Command Influence in HC “criminal investigation”


"Barrack Obama's spokesman described the FBI's probe into Hillary Clinton's classified email scandal as a 'criminal investigation' on Thursday, less than an hour after the president endorsed his embattled former secretary of state to succeed him.

Josh Earnest told reporters during a White House press briefing that Obama was committed to keeping his hands off the investigation, trusting career investigators and prosecutors to follow evidence wherever it leads.

'That's what their responsibility is,' Earnest said. 'And that's why the president, when discussing this issue in each stage, has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference.'"  Daily Mail


It appears that the civilian commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States thinks that it is proper for him to endorse a candidate to succeed him while she is under scrutiny in a "criminal investigation" conducted by the FBI and DoJ.  Both these agencies are, of course, fully under his command.

His press secretary, Josh Earnest, insisted yesterday that Obama's stated desire that Hillary Clinton become the next "commander" of these two Executive Branch agencies and his intention to campaign on her behalf will have no effect on the willingness of career civil service investigators and prosecutors to impartially do their jobs in this case.  Ridiculous!


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

58 Responses to Command Influence in HC “criminal investigation”

  1. divadab says:

    Obama in 2008: Hillary Clinton “willing to say anything to get elected”.
    Pot meet kettle!
    Obama signaling no charges coming? Where is the FBI recommendation? Something fishy here.

  2. Farmer Don says:

    Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
    Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
    Everybody knows that the war is over
    Everybody knows the good guys lost
    Everybody knows the fight was fixed
    The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
    That’s how it goes
    Everybody knows
    Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
    Everybody knows that the captain lied
    Everybody got this broken feeling
    Like their father or their dog just died

  3. BabelFish says:

    The appearance of an impropriety is usually far more damaging than the actual wrongful behavior. And, throw that out of the window with this one. This is so Clinton in in every aslect, going all the way back to the Rose Law situation. A shame that BHO couldn’t find the courage to do the right thing.

  4. pj says:

    Only slightly OT – Hillary put unqualified flash trader on sensitive nuclear panel –

  5. Bill Herschel says:

    Amazing. But all that is going on is that Obama won’t even come close to permitting his “legacy” (of endless war costing the lives of hundreds of thousands, millions if you count deaths from Afghanistan’s U.S. protected heroin crop) to be tarnished.
    Clinton is a terrible, terrible candidate and person. The Democrats could have won this walking away with just about any other candidate.
    “We came, we saw, he died [giggle].”

  6. Jack says:

    The fix was always in. Apparently, Obama also met with the Attorney General after his meeting with Sanders.
    The Obamas can now follow in the footsteps of the Clintons and Blair and rake the big bucks that Wall St and the power brokers as well as shady third world dictators and oil potentates will shower.
    If the above story has any credence then it seems that making money overcame any personal love lost. Ultimately only the election will decide. In any case its good to be King in the now imperial state.

  7. DC says:

    It would NOT have been politically difficult to wait to endorse until the FBI finishes its job. The main benefit, as I and others likely see it, to endorsing now is to put career prosecutors (including the AG) under pressure to absolve Clinton of any wrongdoing. This tarnishes the President’s legacy, IMO.

  8. Old Microbiologist says:

    I think the real point is the possibility, or lack thereof, of Presidential pardons. Obama is also guilty of sending classified emails the Hillary as one minor example. The ordered assassination of 4 American citizens without due process is arguably first degree murder. There is a long list of potential crimes and Trump has already very clearly said he will see Hillary is prosecuted so we may see them all go down in a crescendo of crimes. Once the aides start getting thrown under the bus, the justice system will move rapidly offering immunity. So, for both Obama, and Clinton this election represents an existential threat to their personal freedom.any others are also culpable so this is moving towards a literal life and death struggle given Trump, as a complete outsider, has no insider political limitations.

  9. MasterSlacker says:

    I did enjoy this Kevin Drum analysis of the situation using game theory.
    Everyone seems to be forgiving of Colin Powell’s use of personal eMail, as well as forgetting that Kerry is the first SoS to use the .gov eMail system.
    And, of course, the legal precept of Intent seems to be completely forsworn.

  10. Tony says:

    Queen Hillary is picked by the Borg to be the next US president. The power of money shows its face.

