Just two days before the election, FBI Director James Comey has announced that the new emails found on Huma Abedin’s computer does not change his earlier conclusion in July that there is no basis to criminally charge Hillary Clinton over her use of a private server, including emails containing classified information.
Comey wrote the letter below to Congress stating “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Sec Clinton.”
Clinton Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri immediately declared that the scandal was over:
‘We have seen Director Comey’s latest letter to the Hill. We are glad to see that he has found, as we were confident that he would, that he has confirmed the conclusion that he reached in July, and we’re glad that this matter is resolved.”
The quick dismissal of the importance of the emails will likely fuel criticism over Comey’s October 28th letter to Congress on the continuation of the investigation. Most assumed that the new emails had to contain material that would warrant such a departure from the general policy of the Justice Department to avoid actions or statements that might influence an election. According to Comey, however, it only took a few days to determine that the emails were significant enough to warrant a criminal charge.
Here is the letter:
Prairie Rose, November 7, 2016 at 9:23 pm
“Edm,
“Most here dislike Trump and would rather he was not a choice. Of the two leading choices, he has not already disgraced himself in government or as an official disdained the Constitution, the rule of law or equality before the law. He is also more impeachable.
“I want a ‘None of the Above’ button. I think ‘None of the Above’ would win. Then, Trump and Hillary would get tossed on their obnoxious keisters and different candidates, hopefully rule of law respecting ones, would rise.”
To pursue your last point to its logical conclusion, libertarian anarchist (and Christian) Gerard Casey, who is a professional philosopher and a lawyer, argues that no one is fit to govern us, regardless of their personal merits or qualifications.
I ran across his presentation (linked to below) after I had suggested in another thread that the left-right political spectrum was less useful for understanding politics than a libertarian-authoritarian one, and was interested to see that Casey explicitly addresses this question.
I think that a great deal of partisan political rancor among the divided and conquered populace is susceptible to being dissipated by a serious consideration of Casey’s points concerning the nature of human relations, with the regrettable exception, perhaps, of die-hard authoritarian leaders and their followers.
It’s important to consider in this connection that voting in the current US political system has not impeded the ability of the ruling Oligarchy to increasingly consolidate its financial power, with an attendant surfeit of governmental power and a commensurate decline in individual liberty.
Thinking logically about the basic questions Casey addresses puts, I’ll suggest, in a very favorable light the desirability of opting for “None of the Above,” and for doing so on a fundamental basis:
You have my full support. Every candidate election including recalls and every measure, proposition or question be it referendum or- initiative. No more one candidate with no opposition such as those for Sheriff or Judge. None of the Above should have two rules. If NOTA got fifty percent plus thus indicating all the other candidates or offerings were rejected all would be barred from running again. If NOTA won by a plurality then it would be up to the State if any of those who lost could run again.
Along with it Recall Initiative and Referendum for every State and locality. Those elected as delegates or Governorships of the State Government and those elected as delegate representatives to the two Congressional houses Senate and Representatives. Delegates of and employees of the electorate and subject to recall.
Those who by law may not vote may not contribute time, money or equipment. That cuts out most of the dirty money and the soft money but preserves the right to ‘free’ speech. Each areas voters pamphlet specifies the geo-political area involved at each level. Soros for example could not spend two million to defeat a Sheriff in Arizona. or a local official or measure or a city, county or State official the two Senators and however many Representatives. Only in his own State. But he could contribute to the limit allowed for the only two Federal elected officials President and Vice President.
Corporations, Unions, PAC’s and Super PACs, LLC’s not being able to vote could not contribute.
I’ll stop there.
You have my full support. Every candidate election including recalls and every measure, proposition or question be it referendum or- initiative. No more one candidate with no opposition such as those for Sheriff or Judge. None of the Above should have two rules. If NOTA got fifty percent plus thus indicating all the other candidates or offerings were rejected all would be barred from running again. If NOTA won by a plurality then it would be up to the State if any of those who lost could run again.
Along with it Recall Initiative and Referendum for every State and locality. Those elected as delegates or Governorships of the State Government and those elected as delegate representatives to the two Congressional houses Senate and Representatives. Delegates of and employees of the electorate and subject to recall.
Those who by law may not vote may not contribute time, money or equipment. That cuts out most of the dirty money and the soft money but preserves the right to ‘free’ speech. Each areas voters pamphlet specifies the geo-political area involved at each level. Soros for example could not spend two million to defeat a Sheriff in Arizona. or a local official or measure or a city, county or State official the two Senators and however many Representatives. Only in his own State. But he could contribute to the limit allowed for the only two Federal elected officials President and Vice President.
