" … the meeting between Bill and Loretta had nothing to do with hair or race. It had to do with the subtle projection of terrifying power.
And with Hillary under investigation by her office, and with her boss, President Obama, having already endorsed Mrs. Clinton, Lynch made a terrible mistake.
She shouldn't have talked to Clinton about anything. Instead, she should have said:
'Bill, may I call you Bill? I can't have any kind of conversation with you in private. It would be wrong. But if you'd like to sit with FBI agents and talk about your wife's illegal emails and how they relate to your epic bank account and your Clinton Foundation international slush fund, you're more than welcome.'
But she didn't. So she deserves to be made a public fool." Kass in the Chicago Tribune
————
This is the moment that Bernie has awaited, lurking patiently in the bushes, waiting, waiting, waiting, Lynch will speak around 1100 today.
All the world wonders… pl
Slick Willie was a little too slick for his own good. His stunt backfired badly and now Lynch is forced to accept the FBI’s recommendations to salvage her own reputation in this matter. So now it’s up to the FBI to throw the monkey wrench into the Clinton machine. Throw it hard and throw it fast. I concur with Bill Herschel’s comment to the previous post, except Clinton won’t withdraw. She will have to be driven out with pitchforks and torches. Feel the Bern.
“Clinton withdraws from the race. Sanders is the nominee. Trump goes back to hotels, golf courses, casinos and the Howard Stern show. America wins.”
I learned one valuable term in the conspiracy universe, from one of the most incomprehensible/cryptic contributors, but apparently also pretty street-wise, he called it “deviant elites”. It could help close the circle to corruption. And the obviously not that easy tools to deal with it.
On the other hand you can famous easily nowadays, apparently even pretty short-term. Which allows you to sell a Kel-tec you bought at one point for 300 something dollars for above 100,000 Dollars. Pretty impressive gains. Never mind, it’s not quite what you would have needed to pay, if you hadn’t joined the ?semi-fake? competition. But instead decided to buy it on the spot. In that case a buy-immediately-offer would forced you to pay 500,000 dollars.
All meaningless, unless Lynch either resigns or appoints an Independent Counsel. Simply recusing herself does not remove the stain of unlawful command influence.
Maybe they wanted to get rid of Lynch?
Blowback’s a b–ch, and slick willy’s in the doghouse again (for many nights).
Shameless, as in even the appearance of ethical conflicts (taking the grankid talk at face value, which I don’t for a second, and neither does John Kass in his excellent skewer) are for the little people, as well as protecting govt secrets, and numerous other laws and rules, and just common decency.
Still think Borg is better than meat puppet as a useful analogy for the mainstream media / commentariat / establishment thinkers, albeit less fun.
Your keyboard to god’s ears!
TTG: Bernie would be great. The Congress would reject his policies, but the country would be well served with 4 years of actual policy debate.
TTG, Sir
Do you think Comey is a man of honor? He stood up some what to Dubya’s “lawlessness” in that famous hospital scene.
We’ll know soon enough if our highest law enforcement officials believe the law applies to the political elite. It clearly didn’t for the financial elite and Clapper, Alexander and Petraeus. Lanny Breuer, AG Holder’s deputy who has returned to the same law firm with Holder is promoting this on his bio page:
“He specializes in helping clients navigate financial fraud investigations, anti-corruption matters, money laundering investigations, securities enforcement actions, cybercrime incidents, Congressional investigations, and other criminal and civil matters presenting complex regulatory, political, and public relations risks.”
Crooked Hillary can retain him. In any case the Clinton Foundation tax attorney is at the same firm. Is it any wonder why under Holder & Breuer there was not a single indictment of anyone behind the securitization sausage factory and the credit bust?
One can only hope.
I think we need to give Loretta a little more credit. As AG she waltzes into BHO’s office the afternoon after he gives full support to HRC and says what….nobody knows…..somehow Huma takes a deposition & Hill is on stage promising to work on salvaging her trustworthiness…..now Slick Willie prances in and Loretta lets it happen…yup… After a career as a lawyer she let that happen…so now she can legally step aside. To me Crooked Hillary and Slick Willie were just greased for the coming onslaught.
Do you really think Bernie can take Donald??
From Lynch’s press interview in Aspen:
After much prodding from Capehart, she even basically acknowledged the meeting never should have happened.
“I certainly wouldn’t do it again,” she said.
This could lead to the end of HRC. Even her friends and fans in the MSM are having a hard time defending her and the BHO clan surrounding her.
This is intriguing. I heard only a small part of the questions to Loretta Lynch at the Aspen function. This may be a video of her at that part of the Aspen event on the issue of an investigation of Hillary Clinton, her (Loretta’s) meeting with Bill Clinton, etc. Being preoccupied right now, I will watch it later–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnYZZmcyLsU
In this whole drama, one must not forget, because it is not publicized, that Loretta Lynch was on the board of directors of the New York Branch of the Not-Federal Reserve Bank for a while when George W. Bush (Bush jr.) was president. And Ms. Lynch was on the search committee of the NY Fed board which “searched” far and wide (ROFL) for a new president and CEO. The recommendation was for … drum roll … Timothy Geithner, who was appointed on October 15, 2003 to be president and CEO of the NY Fed–
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/other/2003/20031015/default.htm
Mr. Geithner had worked as an Undersecretary of the Treasury for Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers when Bill Clinton was president (!), and started working at the International Monkey-Business Fund (IMF) in 2001. Then he is president of the NY Fed during the start of the Big Bailout and then continued with the bailout when he was Secretary of the Treasury from January 2009 to January 2013 for Obama–
https://www.treasury.gov/about/history/Pages/tgeithner.aspx
Loretta Lynch was appointed to be the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) by president Bill Clinton. Then she goes into private practice as a “partner” (right away) at Hogan & Hartson. Then she is appointed to the board of directors of the NY Fed. Then in 2010, president Obama puts her back as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of NY. And in 2014, Obama appoints her to be attorney general of the U.S.–
https://www.justice.gov/ag/meet-attorney-general
Notice that Ms. Lynch’s biography at the Department of Justice website says nothing about her having been on the board of directors of the New York Fed, the most important “branch” of the Not-Federal Reserve Bank.
She has been brought along by people above Barack Obama on the totem pole.