  11. turcopolier says:

    You are? Yes, Powell and Rice, neither of whom I admire, did something stupid, but then Powell is the same idiot who held up a flask of nothing at the UN to help lie the US into war in Iraq. But … he did not maintain a personal home brew server to keep both private and government correspondence beyond the reach of the US public. Only foreign intelligence and just about anyone else who cared had access to the stored content of her servers in Chappaqua and Denver. pl

  12. no one says:

    Maybe it’s as simple as Obama wanting to make it appear as clear as possible to his fan club that should Hillary be charged, he had nothing to do with it. He’s distancing himself.
    What does Comey have to lose at this point? If he doesn’t fight to charge her and she wins, she just might do him in (politically/career) because he knows too much. If he doesn’t fight to charge her and Trump wins, Trump will do him in. If he fights to charge her, Trump will probably win and his career is secure.
    Lynch is another matter – she’s probably done as AG regardless of who wins the election. What counts to her is her post Obama career in the private sector. But if Comey makes it public that he wants to bring charges, then it doesn’t really matter what Lynch or Obama does. A vocal Comey will add to Trump’s assault on Hillary and Hillary will lose.
    Comey holds the power and logic says he should defy Obama and fight for charging and refuse to be silenced. And Obama is a lame duck.
    So there an alternative “game theory”.

  13. The only people Obama has gone after with the full weight of the law are whistleblowers or people who many consider as whistleblowers. Some of the cases have been based on flimsy evidence and specious arguments. Hell, he even grounded Evo Morales’ official plane in order to try to catch Snowden. He, and others, have kept Assange holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy for years. He’s been a vengeful and relentless Inspector Javert for some. Others, however, have nothing to worry about. Those in the “in crowd” will never be prosecuted or be subject to little more than a hand slap, no matter what the crime. HRC is firmly ensconced in this in crowd. She’s a governmental Leona HeImsley. Laws are for little people. find it not at all surprising that many are turning to Trump, a con man who certainly passes himself off as someone not in this in crowd. Unfortunately, I find Trump to also be more of a Leona Helmsley in his own right.

  14. robt willmann says:

    Yes, Obama wants to put some heat especially on the lawyers in the Justice Department that he does not want a prosecution of Hillary. Plus, he wants to get “ahead of the curve” and endorse / support her now, because if the FBI reports that there is probable cause to believe she has committed crimes, then if he announces support for her after that is officially made public or leaks, he will look even worse as will the Democratic Party.

  15. JiuJitsuMMA says:

    Even if people are naive enought assume Hilary didn’t know & wasn’t actually trying to hide emails by using private email servers instead of gov servers subject to Freedom of Information Act laws & similar:
    As judges, prosecutors & law enforcement always say “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”

  16. different clue says:

    Did you mean to say you endorse Mother Jones’s view? Or that you enjoy it as a specimen of how far Clinton fans will go to “absolvify” their preciousss The One?

  17. ISL says:

    Masterslacker; Then I recommend you try the same excuse when you are next stopped by policeman: Sure I was speeding, but so were other cars. Or see if you defense lawyer approves as your defense: Sure I was buying cocaine, but so was joe when you are in the dock. has been keeping up with developments. The Grassley predicted leaks are beginning
    where Clinton aides sent highly classified emails through her server because they couldnt get to a secure computer.
    and example of cronyism of donate to the foundation and become a nuclear weapon advisor with no experience:

  18. different clue says:

    The Twisted Genius,
    Yes, this endorsement is partly to rub our noses in the fact that as far as the Upper Crusties are concerned, ” only the little people obey laws” . . to paraphrase the deathless words of Leona Helmsley. Well . . . the little people do still have a vote in the presidential election and some of us may vote our vengeance and our spitred. (Spitred is to spite as hatred is to hate).
    I think perhaps another shorter-run reason for Obama to endorse now is because the entire Democratic Inner Party wants Sanders disposed of. Off the field and back in the stands. Once Clinton has been nominated, Obama may not personally care if the cork comes out of the bottle, the toothpaste comes out of the tube, the hangouts refuse to stay qualified and limited . . . and the stonewall starts to fall.
    Meanwhile, here’s another little nothingburger which may start to stink up the joint.
    ” People want to know if their Clintons are a crook. Well . . . we’re NOT a crook! We’ve . . . WORKED for everything we’ve got!”

  19. different clue says:

    Yes, but do they say it to the Big People? Or only to the Little People?

