeatedly pursue a policy of regime change, in Iraq, Libya, possibly in Ukraine, and now in Damascus, even though it always ends in “disaster”? Why is the United States treating Putin’s Russia as an enemy and not as a security partner? And should US nuclear-weapons doctrine include a no-first use pledge, which it does not include? Cohen argues that Trump’s questions are fundamental and urgent, but that instead of engaging them, his opponents (including President Obama) and the media dismiss the issues he raises about foreign policy as ignorant and dangerous. Some even charge that his statements are like “Christmas in the Kremlin” and that he is “the Kremlin’s Candidate” thereby, Cohen laments, further shutting off the debate we so urgently need.’
    (See )
    It is probably the case that Cohen is here being excessively favourable to Trump. On the mindlessness of the American – and British – foreign policy consensus that Hillary Clinton embodies, however, he seems to me absolutely right.
    As you will be aware, in any normal sense of the term her proposed ‘no fly zone’ in Syria would involve being willing to shoot down Syrian and Russian planes. The only possible constructions I can put on her garbled attempts to repudiate this suggestion last December is that either she is simply blustering, or she is confident that faced by American threats Putin would climb down and abandon his whole Syria policy.
    (See .)
    With a woman like that in control, are you really so very confident that my estimate of a 3% chance of nuclear war is two orders of magnitude too large?
    On reflection, I think I would vote for Trump cold sober.

Comments are closed.