Col.Lang,
I agree on this moment for Sanders. I hope Comey does the right thing. I hope they make a movie about his integrity then, and perhaps now.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/what-the-ashcroft-hospital-showdown-on-nsa-spying-was-all-about/
Jack, I have no reason to doubt the integrity of Comey. I don’t agree with his take on encryption and probably other things, but I consider him to be a man of honor.
When the White House wants to minimize public exposure, they schedule their announcements for Friday.
TTG,
As an ignorant Brit, I cannot judge American politics. However, I am somewhat surprised by your apparent optimism that, if Hillary was cleared out of the way, Sanders would defeat Trump.
What John Kass has to say about the ‘Brexit’ vote is partly to the point, and partly completely unreal.
A common delusion of contemporary ‘liberals’ in London is to think that their fellow-countrymen are not ‘tribalist’. Do such people know anything about, for instance, the history of Liverpool, or Glasgow, or the East End of London?
The kind of delusions one sees among contemporary élites here actually reflect a peculiar kind of British narcissism. We like to think we are ‘reasonable’ and ‘good’. In fact, here as in most places, people are mixed bunch.
And the ‘tribalist’ revolt among many of the ‘whites’ is a complicated phenomenon, which is partly the reverse side of the coin of the largely bogus ‘multiculturalist’ enthusiasms of ‘liberals’.
In this country, the prospects of someone like Sanders being elected Prime Minister would be zilch.
When Trump made remarks about ‘no-go’ areas for the police in inner-city areas here, the ‘liberals’ both in Britain and the United States, reacted with shocked horror.
But in fact, his claims were certainly closer to the truth than those who denounced him as ‘racist’.
Moreover, in the wake of the migration crisis and the terrorist attacks in France, Brussels, etc, the people who think this – without necessarily saying it – are not simply the ‘poor whites’ who live in the areas affected.
A very large part of what might be called the ‘Thatcher constituency’ would agree.
Moreover, among those I know who voted ‘Remain’, as I did, more than one quite clearly did so, as I did, despite, and not because of, the positions of the ‘liberals’ on immigration.
Watching Lynch answer questions on CNN, and never having seen her in action before, I’m stunned by her sheer bureaucratic mediocrity. She spews such a torrent of ungrammatical word salad, at such high speed, it’s hard to extract a definite meaning. And then I start to think maybe that’s the intended effect.It’s a kind of verbal squid ink.
Bernie isn’t tough enough, in the sense of being “plain dog mean” as Clint Eastwood once said when playing the outlaw Josie Wales. He is durable, but he is not “plain dog mean” attack-tough.
So this moment is entirely wasted on Bernie.
Trump is tough enough to try using this moment, though. Is he artful enough to use it correctly?
Oh, and as someone noted in a comment at Naked Capitalism . . . Clinton is proud of his brazen in-our-face lying. He knows that nobody plays golf in Phoenix in 110 degree heat. He knows we know it. He knows that we know that he knows we know it.
He is just strutting his Upper Class Privilege to lie in our face and dare us to do anything about it.
The question is . . . will Comey and the FBI deliver such a brutal and stinging list of evidence of felony wrongdoing to multiply indict for, that when Lynch refuses to indict for any of it, that her public image will be so destroyed that she will have to console herself with counting her money in private?
This is all really good. The mask slips just a little more. At this point, everything that undermines credit in our political arrangement is good news.
Is it possible that the private meeting was in fact a formal interview of Bill aboard the plane? The fact of an interview is normally kept secret, and properly so. In what other way would he be interviewed? Brought into the Justice Department? Just a thought.
Tell them about Chaves…
worked for Ike.
David H.,
I don’t think Sanders would necessarily be the American equivalent of anti-Brexit. Clinton and Trump, if we are willing to set aside a lot of complications, make for something analogous to Brexit–the internationalist ally of the financial capital against an eccentric and very odd non-politician. Sanders and Trump, were that to take place, would be two anti-Brexit propositions slugging out with each other. Were that to happen, I like Sanders’ chances.
Having said that, it’ll be staggering were that to happen. The import of the internationally connected economic-political-social interests is immense and it would be dangerous to believe that they can excluded, as much as one can think the City can be ignored in UK national politics.
David,
I’m just an optimistic kind of guy. Life’s too sweet not to be. OTOH, I’m under no illusion that Bernie’s path to the White House would be easy or assured. First, he has to get past the DNC machine. That will dependent on how messy the DNC wants to make it. He will get no support from the Borg machine. It will be an election between two outsiders, despite Bernie’s many years in government. On the plus side, he is the candidate who still has a positive image among the voters. As of a month ago, he polled very well against Trump, much better than Clinton. His record of consistency and being precociously right about things is pretty, pretty, pretty good. Is he tough enough to stand up to Trump’s attacks and willing to dish out attacks of the same intensity? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t sell that tough old bird short.
Your points about the recent Brexit vote are well taken. The anti-foreigner anger is clearly more widespread than most MSM pundits are willing to admit. This is Trump’s most potent weapon in the electoral fight. I also heard that some of the “leave” vote was made as a protest against the establishment without any real expectation to leave or even a desire to leave. Was this phenomena real or just anecdotal?
Capehart, who is practically, if not literally, Clinton’s spokesperson at Washington Post, “prodding”? That sounds highly suspicious, to say the least.
TTG,
I respect you, but you are totally wrong with thinking Bernie will win against Trump. We have already seen Bernie play the role he was assigned so far, supporting the scion of a political dynasty after campaigning for “the little guy”.
Bernie’s pandering to SJW causes will turn off not only large swathes of regular Americans, but the minority vote as well that can be counted on to vote D 95+% of the time. The only people who care about transgender illegal alien bisexuals are the columnists of the NYT and virtue signalling whites. Mr. Habakkuk is correct here.
Furthermore, Bernie’s grasp on economic policy is insanely weak. He believes in open borders, and Trump would absolutely savage him on that issue. If you’re hoping your candidate will get the “sympathy vote” when s/he is getting clobbered, it’s pretty clear your candidate has a losing hand.
“Lynch made a terrible mistake.”
Same sort of mistake that Madeline Albright made with her “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.” comment about the ½ million kids killed by sanctions.
Accidentally giving the game away like that is guaranteed to get influential people annoyed with you. Blatancy (is their such a word?) like that is inimical to the slick ….. ummm smooth …. running of the continuing process of looting everyone in the middle classes and downwards.