  20. Bill Herschel says:

    If Trump wins the Presidency, he will not have pandered to the Imperialists. For me, there is no more to say. And, as for the in crowd, he knows them very well. He knows they will come out of the cracks like cockroaches when the kitchen lights go off when he obtains power. They will do his bidding, not he theirs. Just like they have always done.
    If you are saying, correctly, it is a profoundly disgusting spectacle, then we can thank Trump again for that. He certainly has thrown the curtain back on the political process. Give me Trump over Rubio, Cruz, Bush, Kasich, etc. etc. any day. And Clinton.
    If he appoints a Scalia on steroids to the Supreme Court, so be it. If he keeps us at war, he is a monster, but still no worse than Clinton.

  21. kooshy says:

    I am willing to bet she will get nothing not even slap on hand, she is the queen of this country holding any worthy job and position in this country including first lady of Arkansas,US, US Senator, Secretary of state ,candidate and nominee of major party for presidency, I really doubt anybody can go after her. Besides I put my money on her to be the next US president. Unfortunately, IMO, for long, the Media in this country, has stolen the right to elect the president by we the people. This time, I chose to vote for some one who never served in any civilian position in US government regardless, call it what you will.

  22. Jack says:

    I completely concur with your assessment. In the Imperium the Imperator and the Consuls are above the law. They are getting more blatant and now can’t care less what the “little people” think. From what I have read the Borg Queen’s sense of entitlement and superiority puts Leona Helmsley to shame. I have read of her contemptuous treatment of secret service officers who put their lives on the line to protect her.
    As I contemplate The Donald, I am reminded of Mr. Hope & Change and a flight I was on from Denver back to California close to election day. The flight was full of young people returning from volunteering to make “history” happen that November. Their excitement and sense of promise was palpable. I knew as soon as the transition team was announced that we would be bereft of hope and left with only change when the Messiah was done. If The Donald is elected will he do the same to Joe Bageant’s people?
    While I would be considered by many as an arugula eating coastal elite, I feel a deep kinship with them. And I empathize with their long suffering. So, I hope they and the working class of the left recognize soon enough that the Borg intentionally wants to divide them into partisan camps to exploit them. The Borg is neither left or right. As David Habakkuk has so eloquently noted the Clintons and Obamas and Blairs only have the vices of the aristocracy. Their narcissism leads to a sense of superiority and condescension towards the lesser people. And their constant refrain is that those left behind should get on with the future and be like their elite friends. This brings me to a quote from Christopher Lasch that David Habakkuk linked to:
    “Democracy works best when men and women do things for themselves, with the help of their friends and neighbors, instead of depending on the state.”
    This is exactly my sentiment. The elites have conditioned both the left and right that bigger government and more government spending and even more government interference in all aspects of our lives is how the rapaciousness of the oligarchy can be prevented. When in reality that is precisely how they maintain their monopoly. No better contemporary examples than the bailout and subsequent increased concentration of Wall Street and the health care cartel that causes US per capita medical expenditures to be twice any other western country.

  23. MH says:

    “There are two kinds of deliberate and premeditated deceit, commonly known as suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally lying claim of having “misspoken.”) The first involves what seems to be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen. Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.”
    –Christopher Hitchens

  24. rjj says:

    ” because they couldnt get to a secure computer.”
    who set up the secure computer systems? anybody know?
    open source statecraft is an interesting concept. how would that work – only the disinformation would be heavily encripted?
    how would an insecure server anybody could access protect their communications from the FOIA? that motive does not make sense.

  25. Haralambos says:

    I just came across this and found it especially interesting since I live in Greece and have many friends in Cyprus:
    The plots in the pot thicken.

  26. rjj says:

    by “secure computer systems” I mean the government systems.

  27. ISL says:

    Personally, I do not buy the convenience motive, which Team Hillary has been pushing for a while. I do not think people in her position risk severe criminal prosecution just because of convenience.
    aka her blackberry defense, which seems to be falling / have fell apart.
    My psychic powers tell me that sending things outside the secure state dept computers (aka the secure computers), where they could not be FOIA’d, was to allow her to sell influence through the Clinton Foundation.
    Note, I have no psychic powers. But I do believe greed is a primary motivation of an awful lot of human negative behavior.

  28. Amir says:

    Somewhat related although some might think unrelated: where is the modern day Muhammed Ali that stands up to injustice perpetrated in Libya and Syria and all the rest of countries that were invaded, in the shadows, by President Hopey Changey?