Corporations, Unions, PAC’s and Super PACs, LLC’s not being able to vote could not contribute.
Anyone starts such a movement or group count me in. Something meaningful to do in between elections and maybe we can clean up some of that mess from the grass roots level.
Actually there is a place for the groups mentioned such as holding meetings within their own group or publicly but only in their own area of geo-political interest and without donating funds, material or labor to the candidates or question/proposition. That privilege reserved for those who can and may vote.
Here are the TCP/UDP “Well known Ports” open on Hillary’s email server:
Port | Assignment | Purpose
7 ECHO | Chamber for discussing issues promoting Hillary
9 DISCARD | repository for receiving evidence
17 QUOTEd | Lie of the day
19 CHARGEN | Blah-blah-blah-blay-Trump’s Evil–blah-blah-blah
20 File Transfer data | TCP/IP link to Anthony Weiner’s laptop
21 File Transfer Control | Private port to control information
43 WHOIS | Verification if user contributed money to Clinton Foundation, (returns 0 if no $)
54 XEROX NS Clearing | Used to convert clintonemails into hundreds of thousands of pages to obfuscate
69 Trivial FTP | Port used for redirection of serious nature of Clinton files.
77 Private Remote Job | Used by Bill
79 FINGER | Used by Hillary to announce her thoughts on how much she loves Americans
666 DOOM Broadcasts election results
He is waiting for Hillary and Hillary is waiting for the IRS to conclude it’s inside the Clinton Foundation investigation. The FBI to conclude it’s various investigations having only finished with just the one laptop. Immigration to investigate her maid, and the agency that investigates pork belly futures. Sorry i confused that industry with politicians.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwtH7N3UcAEUtZI.jpg
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I need that today Squeek. Thanks! 🙂
Regardless of your choices of candidates you’ve voted for or intend to vote for, there seems to be a serious problem involved in the tabulation of votes in US elections, and in a rigged voting system, as Uncle Joe Stalin is credited with pointing out, “It isn’t who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.”
“What do you do when you find 40,000 secret voting machine files on the Web? What if you knew that the devil went down to Georgia on November 5, 2002 and, in a stunning upset, tipped control of the U.S. Senate — and then you saw a folder called ‘rob-georgia,’ looked inside and found instructions to replace Georgia’s computerized voting files right before the election?
“Author Bev Harris is the 52-year-old grandma who found these files, which have now been studied by computer scientists all over the world. Black Box Voting is an all-too-true story, resulting from her investigations into the voting industry.
“What she learned is that modern-day voting systems are run by private, for-profit corporations, rely on a few cronies for oversight, using a certification system so fundamentally flawed that it allows machines to miscount and lose votes, with hidden back doors that enable ‘end runs’ around the voting system. Find out why your vote might not count — and what to do about it! [Emphasis added]
http://blackboxvoting.org/black-box-voting-book/
Here’s Lou Dobbs interviewing Harris and a cyber-security expert:
The Fall of an FBI Director
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
November 7, 2016
Daniel Greenfield
Every agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation takes an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” And he swears to “faithfully discharge the duties of the office.”
It is much the same oath taken by members of Congress, by military officers and government employees. It is an oath that goes back to Washington and Lincoln. Its origins lie in the Constitution.
And FBI Director James Comey violated it.
The oath is not to any president or government, but to the impartial law of the Constitution. It says that no one is above the law. James Comey twice stated implicitly that one politician is above the law.
Twice now, Comey faced a choice between his own rank and file agents who dutifully followed their oaths and faithfully discharged the duties of their office by investigating criminal conduct at the highest level and his political superiors who sought to protect the criminal conduct from coming to light.
Twice now, Comey submitted to a cover-up. Twice he violated his oath, sold out his own investigators and got nothing for his troubles except a swift kick in the teeth from the national press corps.
Like the Weebles, Comey wobbles. The Bureau’s agents pursue their leads. The DOJ scowls and warns. And Comey tries to serve both masters. He compromises both the investigation and the cover up. He serves up information while selling out its conclusions. His people find evidence of criminality while their boss whitewashes the culprits. Even as new damning emails come out every day, Comey shambles out to wave the whole thing away. He tries to do the right thing and the wrong thing at the same time.