AG Lynch’s story as to how the “chance meeting” with Bill Clinton occurred does not pass the smell test. Was she really caught unawares? Why did she not refuse to meet with him? Plus, the “meeting on the tarmac” narrative is straight out of a schlocky spy novel. Who is writing this script, it stinks.
It is incredible to me that she thinks a promise to assign the decision to Comey (but then shortly thereafter DoJ walks it back, saying she may still be involved to some degree) will make this story go away. She should have a proper news conference and submit to answering questions about these public events, and her intent. Put James Rosen on the front row.
Perhaps we should add to the list of hypotheses and appraisals, an elemental factor which we might indelicately label : “the jerk factor.” Its variants are:
“the dimwit factor,” “the jackass factor” and “the putz factor (to go ethnic)” – among others. All of these types are proliferating as the American political culture sinks into the mire. After all, isn’t Donald Trump just the winner of the contest to be the Republicans’ “Alpha jerk?” His sidekick as VP might be Boris Johnson who was born in NYC and surely qualifies.
At this moment in world history, one would not be crazy to think we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the email investigation — and that below the surface is something so huge and elaborate that it would trigger uncontrollable chaos. Does the iceberg include not just the flagrant disregard of email security, but the corruption of the Clinton Global Initiative, the ongoing Epstein saga, HRC’s secret networks of intelligence (Blumenthal, etc.), the hegemony of Wall St. and Corporate America over all aspects of American life, HRC’s and the CIA’s roles in Libya/Benghazi (funneling arms to Syria and knowingly backing militias linked to Al Qaeda, with Gulf money), the integration of Israel and Saudi Arabia into so much of this, the systematic lying to the public on every policy issue, etc. etc.
Seriously, what’s really going on? Will the email investigation blow the lid off the corruption and criminality of the American ruling class in all of its relations?
Rumor has it that HRC is being questioned by the FBI tomorrow…was Bill looking for advanced questions to prep her defense?
This just in … but from only one unnamed source. Hillary Clinton is to be interviewed by the FBI tomorrow, Saturday, 2 July 2016–
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/01/exclusive-hillary-clinton-scheduled-to-meet-with-fbi-on-saturday/
Is this a solid tip? Or disinformation?
You forgot the garlic and crosses.
TTG,
Chitchatting with Clinton is detrimental to Lynch only when she hadn’t yet made up her mind on what to do with FBI’s recommendations when she and Clinton talked golf. It doesn’t matter whether FBI’s recommendations are for or against Hillary, or whether Lynch knew what the recommendations were when she met Clinton.
The fact that she did agree to the little pow-wow strongly suggests that she’d already made up her mind on what to do with FBI’s recommendations. In other words, there’s no evidence that she was “forced to accept” the recommendations. It could very well be that she’d already decided to accept the recommendations and that the recommendations are indeed for not against Hillary.
Tyler,
I respect you, too. We certainly don’t have to agree on everything for that to remain true. We clearly disagree here. Bernie is adamantly and consistently against open borders and guest worker programs. Trump goes back and forth on guest workers when he talks, but consistently chooses cheap foreign labor over American workers in some of his businesses. The more I compare and contrast the two, the more I look forward to a Trump – Sanders contest. Their stances on LGBTQXYZ (or whatever the term is now) issues are remarkably similar. Watching the Borg writhe in agony over their trashing of interventionist policies would, by itself, be worth the price of admission.
Emad, that’s very possible. I’d take great pleasure in knowing that Slick Willie dragged his ass over the tarmac in 110 degree heat for nothing.
I agree with Trump, that Bernie would be MUCH harder to beat than Hillary. While I’ll still vote for Trump over Bernie (and think he’ll be much better on foreign policy), I’ll be much less distraught were Trump to lose. I find my conservatives acquaintances have the same view. Hillary is to scary. Strange, because a lot of Hillary’s policies overlap with a large segment of party conservatism.
Here’s the big question. If Hillary is out would the Democrats allow Bernie to be the candidate, or would they pull a fast one and put in Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden last minute?
Colonel,
The Phoenix Tarmac meeting is a reflection of both Clinton’s sense of entitlement and their carelessness. Israel Firsters and Saudi money won American government approval for a campaign by Islamists to take down the Syrian government. The Clintons were recipients of millions of dollars due to their positions as ex-President, Secretary of State and future presidential candidate.
Because of the swath of chaos from Libya to the Ukraine caused by the resulting regime change campaigns, the West is on a knife’s edge due to the influx of refugees and the Islamic State’s terror campaign. If the FBI connects the dots, the resulting indictment of a presidential nominee will cause another economic upheaval. President Barrack Obama looks old and gray. The powerful must be trying to force the bureaucracies to clean up the Clinton messes once again. An added problem is that a majority of Republicans and the British have voted to throw the incompetent bums out. This cannot continue much longer.
Col., Lynch and Bill are very smart people. This meeting wouldn’t have happened if it didn’t serve some purpose. It is no mistake.
One purpose might be to delay any clear government action until after the Democratic convention on July 25-28.
Should Loretta Lynch resign of be fired, wouldn’t that delay the whole thing until the new AG gets up to speed?
bth
You overestimate their smarts. pl
Tidewater to All,
I studied the television footage that KNXV-TV ABC15 Phoenix used with morning anchor Christopher Sign’s report. ( “US Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Bill Clinton meet privately in Phoenix before Benghazi report.”) (“Quite the Meeting on the Tarmac.”)
I didn’t expect to find much anything. But a couple of interesting things were revealed. I think the “trusted source” of Christopher Sign was from the police. It needs to be noted that the AG’s plane landed in a private area of the Sky Harbor where there could be very few people around except, you would assume, those waiting to board another private plane in the same area. These would be the people who were told “no photo, no pictures, no cell phones,” by the FBI. I studied the last part of the video which showed a group of people standing under an aluminum pavilion. In the background it seemed that there was a rise in the ground, and it was very barren. I assume that some of the effect was an illusion caused by the camera lense foreshortening the background. Nevertheless, you wouldn’t expect people in that direction.
I was looking for some very rich people who were being inconvenienced by the contretemps. There were about fifteen people under the aluminum pavilion. Almost immediately I realized they were surely all police. They were the welcoming committee from the Phoenix police department, given, I assume, the privilege of meeting the AG’s plane. Four or five of them were also security.