  29. LeaNder (stop using other names!) says:

    Colonel, I found the rumors about the Powell UN event interesting. …
    I am not sure if that is Masterslacker’s direction, indirectly …:
    Everyone seems to be forgiving of Colin Powell’s use of personal eMail, as well as forgetting that Kerry is the first SoS to use the .gov eMail system.
    In HC’s case we have someone using a private server for both “affairs”. My take is, this is a unique or innovative event.
    On the other hand it seems pretty obvious that all her precursors had a private email account too. …
    What I doubt seriously can be correct in his that Kerry was the first to use the .gov eMail system. But one could read matters more superficially that way.

  30. turcopolier says:

    Larry Wilkerson told me and several others that he and Powell decided to go out to CIA alone (without State Department analysts from INR). This gave the politically motivated people at CIA a free “run” to “persuade” the two of them to accept the neocon fabrications on Iraq. pl

  31. Haralambos says:

    Some might find this interesting on Comey:

  32. Edward Amame says:

    Col Lang
    That’s interesting. A story in Thursday’s WSJ called it a criminal investigation and characterized it as the latest iteration of a turf war between the FBI/CIA and the State Department and other agencies who wanted more of a say in the use of drones strikes around the world.

  33. turcopolier says:

    Edward Amame
    No. It is a criminal investigation as to whether or not she broke the law concerning the safeguarding of secret information. Good try. pl

  34. Edward Amame says:

    And how about prince Alberto Gonzales who took top secret notes on the Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program and stuck those and a bunch of other highly classified documents in his unauthorized office safe. Justice Dept prosecutors turned down that case.

  35. turcopolier says:

    Edward Amame
    Too much partisan political stuff. I am looking at others for the same thing. Goodbye. pl

  36. rjj says:

    another conceivable motive for messaging outside the “secure” state department computers: avoiding the beady eyes of Neocon Maroon Guards and Political Commissars.
    But on an unsecured computer …. doesn’t add up — unless she took bad advice, or screwed up the implementation of good advice, or…. ???
    Greed? Greed for what? Money per se? Shit. Post coitum quaestum omne animal triste est. Money as defense after having been $10M in debt and unemployed? makes sense.

  37. Thomas says:

    “While I would be considered by many as an arugula eating coastal elite, I feel a deep kinship with them.”
    All of us are in this together. So as Westside Diocletians it is time to take three steps back, survey and assess the situation, develop a practical plan of action, and cooperate in the implementation of it.

  38. rjj says:

    oops – this thread is about a specific point and the wrong place for empty speculation.

  39. Edward Amame says:

    Oh I get that, but I’m surprised you haven’t delved more into the turf war/court intrigue angle that the WSJ story suggests.
    A number of commenters here are making it like it’s a slam dunk case against HRC. Is it? What I’m reading suggests the legal community is pretty divided on that with most thinking there won’t be any prosecution because the laws on mishandling classified info are so broadly written and HRC’s mishandling of classified info doesn’t rise to the level of clear cut and the Justice Dept doesn’t prosecute unless the case is clear cut.

  40. Jack says:

    I believe you’re on to it. The Clinton Foundation is at the center of it, IMO.
    One, as you speculate has to do with the laundering of money and the payola schemes. This has been lent some credence with the recent story of the appointment of a high frequency derivatives trader who had no expertise in nuclear matters to a State Department strategic advisory board on nuclear weapons. He is now a super delegate to the Democrat convention. And of course to provide cover for the donors as the influx of money from Saudi interests as well as dictators in third world countries among others needed to be obscured.
    The other reason IMO is the hiding of political operatives to engage in political activities in an ostensibly tax free charitable trust.

  41. MRW says:

    Only two presidential endorsements in the 20th C won their elections: Teddy Roosevelt endorsing Taft, and Reagan endorsing Bush Sr.

  42. mbrenner says:

    What would be the political consequences of a Hillary indictment? It is by no means self-evident that her campaign would be torpedoed. A number of CONVICTED Congressman have been reelected, e.g. Adam Clayton Powell, Vetter. And they weren’t running against a certifiable lunatic.
    What if Hillary were tried and convicted after her election? Well, she could be placed on probation and sentenced to 4 years of community service – to be performed in the White House.

  43. different clue says:

    And meanwhile, even the non-elite here in Flownover Country have every right to enjoy arugula if we can get our hands on it. Why should the bi-coastal elite have all the arugula?

  44. Old Microbiologist says:

    I remind you that in our Republic that the President is elected by the Electoral College, made up of pure insiders, and the people have no say whatsoever. It was designed thus and remains so today. I do not understand why people think they actually vote for the president. We are all taught this but yet it doesn’t seem to ever sink in. We do not have a democracy at all but we have a Republic instead. Again, by design as our forefathers had disdain for giving the little people any say in government.