Now Comey did the right thing and the wrong thing again. The order is predictable. The FBI director will only do the right thing until he’s intimidated into doing the wrong thing.
The last time around, one side wanted a cover-up and the other side wanted an investigation. And Comey obligingly gave them both what they wanted. His investigation also doubled as a cover-up. And his cover-up also doubled as an investigation. It all worked very well until Comey had to make a choice.
And Comey chose the cover-up. He laid out evidence of illegal actions and denied they were illegal.
He tried to play the trick a second time, but by now everyone was wise to it. The left demanded an instant cover-up and lambasted the looming lawman for even considering an investigation. It didn’t take long before Comey folded like a cheap Korean car. After being threatened with violations of the Hatch Act and Maureen Dowd no longer telling her media friends that he looks like Henry Fonda, he gave up.
If Comey was expecting gratitude for eventually agreeing to a cover-up, he had misjudged his audience.
“Today’s letter makes Director Comey’s actions nine days ago even more troubling,” Senator Feinstein hissed.
Al Franken shoved his Droopy Dog face into the lens of the nearest CNN camera. “We will have hearings. I’m sure that FBI Director Comey will be before us,” he bellicosely lisped.
Poor Comey. One investigation slash cover up gets you muted applause and sighs of relief. Two and Franken and Feinstein start eyeing your neck like vampires at a blood bank. Sooner or later each man must pick a side. The side of the right or the wrong. The side of the law or the crime. The side of the truth or the lie.
That is the tragedy of James Comey. He wants to be on the side of right and law and truth. At least until days of uninterrupted screeching from CNN talking heads calling for his neck makes him rethink things.
If Comey were thoroughly and irredeemably corrupt, he would be hardly worth mentioning. The Federal bureaucracy is thoroughly rotted with men and women whose venal purposes render all their oaths worthless and others who have already sworn a red oath to aid the supreme power of the left.
We already know that Justice Department officials will collaborate with those whom they are meant to be investigating, that politicians receive debate questions beforehand allowing them to deliver their studied responses and that investigations are as rigged as schooners by the political establishment.
Comey is neither thoroughly corrupt nor a career leftist. The FBI Director is simply a coward. He is not without his convictions. If he were, the investigation that he has belatedly quashed twice, would have been aborted far earlier. He would never have mentioned the Ferguson Effect, despite the displeasure of the White House, or engaged in sundry other violations of the politically correct norms of Obamastan.
Instead Comey exemplifies the famous quote, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Comey is not evil. He is one of the many “good men” in our government and private life who do nothing. And he doesn’t even quite do nothing. Instead Comey pushes the moment to its crisis and then conducts a rapid retreat to save his political skin. Unlike his previous maneuver, this time he miscalculated the timing of the retreat and came under vicious fire.
Why did Comey come under such a torrent of attacks from the White House to CNN? Because he had shown in his previous outing that he will fold under pressure. And after a brief few days of barraging, of being threatened by Harry Reid and denounced in the press, he waved a white flag.
We often wonder why the left has been allowed to conduct its long institutional march with so little opposition. How have we lost so much of the Constitution without more encountering more opposition?
The tragedy of James Comey provides a very revealing answer. Even the men who have been chosen to stand on the wall as the first and final defense of the Constitution lack the stomach for the task. Their service is honorable only until they face sufficient opposition to persuade them that their six figure salaries and lovely homes would be endangered by actually doing their jobs. And so they go along, inwardly grumbling at the compromises they are forced to make while shushing their subordinates.
James Comey took an oath. But he also has a $3 million house in Westport. The same is true, in various price ranges, across the government. Comey tried to keep his oath until it posed too much of a risk.
And then he broke it.
There are many Comeys in our government. Some are elected officials and others appointed ones. They hate the compromises that they are forced to make. And they push back to the extent of their courage.
And then their courage fails. And they get into their long black cars and their drivers take them back home. The Constitution can be smelled burning in their tailpipes. They turn on the television at home and they watch it, wishing that someone out there would have the courage to do the right thing.
There are those who hoped that James Comey would be that man. But, like so many of them, he chose his career, his home and his ambitions over his oath.
.
I also wonder if Comey, especially after the wife cashing in, wasn’t starting to feel a little suicidal at the depth of all this. Don’t know if that’s come up yet. The noodle is not as malleable as what it used to be.
He should feel better now.