If you look in the center of the group, you see a tall black woman holding a water bottle, in a polka dot dress with white beads. I think she was going to be a principal greeter. To her right is a bearded guy who might be public relations. On the far right is probably a detective wearing a cowboy hat and a suit, looking like a western lawman. (At one point he grips his lapels between thumb and finger. He seems like he is laid back about the whole thing.) They are all alert. They seem relaxed, too. The wait is OK. They are a disciplined force. There are a number of sturdy black guys with close haircuts in black suits. They are looking in all directions. One is checking a phone and then turns to observe the background, back to camera and stays that way. There is a very big cop on the left front on the tarmac with a pistol worn high that seems to have a blue handle. He seems too ugly and scary to be F.B.I. There are quite a few cell phones in the group, without counting, I think at least five, and most of them are either being looked at or being used. There are a number of uniformed policemen on the right front. One puts on his sunglasses.
So what is this all about? This is the welcoming committee for the Attorney General of the United States, who is the principal speaker at the “President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing,” which has been going on for months. Loretta Lynch has been flying out to different cities all over the US for these pow wows. These occasions surely run like clockwork. And here, what has happened? They have been waiting a while and it will mean the carefully planned schedule is set back how long–nobody knows. As it turns out, it will be some thirty minutes before anyone can do anything at all. Perhaps the phones in use are sending a warning that a grand luncheon should be set back, “but for how long,you think?” “Well, at least forty minutes…” “What!”
Who is to say that one of these cops is not on the phone with Christopher Sign?
What I suspect is that the FBI protecting both Clinton and Lynch must have had a little problem. It would have been part of the occasion of the President’s Task Force that a video record be made of it, long pre-planned. It is all about public relations after all, isn’t it? But the FBI doesn’t want footage made of the security cordon out on the tarmac. Probably some men with heavy golf bags etc. out there. No pictures of the planes today, either. There is no need to know what Clinton’s plane looks like these days. (Whatever it is; however he got it.) This would be absolutely routine, no pix of a large yacht, either, I would think. These are the new rules. So the FBI went over to the local cops and said something like, we don’t need a lot of video of these planes out there or how we do things, and you know that. We are all in law enforcement. So give us a break…
But as to stopping them from using their cell phones, not a chance. It is quite clear about that. Cell phones are being used. The FBI may have tried, but it was a little too late. Maybe they relented on the communications since they themselves didn’t know know how long this was going to take. Maybe they managed to discourage the videos and still photographs. I’m sure that that Phoenix police group would have cooperated.
Since some video footage of the task force work is needed, the video camera is allowed to start running when she comes down off the plane. And then from the tarmac, we get a look back at the all-cop welcoming committee. It is all very quick. My suspicion is that there weren’t any other private planes in the area, just the two, Lynch’s and Clinton’s.
The police know a story maybe better than anyone, and newspapers and television always work closely with them. A cop’s daughter gets married, she will get a very good newspaper article and photo. There is a lot of perfectly reasonable quid pro quo. I think some of the police, perhaps high ranking ones, would have had felt that it was odd and inappropriate not that Clinton was talking with the AG, but that he was throwing a spanner in a highly organized, long planned, all city and federal task force/conference. This thing was a big deal for them and it deserved better. So it seemed to someone like it was worth a story. Also, cops have suspicious minds, and the whole thing didn’t seem right.
But planned between the AG and Clinton? I think he did her a disservice.
All that is necessary is to subpoena WJC’s golf card for any of the 18 or 36 holes in played in 110 temps? What/he did not play any golf on the trip?
What did LL say when WJC opened with “what will your next job be?”
I’ll note this…it would be one hell of an election. Because if Trump ran as Trump, and Bernie ran as Bernie, both candidates would be loathed and feared by the ‘Elite’ and “Apparatchiks” from each respective political Party.
Apparently no golf but a “fundraiser’!
HRC being deposed today July 2nd, 2016.
Will WJC be the first former President to be indicted?
Tidewater, among the things I didn’t understand of the little I read of the Clinton papers, is, that she seems to speak of her husband as president. Was I confused, was she actually referring to Obama?
“part of the occasion of the President’s Task Force that a video record be made of it”
As far as I can see only the/a “former president” was present on the scene. Is this regular usage? Something like president for life? Once you are elected?
> Plus, the “meeting on the tarmac” narrative is straight out of a schlocky spy novel. Who is writing this script, it stinks.
This bothers me too. Assuming the LL/BC meeting was indeed for some underhanded purpose, weren’t there a lot more inconspicuous ways to arrange it? Or do it through second parties?
Perhaps those with more experience in clandestine activities would like to comment.
Smelly though the MotT is, I don’t think we should be ready to set Hanlon’s Razor completely aside at this point. Bright, arrogant people are not unknown to do really stupid things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
TTG,
From the horses mouth:https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-fair-and-humane-immigration-policy/ I think you’re off base here.
Trump has explained that he does that because that’s the way the game is played, which I accept. By back and forth on guest workers you mean that he is in favor of the O visas being used like they should and wants to full the H1Bs.
Bernie will fold to the pervert agenda when push comes to shove. He already did with BLM.
Maybe there for hand rolled Cigars?
This whistle blowing account leaves little doubt that the meeting was at Bill’s initiative and that Lynch was blindsided by it.
http://observer.com/2016/07/exclusive-security-source-details-bill-clinton-maneuver-to-meet-loretta-lynch/
Does that mean they know the whole story? And they are giving the Borg Queen an opportunity to be truthful or commit perjury?
Tidewater to LeaNder,
No, it is just a courtesy title. Senators get it too. Clinton is called “Mr. President” even though he is out of office. But the the “President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing” is official US government business, a major initiative being run by the US Attorney General’s office (federal) under the aegis of President Obama. It has been going on for months. AG Lynch has been dutifully going from city to city in state after state, for these conferences. Frankly, it looks to me as if she is hard at work. At the local level these pow-wows are a big deal. New police techniques are being discussed and revealed, among these how to monitor social media, track internet data, jam a cell phone, use a “Stingray” to catch a cyber criminal. (Oh yes, some of this is questionable.)