  45. turcopolier says:

    Good! I need someone to trim the topiary elephants and mules. pl

  46. turcopolier says:

    “and the people have no say whatsoever.” I prefer it that way. Most of the people couldn’t find their own genitals with a magnifying glass. I can, BTW, but the search is longer all the time. Perhaps competitive genital searches should be made mandatory for the franchise, something like the examination of stool in German gasthause toilets. Actually I prefer the requirement in Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers” for a military or not demonstrations of civic sacrifice for the franchise. A Jewish classmate at VMI pointed that out to me in 1959. He is has since become a total SJW jerk. pl

  47. MRW says:

    Jack, it’s more a case of the elites co-opting government for their own use. And getting away with it.

  48. turcopolier says:

    Edward Amame
    There is no turf war except in the minds of the friends of HC. pl

  49. Anonymous says:

    Elizabeth Holmes, bound by the visionary notion that progress requires us to see things from different perspectives, promised a device that could find the genitals of any person through saliva. Unfortunately, it tended to get stuck while crossing the trachea.

  50. turcopolier says:

    Have you tried it yet? You would have to be quite flexible. pl

  51. Anonymous says:

    Flexible indeed! Especially because I prefer the Ina Bauer method.

  52. jld says:

    Let’s hope all this will not end up like in Guatemala…

  53. Old Microbiologist says:

    I tend to agree, but what I don’t like is that the members of the Electoral College, much like the Democratic Superdelegates, are chosen by some mysterious method and are supposed to represent the people. The problem is there is no system in place, nor in the Constitution, to regulate who can vote based on some form of qualification. We do, and I disagree with this, prohibit (in many states) ex-cons from voting. So there is apparently a low bar for that but not for intellect. The same is true for having children except ex-cons can have as many as they like. I do agree that Heinlein’s idea of mandatory service to obtain citizenship makes a kind of sense. Imagine how that would change the landscape of American politics. The opposite, where every decision would have to be voted on by every citizen, and voting would be mandatory, might also be interesting and then would be a true democracy known as Direct Democracy. That is actually an attainable goal given the internet and blockchain algorithms to lock in the votes which can be inspected at any time by the individual voter. Personally, I would feel better about the things my government does if I had an actual say in every decision. I do not like representative democracy as represented in our Republic and feel powerless to have any say whatsoever in anything. If we had Voter Initiatives (not Referendums, which are top down) then we could as a group implement changes to our government that our elected representatives will never consider as it would cut into their wallets. Things like term limits, campaign finance, etc. can only be addressed this way. The representatives don’t even pretend to listen to the voters any more.

  54. Old Microbiologist says:

    You mean like Petraeus’ probation? I saw he was working in Kosovo nearly immediately after his sentence which I believe violates the terms of probation.
    In HRC’s case she “could” be impeached for crimes committed while serving as a Senator or Secretary of State and a pardon doesn’t negate impeachments. BUt, as she is in reality a Republican (supported by the worst of the neocon community), I don’t think that either party is interested in removing her. She is, in every sense, the best case for political insiders and the real threat of Trump, being a completely uncontrollable loose cannon, is he may upset the apple cart. I find myself dreaming of that.

  55. notlurking says:

    Well said……….

  56. Bill H says:

    @Old Microbiologist
    I’ll keep this to the brief version. When the Central Arizona Project began delivering water to Tucson experts advised “recharge” as the method for introducing it to the system; putting it into the groundwater system and letting nature remove the minerals and chemicals from it, and then pumping it using the existing city wells. Some crackpots were afraid it would flow underground to Mexico and got a Voter Initiative on the ballot to put it directly into the water system. It won and was a disaster. The water corroded pipes, destroyed pumps, and was not fit to drink. After less than a year citizens marched on City Hall and demanded that CAP water be removed from the city water system and “recharhed” before use.
    Direct democracy in action.

  57. jld says:

    I do not share your optimism with “Direct Democracy”, I strongly suspect that the easiest it is to broadcast one’s opinion the closer we get to mob rule (I said it before).
    I think this optimism is a common delusion of “enlightened people”, they really, really cannot fathom how vile is the average citizen.

  58. Dabbler says:

    The article linked here proposes an interesting approach, which will only be implemented as a result of Republican pressure:
    Sorry I don’t seem to be able to make it live.

Comments are closed.