Former GOP senator announces Clinton vote: ‘Trump could get us into a nuclear war’
https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-gop-senator-trump-could-get-us-into-a-nuclear-war-121502731.html
A staunchly Republican voice in New Hampshire announced Sunday that he’s backing Hillary Clinton for president.
“On Tuesday, millions of lifelong Republicans will vote against Donald Trump. I’m one of them,” declared Gordon Humphrey, a former U.S. senator who served more than two decades in that chamber. He made the comments in a video released by the Democratic nominee’s campaign.
The Boston Globe described Humphrey’s vote as a “stunning development,” given the former senator’s conservative ideology and support for tea party groups. Many anti-Trump Republicans, including Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., have said they will cast a write-in vote for a fellow conservative as an alternative to voting for either Trump or Clinton.
But Humphrey said the risk of a Trump presidency is too great to vote for anyone but Clinton.
“Trump’s attacks on women, the disabled, war heroes and minorities are disgusting. A normal person doesn’t do that. But Trump is not normal. He’s cruel. He’s shameless. He’s a bully. And it gets worse. Trump is simply unfit to be president. Do we want a commander in chief who’s temperamental, belligerent, unhinged?” he asked.
He continued: “Trump could get us into a nuclear war. That danger has not gone away, and it would mushroom with Trump’s finger on the nuclear trigger. For the sake of our families’ safety, let’s stand together against Donald Trump by voting for Hillary Clinton. It’s the responsible thing to do.”
That’s just silliness. That’s not based on a self-declared policy position. Thanks for living down to my example.
But I do give you credit for not saying, “…because Trump’s a rascist…, ” or “Trump’s supporters are rascists…”
But, you still answered, “because Trump….” when the question was aimed at describing how Clinton’s plan could be beneficial. That is what worries me about you people, hopefully this isn’t the extent of your reasoning abilities.
I was (am) dead serious, how is that foreign policy trap that is horribly sophomoric for any potential leader, especially one whose been around the block for about 30 years, in our best interest? I’ll help you out–using the word Trump in the answer is not applicable.
A little more clarity: How is shooting down Russian airplanes in the skies of a foreign country good for people of the United States?
I have a young son, if you can please make me OK with this, I would be grateful, and that is not being facetious.
Not to worrry the Democrats didn’t keep the Draft Laws in force to use them. it was as Jobs Program. But here’s how to avoid the draft honestly and with honor. When the kid turns 18 and the school tells him to sign the card to get student loan money and a government job have hims say the following: I’m turning 18 tomorrow and have elected to joint he social contract and become a citizen. Then you Mom either foot the bill to move him elsewhere or send a letter to Immigration and ask to have him put on the Student list not a USA citizen and you of course will be completely responsible for him.
Seriously that may or may not work as they have never asked anyone to make a choice just draft them or jail them unless they are on an exception program such as studying for a medical degree or ministerial degree which is four plus two for Masters and Four I think for the Doctorate. that will get him to 28. Still in harms way butten yiears should be time to make up some injury to keep him from being taken anyway.
I’m assuming you don’t want him taking a bullet for Hillary so I offered that freebie advice as a 24 year veteran of the Infantry etc.
The best thing though is start a repeal the draft movement before it’s too late.
they have a web. site and the fines and jail time for not sign are explained thoroughly.
Smile….This war has been going 16 years with maybe eight more to run not counting new ones. Depends on who contributes what to the Clinton Foundation. Now that’s another course of action. Go to the Clinton Foundation and find out what a secular dispensation is going for. Might be easier and cheaper in the long run.
We talk about this a good bit at my house. My father was an engineer in the 148th Combat Engineers, and saw some of the darkest days of WWII. He was actually done after they completed the Hodges bridge, which I believe was the second Bailey bridge built after the Ludendorf bridge finally went down. He was proud of his service. Suffered with PTSD the rest of his life, just like all the other WWII neighbors. It wasn’t talked about then. My cousins are also veterans, and one in particular tells the story when he was in the PA National Guard. As soon as they passed out the desert camo uniforms in the late 90s, he said he knew what was coming, so he retired. Interesting you say that about the Clinton Foundation, as I have stated before, if Putin would have ponied up some cash, he’d be good to go. He could start rolling heads like the Saudi family does monthly, and he would be just the bestest guy. Photo ops, the whole thing. The other question is, if she doesn’t get us all blow’d up with her no fly zone, how do we keep paying for all these wars??? Everything costs money, except when you come to warrin’… once again, the Clinton people have had no discussion about this. Amazing how there has been hardly any substantial platform discussion. It’s also amazing to me how cheap the lives of our active military are to these people. Evidently Eisenhower was troubled and awake all night before the invasion. I don’t see that happening with Clinton. Too bad we couldn’t drop the whole lot of them in the middle of Kursk for some real-life understanding.