When the FBI or any federal officer tells a state or city police officer that he or she cannot or should not use a cell phone (assuming that this is what happened), both sides know that this is an issue which, if ultimately challenged in court, could lead to censure or worse. (Amusingly, that is what the conference was all about, what is being done, what is legal, what is not.) However, cop to cop, it’s irritating, though I will bet the cop welcoming committee didn’t make any home videos,just to be nice. Still, they ratted out the feds for their officiousness, and scored a few points. There is an element of the turf war in all this. And I also think that FBI and Secret Service are steamed about how Clinton put them in this awkward situation. That is my suspicion.
Clinton acted as a private citizen. He is, in these complicated matters, also a former President whose business/financial affairs are being examined for criminal activity. I am reading “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer. Do you remember the affair of the late Marc Rich?
Rich had a business partner, Gilbert Chagoury. Working closely with the late General Sani Abacha, who had a five year year term as dictator of Nigeria before he suddenly died, Chagoury –and Marc Rich–did a lot of looting of the country’s wealth. On page 139–the book doesn’t have an index–Schweizer writes: “Chagoury’s apparent complicity in the looting of Nigeria by a brutal dictator might be enough to deter most people from doing business with him. But not the Clintons. If anything, their relationship has blossomed. Clinton has recently been described as Chagory’s ‘close friend.'”
Further: “Since his conviction in Europe, Chagoury has donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. In 2009, shortly after Hillary became secretary of state, he pledged a whopping $1 billion to the Clinton’s legacy project. During a speech Bill delivered in St. Lucia [which is Chagoury’s new base], the prime minister extended thanks to Chagoury for arranging the visit. He was also an invited guest to Bill’s sixtieth birthday party and attended the wedding of Bill’s longtime aide Doug Band. The Chagourys were also active in Hillary’s 2008 presidential bid…”
Further: “Why the Clintons continue to associate with, take money from, and have transactions with Gilbert Chagoury remains a mystery. No less an expert than Marc Rich, who had years of experience working with Chagoury and Nigeria, once described the country as “the global capital of corruption.”
So Marc Rich was not a one-time thing. He got his pardon from Clinton. The Marc Rich organization, now headed by Chagoury, is an ongoing thing, and closely allied with the Clintons. This sounds almost like two mafia groups in alliance. Clinton knows that the Abacha/ Rich/ Chagoury conspiracy perpetuated things a lot worse than theft. That group has gotten away with torture, with murder, with almost every crime in the code. It is interesting, if you think about it, that most of the people who were ruined, tortured, murdered, were blacks. Blacks simply don’t count. This is crime on a grand scale. And the Chagoury group who were there in the past, are there now, and can be on standby to render assistance in the future.
Doubt their Wall Street donors would stand for a Warren candidacy.
DC
I agree with you this “chance” meeting on the tarmac at Phoenix airport does not pass the smell test. Furthermore spending 30 minutes to discuss golf and grandkids is a bridge too far. They could have easily done that over the phone. I speculate that Slick Willie was trying to get a heads up on the pending investigation. And possibly offer a quid pro quo.
You are on the right track.
Once the B Queen’s communication links were compromised and the professionals got in, it was game, set and match. They know everything including her underlings phone numbers.
During the Cupcake fueled Color Revolution when the pliable Doughboy got weak knees, Cookie Momma’s call to him with her famous reply of ‘eff the EU’ got the analysts attention. They sent it up their chain of command and allowed their diplomats to make a move by dropping the dime on her for the public to see.
Which brings up another crisis, the loss of a civilian passenger aircraft flying over the Revolution’s civil war zone, and the diplomatic aftermath of assigning blame to the Kiddie Koupsters adversary while providing insufficient proof.
So the dime drop I am waiting for is the answer to the question of whether Cookie Momma merely covered up the Kiddie Koupsters cock-up or actually gave the go ahead to do the deed?
DC,
I disagree. Sanders can cut your legs off and you don’t know that you’re bleeding. THAT is mean and smart.
TTG,
‘I also heard that some of the “leave” vote was made as a protest against the establishment without any real expectation to leave or even a desire to leave. Was this phenomena real or just anecdotal?’
There have been polls showing that more people who voted ‘Leave’ have changed their view than people who voted ‘Remain’. But that would still not totally eliminate the majority.
Also, I think it likely that the polls were taken at the period were sterling and the markets appeared to be collapsing. At the moment, stock markets have been powering ahead. People’s judgements are likely to be volatile, and will depend in part on how the economic situation develops.
(See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-second-eu-referendum-leave-voters-regret-bregret-choice-in-millions-a7113336.html .)
But, ironically, one of the things that the referendum illustrates is the dangers of putting too much reliance on polls, and overestimating the importance of economic factors.
Polls are an invaluable resource – so long as one can put them together with other information, crucial among which is an intuitive understanding of the people being polled.
One of the architects of the ‘Remain’ campaign, my sometime colleague Lord Mandelson, explained in post-mortem on its failure in the ‘Financial Times’ today that ‘our pollsters assured us that economic concerns trumped those about immigration.’
(The article is behind a subscription wall, but for the record, is at https://next.ft.com/content/98619e5c-3f70-11e6-8716-a4a71e8140b0#comments .)
This is one of those occasions on which people with more intuitive understanding than Peter ever had simply did not believe the polls.
Moreover, a fatal flaw in the thinking of the ‘establishment’, which his article illustrates, is the failure to understand that what was at issue was something more than some kind of ‘irrational’ protest against them.
Ironically, if one had followed comments on articles on the ‘FT’ in recent months, it was amply clear that the belief that élites were both incompetent and corrupt was widespread among all kinds of well-educated, well-informed, and broadly experienced people.
A figure who posts on the ‘FT’ site as ‘MarkGB’, whose comments frequently figure at or close to the top of the ‘Most Recommended’ list, has set up his own blog, where he reproduces these, with links to the relevant articles, and also ironic comments.
His observations – which can be wildly funny – are worth looking at, because they illustrate the fact that what is at issue really is not simply a kind of ‘revolt of the masses’, but something much more complex.
(See http://www.markgb.com/ .)
And the question of ‘anti-foreigner anger’ is also much more complex than it looks at first sight.
The ‘establishment’ response, to dismiss what is at issue as ‘xenophobia’ and ‘racism’, is doubly foolish. For one thing, it leads those who produce this response fundamentally to underestimate the weakness of their own position.