Like you said, if this one peters out, looks like plenty more in Africa that will be rolling on line.
Well, what do you think somebody is going to say if they want to support the establishment:
“Well, I am voting for HIllary because I love the status quo! And I make a lot of money with the way things are! I loves me some cheap-a$$ Mexican labor. Yes sirree! Plus, a lot of people in my state are crazy mofo’s, and they are rabidly anti-Trump, and I don’t want to chase them off,”
No, they are going to make up some wacko crap reason, like Trump is a facist Nazi and will start a nuclear war! Which is the same line of crap people said about Reagan.
Then, people like you just confirm their own biases.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Good points, but I say that in hopes maybe I am missing something. I make mistakes and misunderstand things, but this sounds so beyond reason to me I still can’t fathom anyone saying that. And she is supposed to be a skilled diplomat?
Obama was being being dumb when he made his “line-in-the-sand” case, but her statement is way out there.
I’m afraid I’m still correct. I’m also afraid that these statements we have been making do not register with the Clinton supporters. Gorbachev himself has stated he thinks we are closer to nuclear war now than at any time in the past. These are real issues, and the Clinton supporters revert back to “uncomfortable” or “insensitive” or “racist name calling.” Seems to me there is a huge disconnect between the real issues and the Clinton “cult of personality” supporters.
“Do we want a commander in chief who’s temperamental, belligerent, unhinged?”
That’s just funny. 🙂 I would ask that question to the Secret Service agents that know them best. As for our enemies; it would be a nice change of pace for them to not sleep peacefully. Seriously, the whole “finger on the button” alarm is raised every election cycle. I’m surprised anyone falls for that anymore.
“Do we want a commander in chief who’s temperamental, belligerent, unhinged?”
No good enough reason on it’s own merits not to vote for Clinton. Thanks for the reminder.
That was a lay up. That quote actually made me chuckle.
I would bet that Humphrey is a TPP supporter like all the rest of the Republicans who have endorsed HRC. All in the same cabal. Obama and HRC are warmongers and continue poking the Bear – luckily Putin is a chess player and practices restraint.
Sorry you don’t like it Ralph. I’m pretty disgusted with all the ignorant deplorables who populate this blog now.
So I guess we both get to suffer. You with my buzzwords, and me with your ignorance.
“Ignorant deplorables”? Is that what passes in your world as a well-articulated thought? Why don’t you take the opportunity that JT has provided you and make an attempt to enlighten all of the ignorant deplorables this blog has recently fostered. I’ll admit I have more to learn, so bring it.
I think they have enlightened us, to the best of their apparent reasoning abilities. I will attempt to illustrate their position though, as deplorable as I may be. Extra deplorable I guess since I would throw the deplorable Trump under the bus if need be. Triple deplorable since I always vote for a third party. The hard part is, it’s not a platform, it’s a “…because Trump…” argument. That’s all you need to argue the Clinton position on this blog. I’ve even tried to ask a couple of times for these people to clarify some claims by Clinton, just to receive the sound of crickets, just like when I have face to face discussions with these same.
Let’s cut to the chase, and I’ll illustrate by being both groups:
Deplorable other: Why does Clinton support the TPP (kind of for now, depending on which way the wind blows coming up)?
Clinton Supporter: Trump’s a racist.
Deplorable other: Why does Clinton want to American soldiers, and our entire country at risk by declaring a no-fly zone over Syria when it means we will be in direct conflict with Russian forces, who are acting within bounds of international law by assisting the legal government in its fight against insurgency.
Clinton Supporter: Trump’s supporters are rascist.
Please, after reviewing the deep argument presented by Clinton supporters, please feel free to add anything I may have left out.
Professor Turley,
When you read through these comments, are you proud of what you have fostered here? All this hatred, all this racism and misogyny? All this ridiculous conspiracy theory? This is your contribution to ConLaw?
I wish you could look back a ways and see how low your board has sunk. What a shame.
Translation:
These people don’t agree me and my high-toned elitist sentiments, sooo can you make all these deplorables just go away or something??? That way we can all go back to regurgitating the DNC Talking Points again!