Equally, however, they cannot understand that a range of fundamental issues are involved. One of these is the existence of nations, and other groups, as, for want of a better word, ‘communities of memory.’
By an ironic coincidence, yesterday we commemorated the centenary of the first day of the Battle of the Somme, including both ingeniously staged events in Britain, and ceremonies at Thiepval, site of the monument designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens to the missing of the battle.
A report on ITV focused on the ‘Liverpool Pals’. And it brings out how the history resonates one, in complicated ways. The Somme, and the Western Front in general, is very much part of the consciousness of my generation in England, as also, of course, of people in Scotland, Wales, Ireland (both North and South) and also Canada.
(See http://www.itv.com/news/2016-07-01/liverpool-pals-100-years-on-from-the-battle-of-the-somme/ .)
Actually, communities of memory get even more complex. We obviously did not celebrate the surrender of the British and Indian forces at Kut in April 1916, which has been described as ‘the most abject capitulation in British military history.’
But the joint battles of Imphal and Kohima in March July 1944, in which a bit under two-thirds of the forces involved were Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs from the sub-continent, were voted ‘Britain’s Greatest Battle’ in a competition held at the National Army Museum in 2013. So, Slim’s ‘Forgotten Army’ is not forgotten.
At a time when we are trying to make ‘multiculturalism’ work, it badly needs to be remembered. And in fact, at the centre of the celebration of Remembrance Day by the river in Richmond, in 2014, which was indeed ‘multicultural’, was the ‘Kohima Prayer’.
So, communities of memory are odd things. How they are defined is critical, in making some sense of a world which is inevitably, in some sense, ‘multicultural’.
The patent inability of the leaders of the ‘Remain’ campaign to see any of this is part of what explains what has happened. And of course, in this respect they are very similar to Hillary and Bill Clinton et al.
Thanks, Tidewalker,
“No, it is just a courtesy title. Senators get it too.”
Silly habit, it feels. Still peculiar in the specific context and setting. … Etiquette, had to learn that the hard way.
Strictly I got the “policing taskforce” bit. Misused you, slightly to get an answer for something on my mind.
Street context? One allusion could point to it. Kass interviews Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-the-chicago-way-with-john-kass-20160303-story.html
Please don’t answer, I won’t respond. I need a pause.
But thanks anyway.
David,
“Collective memory is the toolshed” as Dr. Helms put it.
“There have been polls showing that more people who voted ‘Leave’ have changed their view than people who voted ‘Remain’. But that would still not totally eliminate the majority…… People’s judgements are likely to be volatile, and will depend in part on how the economic situation develops.”
If memory serves the Virginia legislature voted “Stay” in 1861. Lincoln’s judgement to call for volunteers to force South Carolina (and other states) to stay, well ….slavery! As I was reminded yesterday by an almost Ivy League historian.
MH,
I would be surprised if the Democratic Party Overlords permitted the nomination to go to Sanders no matter what the circumstance. The Clintobamacrats would rather lose with a Clintobamacrat than win with Sanders . . . because they know a victorious Sanders would seek to mobilize all his supporters and agree-ers to conduct a long-term disinfection and decontamination project against every malignant metastatic Clintonoma cell and every Yersiniobama pestis plague germ currently inside the Democratic Party.
If Sanders somehow conquered the nomination away from the Clintobamacratic Party Overlords, millions upon millions of embittered Clinton supporters in the field would Boycott Bernie to get revenge for their Dear Leader having been denied the nomination. The furious Clintobamacratic apparatchiks would lead all the Clinton voters in a Boycott Bernie movement . . . so as to be able to blame Bernie for “losing” the election. That is what the Democratic leadership did to McGovern, after all. (Though a McGovern victory would have been unlikely even without all the Inner Party help going to Nixon).
robt willman,
By the same people who brought Obama along? And Holder? And other such? Spending the years getting ALL their ducks in a row?
Cee,
I Hope hope HOPE you are correct.
Friend Thomas,
When the “dime” drops, it will probably look like jackpot day at a well-paying one-arm bandit. I anticipate a whole shower of dimes. It also looks like there are a few groups who might initiate the spill. Whether there is any coordination between these groups is anyone’s guess. Things seem to be getting curioser and curioser.
Ishmael Zechariah
I am really starting to wonder — and to be be very, very afraid — about the level of groupthink that most of our decisionmakers have about immigration.
Here’s a quote from President Obama: “Immigration is not something to fear,” Obama said last week. “We don’t have to wall ourselves off from those who may not look like us right now or pray like we do, or have a different last name.
“What makes us Americans,” he proclaimed, “is our shared commitment to an ideal that all of us are created equal, all of us have a chance to make of our lives what we will.”
I have never heard any official talk about “those who do not look like us right now.” It certainly seems to confirm the idea many people have that our elites — particularly Democrats — are set on continuing vast demographic change via mass migration.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/db6bf66811a54056947ff3cd92690faa/obama-legacy-immigration-stands-most-glaring-failure
I saw a Hillary Clinton campaign item that highlighting the an immigrant campaign worker who believes wants everybody to have the chance to come to America. Does Clinton believe that too?
The idea that countries belong to their citizens has apparently become obsolete, according to our top leaders. It seems our elite finds our citizens are obsolete too.
Funny how they and the businesses who don’t want to employ Americans still expect Americans to contribute to their campaigns, vote for them, buy their products, etc., etc.
None of this makes any sense. People are finally getting fed up but the people in charge are still determined to ignore us. I guess they will need quite a big wake up call. They won’t like it but it is coming — sooner than later, I think, in all the First World countries that have pushed their people and their interests aside for decades.
There is a saying in Korean: “To dog’s eyes, only shit is visible.” The same sense is described in the Persian sayin”: “From the urn oozes that which is within.”
I think what you are saying is that UK leaders view human beings as the rational economic animal and clearly have been oblivious to the sentiments and non-rational proclivities of the English people – including the Middle England of Samwise and Ron.
I wonder if one can make an apt analogy with the end of communism; a god died in 1991 and perhaps we are witnessing the death of another god at the present time.
“Progress” and “Reason” died horrid deaths in Western Europe between 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 – hopefully this time will be peaceful.
I think both side wanted war – excepting Lincoln. I think the Abolitionists wanted to take fire and brimstone to South and the Southerners, as far as I can understand it, seemed to think of the coming war as a short victorious adventure.
David
The FT has become a parody of its former self. Now they are reduced to spouting shiboleths of the globalist, neo-keynesian and neo-monetarist elites. Martin Wolf epitomizes those that have drunk the kool-aid and is perceived as a “very serious” person among the elite cognoscenti. It will be interesting to see what they push next as their nostrum of ZIRP/NIRP, the trillions in goverment debt growth, money printing and backstop of financial speculation have done nothing for the median real household income. I find it fascinating they don’t get the push back from the “masses” as reflected in the comments of their readership. The way the Telegraph responded was to shut down the comment section so the groupthinkers can remain in their cloistered isolation.
Col. Lang has noted several times that the economic determinists don’t get many times social behavior. The Remain campaign seemed to me from across the pond primarily focused on the negative economic repercussions of exiting the EU. They did not have a positive vision of what the meaning of being in the EU was for the working class in the Midlands. Not that the people would have bought it as they have seen the depression for the youth in Spain, Portugal and Italy. And the disaster that is Greece. And the rich tax-free wages and benefits for the Eurocrats in Brussels.
As you have noted Leave cannot be explained in a Left/Right paradigm. Many of those that voted Leave were traditional Labor party voters. What we in the US would consider as traditional union workers. While the Blairites supported Remain.
There is undoubtedly a budding rejection of the elite’s propaganda. In some cases the status quo will hang on. But the more they hang on by deceit which seems their MO the more resentment that builds.
As you point out there is a new “tribalism” that transcends traditional labels and political configurations. These new alignments are ripe for exploitation by savvy people like Trump. How it evolves is anyone’s guess? It will be interesting to see what is the outcome of the leadership challenges among the Tories and Labor? And if the new leadership totally ignore the Brexit referendum through classic bureaucratic obfuscation of the rhetoric of democracy while confusing the public with mind-numbing jargon of the mechanics of exit.
I think our election in November will be a watershed. If the elites across the political and financial establishment are able to win again they will feel vindicated and usher in an era of triumphalism that will further marginalize the anti-establishment folks with many unintended consequences.
Just a couple of points–
–The NY Fed is not a “branch” of the Federal Reserve System. It is a bank, like those in Richmond, Boston, etc. The NY bank is more prominent and first among equals of the regional banks because of the banks within its jurisdiction and certain administrative functions that it performs for the System. Like the other banks, it is run by a governor (eg, Geithner). The entity that Janice Yellen oversees is actually named the Board of Govenors of the Federal Reserve System, with the Board consisting of the governors of each of the regional Federal Reserve Banks. Since the DC operations of the Federal Reserve are wholly funded by the regional banks, Yellen basically works for those banks and, while extremely influential as the Board Chair, and speaks on behalf of the Board rather than the DC operations.
–Any US attorney, who is not in complete disgrace, is a marquee catch recruitment for any law firm anywhere. They would never be offered anything less than a partnership.
…but maybe not their cunning or sense of self-preservation? Navigating AR politics for so long must have taught something.
All someone had to do was note two planes, a motorcade holding at the airport, and an incoming motorcade. Knowing the public schedules, the situation would be catnip for a local station…interesting that it wasn’t reported first by a major network…
There are certain titles in government that carryover into civilian life…president, senator, governor, ambassador, general, colonel, as examples. It’s a sign of respect for the position and, in the best cases, for the individual as well.
There is merit in the interpretation that Comey has already made it known that he won’t recommend an indictment. In this scenario, Bill gills Loretta a perfect excuse to step aside, which puts Barack and Loretta at arm’s length from the decision and replaces outrage at Hillary skating with a kerfluffle about Bill’s bad judgment.
That would work against a republican who isn’t Trump but they Hitlerfied Trump so much that they can’t not mobilize.
There seem to be several similar threads. One what you note that Comey claims lack of evidence. Another being that FBI recommendation is opposed by DoJ team on the case. It seems until a grand jury is empanelled there is no chance of an indictment. If we go by the recent past of prosecutions of the elites, the odds are that the Clintons skate.
jerseycityjoan,
Much to my surprise, I came across an article published yesterday in the ‘New York Times’ which seems to the point. It is entitled ‘The Myth of Cosmopolitanism’, and its author, Ross Douhat, is apparently on the staff of the paper.
(See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/opinion/sunday/the-myth-of-cosmopolitanism.html?_r=0 .)
An extract:
‘Genuine cosmopolitanism is a rare thing. It requires comfort with real difference, with forms of life that are truly exotic relative to one’s own. It takes its cue from a Roman playwright’s line that “nothing human is alien to me,” and goes outward ready to be transformed by what it finds.
‘The people who consider themselves “cosmopolitan” in today’s West, by contrast, are part of a meritocratic order that transforms difference into similarity, by plucking the best and brightest from everywhere and homogenizing them into the peculiar species that we call “global citizens.”
‘This species is racially diverse (within limits) and eager to assimilate the fun-seeming bits of foreign cultures — food, a touch of exotic spirituality. But no less than Brexit-voting Cornish villagers, our global citizens think and act as members of a tribe.
‘They have their own distinctive worldview (basically liberal Christianity without Christ), their own common educational experience, their own shared values and assumptions (social psychologists call these WEIRD — for Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic), and of course their own outgroups (evangelicals, Little Englanders) to fear, pity and despise. And like any tribal cohort they seek comfort and familiarity: From London to Paris to New York, each Western “global city” (like each “global university”) is increasingly interchangeable, so that wherever the citizen of the world travels he already feels at home.’
In conclusion, Douhat writes about this ‘species’:
‘They can’t see that their vision of history’s arc bending inexorably away from tribe and creed and nation-state looks to outsiders like something familiar from eras past: A powerful caste’s self-serving explanation for why it alone deserves to rule the world.’
Unfortunately, Douhat steps back from the full implications of his own analysis: that the ‘best and brightest’ he describes are ignorant dolts, incapable of understanding either other societies, their own societies, or themselves. Rarely in human history have members of a ‘powerful caste’ been so ill-equipped to rule anything – let alone ‘the world’.
One of the most important matters that needs to be more clearly understood is why ‘meritocracy’ has proven such a total disaster.
Fred,
The whole subject of ‘collective memory’ is a fascinating one.