You’re welcome!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
phillyt, what “hatred,” “racism,” and “misogyny”? You mean those leftist buzzwords you like to throw around meaninglessly, relentlessly and alway inapplicably? When leftists like you endlessly use the same meaningless leftist gibberish whenever you feel compelled to label someone who does not fall in line with your perverse leftist positions, those buzzwords grow ever tiresome and pointless.
@Ralph
Amen! Here is a short video you may enjoy about how liberals really see blacks. Kind of funny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrBxZGWCdgs
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeek that’s great! And it does a good job of exposing how the snowflakes infantilize blacks. I will share this with my black brothers and sisters.
Just watched the video, Squeeky. I’m still laughing and, quite frankly, still astounded at how the African American communities, throughout this country, don’t readily recognize the degrading, patronizing, demeaning and condescending manner in which they are regarded by the Democrats.
I just sent the video to an African American friend who just happens to be a New Yorker. She’s gonna love it.
Thanks for sharing.
Thanks, Squeeky. Just got around to seeing this. Informative, revealing, and funny. Should be mandatory viewing followed by discussion for the “social justice” college crowd.
Or maybe Philly is talking about the unmitigated, unending and unfounded attacks on President Clinton, President Obama, and President-elect Clinton. Since there’s little if any factual basis or rational substance to the attacks, one is left with the alternative. When you hate a person because she is a woman, you are a misogynist. When you hate a person because of his race, you are a racist. When you hate someone because he the last wildly successful President of the United States, you are a hater. You’re welcome.
Wildly successful? What are you smoking? We do not want Obama 2.0 – another neo liberal / neo con regime. Judging on his accomplishments not his skin colour. And as far as women there are plenty of women with experience like Tulsi Gabbard, Nina Turner and Jill Stein who is still in the race.
“Wildly successful” refers to Big Bill. Shrub (hat tip to Molly Ivins) couldn’t find his ass with both hands and Obama didn’t drive it in when he still had the Senate.
I would not consider “Big Bill” to be wildly successful – NAFTA, Crime bill, impeached while in office, giving China MFN status. He was the first Republican president masqeurading as a Democrat.
On the other hand, he kept us out of a ground war in the Balkans (a sterling example of realpolitik if there ever was one); the economy purred like the powerhouse it is capable of being; and, he was the last President to not have deficit spending. Being “impeached” by the usual suspects and fellow travelers could be considered a badge of honor. I entirely agree with you on the Crime Bill; but favor open trade–though the details thereof have been disruptive to some sectors of our powerhouse. I confess that he has improved in retrospect. I was not his biggest fan until I and the rest of the country were subjected to the buffoonery which followed.
We did a lot of damage in Bosnia and prevented the UN from intervening in Rwanda. Also, NAFTA, and the subsequent “trade” bills have been devastating for many countries because of the ISDS clause which allows corporations to sue countries that impede their profits — even when the business at hand is at odds with their national rule of law. TPP has been called “NAFTA on steroids” Bill also wanted to privatize social security. If you are interested Robert Frank wrote a great book called “Listen up Liberal” which traces how the Democratic party evolved from being the party of the people to servicing a small group of elites.
Right….the Clintons are a couple of real martyrs, just victims of “unfounded attacks”.
What a crock!
And what is your contribution phillyT? The majority of comments on this board recently have been an expression of how far removed we are from a functioning government limited by the rule of law. The shame is your inability to acknowledge that reality.
Ralph Adamo-
Everyone takes away different interpretations, and has different descriptions, of others who comment.
Philly T.’s contribution is that of a sanctimonious Hillary shill, “knowing” how much better society can be if the rest of us just fall in line.
Fairly standard stuff, really.
Sorry meant “OLLY And Ralph” in my last post.
phillyT,
That’s the way it is these days. People can’t express anti-Trump opinions here.
@EDM
Hogwash! People express anti-Trump opinions here all the time. What you can’t do is usually ARTICULATE why you are anti-Trump. You just call names. But that’s on you, not Turley.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky,
I have expressed my opinion of Trump and my reasons for thinking he should not be president–but some folks’ minds are so closed they refuse to hear them.
I’d say you’re one of the best “name callers” on this blog. That’s on you–not on Professor Turley.