In the late ‘Eighties, when I was trying in the course of my normal work as a television and radio current affairs person to make sense of what was happening in the Soviet Union, I read a book by Stephen F. Cohen entitled ‘Rethinking the Soviet Experience’.
It was prefaced with two quotations: ‘The past is never dead. It’s not even past’, from William Faulkner, and ‘History is not simply something that was. History is with us and in us’, from Yuri Trifonov, one of the best of officially-published Soviet novelists.
But Cohen was a lucky man. His grandfather was a Jewish refugee from Lithuania, while his father owned a golf course in Owensboro, Kentucky. It is the kind of background which can make a man – or woman – think.
And a fascinating thing about both Faulkner, and also Trifonov, is how complicated and conflicted historical memory is, in both their cases.
One might have thought that Obama’s background would make him think, but this is clearly not the case. The determination of current American élites to, as they appear to see it, complete the job Lincoln started seems to me batshit crazy.
Both in the United States and Europe, it may turn out that ‘moderates’ are being pushed into an unwanted and unpredictable polarisation – of the kind that, if I understand you right, happened in Virginia in 1861.
I do not think that most people in your country and mine have any understanding of how potentially dangerous this situation is.
The Clinton media setting the stage for no indictment.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-03/chuck-todd-hillary-were-you-given-indication-no-fbi-charges-will-be-filed-against-yo
Jack,
What you say requires a more considered response than I can give it this evening. The ‘FT’ is actually a critical part of the ‘Borg’, precisely because it crosses transatlantic boundaries. It is symptomatic that, in the wake of the Russian intervention in Syria, we were treated to all the ‘usual suspects’: Richard C. Haass, Dennis Ross, Ivo Daalder.
And all of them lied, and lied, and lied.
There is an eloquent Spanish word – ‘sinvergüenza’, meaning without shame. It applies to the lot of them.
The ‘FT’ is now a deeply corrupt paper. And among the most corrupt people in it is Wolf. This is something I would have found unimaginable twenty years ago.
This degeneration I can document at length. Why it has happened is a very interesting question.
Ishmael,
Truth is mightier than the sword and can be damn more effective in achieving strategic goals.
All
Trump tweets that “sources” claim there will be no indictment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3671543/Hillary-Clinton-gives-voluntary-interview-FBI-long-running-email-scandal-suggesting-probe-possible-secrecy-law-violations-near-end.html
David,
Obabma spent his formative years in Indonesia (in the mid-60’s). This was immediately after an attempted coup and an its aftermath. As to events unfolding today, I think we’re closer to 1858 than ’61 but the hardening of attitudes seems to be accelerating.
I am not so sure that it’s the “meritocracy” that is the problem, in and of itself.
As the years go on I find myself more and more amazed at what happened in WWI, a mere 100 years ago. The fighting armies had an officer class that died at a high rate. Those officers included many volunteers or career soldiers from their country’s elite. There were a lot of positive traditional beliefs within countries that were held sacred and important by all classes and real patriotism that included personal sacrifice was still intact and very evident in those men.
Now of course today the situation is very different.
I think a rich and/or smart elite that feels tied to the rest of us is still possible. We have in the past. Now we don’t.
There’s been a great unmooring over the past 100 years.
If we knew more about that — and if we could take steps to counteract it among our elites — that would a wonderful thing, I think. Also if we do nothing, this unmooring will only continue to get worse with every new generation of elites. And more and more of these elites are in First World countries and affecting them, I think, and not for the better.
The threat to the rest of us from the so-called people in charge is real and growing. I never thought of it in those terms before writing this but it’s true. One of their distinguishing attitudes is that we are wrong and inferior and they are right and superior. Their conviction that they really can be — and ought to be — global citizens when the actual world they live in has close to 200 separate countries, all with their own borders and laws, is pretty stunning.
Jack,
Part of Comey’s being a man of honor might mean that Comey will consider it wrong to try and craft a feasibly-prosecutable case where no such case can be found.
Why would this be a potential problem? Because the Clintons may be much smarter lawyers than Nixon ever was, and Hillary in particular served on some Watergate investigating committee. She may well have studied all the cellular and molecular structures of Nixon’s coverup effort in detail, with an eye towards doing it better herself if she ever decided she wanted to or needed to. So the Clintons may well have gotten all aspects of their coverupping juuuusssst legal enough . . . to where they can’t quite be put on trial for them.
The Clintons may both be smart enough to be very good shyster lawyers, but they operate at a much higher level. We need a new word for the kind of lawyer which the Clintons are and among which they travel. I would suggest “loyer” It sounds like lawyer but it is spelled just differently enough that a smaller word could be extracted from it to describe what loyers do. They bend and twist the law until it cracks very badly without quite breaking. They tell finely crafted untruth-hoods which are just technically correct enough to not be proven to contain overtly provable outright lies. Instead, they tell loys. They loy and they loy and they loy. Hey! they’re loyers. Its what they do.
different clue,
(Pardon my mistaken attribution. The golf-in-110 degrees comment came right from a fellow commenter here at SST itself).
“why ‘meritocracy’ has proven such a total disaster.”
rectification of names: what we are calling meritocracy refers to Merit® a commodity purveyed and certified by the academic industry.
My question is as follows. ‘What is the percentage of individuals that sit down with the FBI at the end of an investigation and wind up with no charges’. I would assume it is a small percentage but out of my depth on this.
You are voting for more of the Clinton corruption if you vote for anyone but Trump at this point.
All,
I just listened to Comey letting HRC skate. I didn’t hear one word about how she used the State Department to funnel money to the Clinton Foundation. WTF?
All,
I just listened to Comey letting HRC skate. Were they not looking at how she used the State Department to funnel cash to the Clinton Foundation?
Colonel,
The latest from CIA Comey:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-has-concluded-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html
“Although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case,” Comey said Tuesday.
Well, Bernie was waiting for nothing. Clinton walks without so much as a hand slap (Comey just announced).
As Trump says, the fix was in and we will have another President Clinton. God help us all.
And now we are Banana Republic North.
I’m glad “stupidity” is now a criminal defense against indictment. This country gets worst everyday.
Again it underscores the fact that you can expect four more years (at least!) of this if you decide to “protest vote” because Trump is rough around the edges.
Apologies , should read FBI in lieu of CIA.