Thank you! I am proud to be a good name caller! But you will notice that I also usually add WHY I am calling someone a name to the comment. Like you for example. You are a blithering idiot. On the other thread, you disagreed with Trump calling illegal Mexicans, “criminals”, and I told you why they were, and thus, why you are a blithering idiot for calling Trump names!
There are laws about entry in this country, and every other country on Earth. What would happen if 50 million Muslims from Bangladesh just showed up here next year, just swam the Rio Grande from Mexico, or in shipping containers, because they were tired of starving, and wanted to live here, and get food stamps.
That is why you have laws about immigration. So you don’t get too many people at once, and the wrong kind of people. See, I called you a name, and I explained why!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky,
When people are losing arguments, one common tactic is for them to start insulting the people who disagree with them and to call them names. That’s all they have left. Poor Squeeky! Nice try.
Read what I said. I didn’t just call you a name and leave it at that. I explained to you why I said it. If you are honest, you will sit down and ask yourself,
“Sheeesh is that Horrible Squeeky Fromm person right? Am I truly a blithering idiot? Let’s see, she said Mexicans entering the country illegally are immediately “criminals”! Oh that is sooo racisssst! Wait, I am analyzing the kind of the speech, not the truth or falsehood. Because if that is true, then it might not be racissst! Hmmm. Well there are laws, and the Mexicans are violating them sooo they are criminals! HOLY CRAP! She’s right! They are all criminals! OH GOD, what do I do now? I can’t admit she was right, because that would be admitting that I am truly and most sincerely a blithering idiot!”
You see, that is what an honest thoughtful process looks like. And if you have been a blithering idiot, you just admit it, because that is how people learn new things, and nobody is perfect. All of us have been blithering idiots about stuff. There is nothing bad about being wrong. It is only wrong if you dig in like a Texas Tick and won’t let go of bad ideas.
I hope that helps you.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky,
I guess that is your modus operandi–name calling. It seems as if you may have a problem with anger management. Try to sit back and calm down. It may do you some good.
I guess you can’t learn new things.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky,
Most certainly not from someone like you.
So all laws carry the same majesty? All laws must be scrupulously and strictly obeyed? Prior to Loving v. Virginia, in many states those who married a person of a different race were “criminals.” Back in the “good ole days,” it was against the law for certain persons to fail to give up their bus seats to whites; those persons were likewise “criminals.” So tell me again how “if it’s a law, it must be rigorously followed.” As an aside (and sorry to burst your frenetic bubble), but net immigration from Mexico is negative.
Oh waah waah waah the racism crap. You are living in the 1950’s. The issue here is real frigging simple. Is it illegal to enter the country without a proper visa, to work here without a work permit. Yes, it is criminal here, and in every country in the world. Only wannabee Freedom Riders are still on that stupid racism kick. You should think about getting a life, if it is possible for you.
People like you are like annoying religious puritans who follow people around and find some “sin” under every stone and behind every tree so they can make people feel guilty about crap they aren’t really guilty of. If there ain’t no sin, don’t worry! They’ll make some up for you!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I’m sorry, your response doesn’t address anything remotely related to anything I wrote about. Therefore, I must inform you that I cannot feed the trolls.
P.S. I guess Google is not yet a part of your online experience. I case no one else does so, I must also inform you that the Loving case I referenced is a 1967 United States Supreme Court case.
When you present a position is is incumbent on you not the rest of the world to do your due diligence. That useful bit of information would have helped….had it been forthcoming. Or just from common courtesy. I give such posts the due they are worthy of receiving. I do not change diapers or worry about the relevance of an unsupported rant treating it with the respect it earned. In writing it’s called references and foot notes. Here is simply good manners. I shall now proceed to see if the cite and site for the source was worth the effort and germane to the intent.
@MarkM
Loving is a really stupid case to cite when talking about illegal immigration. Because it is about marriage. If you wanted to comment on selective enforcement of laws, you could just as easily have picked the speeding and traffic laws. Psychologically, Loving, makes one think that you answer to an “anti-racist” dog whistle, and therefore try to interject race into everything. To a wannabee Freedom Rider, everybody looks like a Klansman. Time will prove whether or not that is the case with you..
I would still like to hear a straight answer to the “every illegal alien is a criminal” charge I leveled. It’s pretty simple. If it is true, then you need to apologize to Trump, and his supporters for defaming him. If you think it is false, I am just dying to hear your circumlocationary blather!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
One year later my neighbors in Michigan were an inter racial couple. That was an example of enforcing a law which was not being scrupulously obeyed in places like Virginia. 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments for example. You are referring to history. For me it was last week or yesterday having lived as an adult in those times. The law was not being rigorously followed. One has to look at correct laws but instead our generation moved to correct ‘incorrect’ laws.
Having corrected the premises i will turn to Mexico. Without cites or sources some may disagree but the cites are all from the immigration authorities of the United States and the statement though unsupported is true. Further the reason for reverse immigration is lack of jobs which continues to this day, a drastic increase in prices due to devaluation of the buying power of the dollar which continues to this day, and occasioned in some cases families in Mexico wirijng money north not the reverse.
A futher example is the flight of capital and manufacturing or manufacturing being drivien out of the USA. Mexico is a prime beneficiary. Ford and VW are the examples as are the maquiladora facilities one such FlexiShoes.
Since I live most of the year south of the border I have a different view point and fled south as the US priced itself out of the market for retired senior citizens.
Employment. the formula is Work Force minus ten percent are considered those who will never work or are in school or temporarily between jobs and probably includes those who fall off the end to some degree.
100 x .9 = 90 considered the new full employment number. 5% unemployment is therefore 85.5% of the stated work force not 95% of 100. The latest figures however are not from employment but from an adjustment in the size of the Work Force in order to pump up the figures. Bush was not the President who changed 5% to 10%.
That formula was announced publicly in the 1990’s. Prior to that 5% was used. Prior to that zero percent deducted. The deduction or Muilligan Formula began at the end of WWII.
Compliments of All Things Considered on PBS.
edm,
You haven’t been paying attention. I’ve opposed Trump since the moment he announced. I argued endlessly that he has never stated he will respect the rule of law and separation of powers. I still haven’t heard or read anything that hints he will confine himself to the limits set by the constitution.
Unfortunately we have only two candidates with a shot to win the White House. Only one of those two has proven to be completely unwilling to honor their oath while in service to this country. Only one of those two has proven to be a threat to our national security. Only one of those two has the fourth estate behind them as well as partisan support in Congress. Only one of those two would stand a reasonable chance at impeachment. Only one of those two would not be able to hide their activities in plain sight.
Given my deplorable ignorance, my vote goes to Donald Trump.
Olly,
I haven’t been around here all that long. I only began reading posts and leaving comments on this blog in the last couple of weeks. It isn’t that I haven’t been paying attention.
As for Trump, I’d like to know why he refuses to release ANY of his income tax returns. Does he have something to hide?
edm,
Let’s assume he does have something to hide. Do you believe it put our national security at risk? Do you believe it resulted in Americans being killed? Do you believe he has a foundation setup to extort money from foreign sources for public policy accommodations? What could he possibly have buried in his tax returns that would be so egregious that would make him a greater threat to our national interests than his opponent?
Olly,
I do believe he may have something to hide. Would his Russian and foreign connections put our national security at risk? Possibly. I have questions about the Trump foundation AND the Clinton foundation. What could be buried in his income tax returns? I can’t say. I haven’t seen them. I am not about to make a guess. I happen to think Trump is a threat to our national interest after hearing him speak over the past year-and-a-half.
Okay, let’s go with that. You believe it’s safer to vote for someone that HAS allowed her foreign connections to put our national security at risk? That makes no sense. Which foundation has PROVEN to be entangled with US foreign policy? That’s the one you trust? You are prepared to vote for the candidate that has by her ACTIONS to be a national security threat over one that SPEAKS as a national security threat? Would you invest money this way? Yes, I’ll buy the stock that has proven time and again to lose money because the other stock might?
How exactly is any of that rational? Reasonable? Which of these two candidates is guaranteed to have full cooperation from at least one side of Congress AND the MSM?
Olly,
I can speak for myself. There is no need for you to tell me what I believe. But you go right ahead and do so if it makes you feel better. And since you think you know what I believe–I’ll let you answer all those questions that you asked me yourself.
“I haven’t been around here all that long. I only began reading posts and leaving comments on this blog in the last couple of weeks. “
Edm,
Most here dislike Trump and would rather he was not a choice. Of the two leading choices, he has not already disgraced himself in government or as an official disdained the Constitution, the rule of law or equality before the law. He is also more impeachable.
I want a ‘None of the Above’ button. I think ‘None of the Above’ would win. Then, Trump and Hillary would get tossed on their obnoxious keisters and different candidates, hopefully rule of law respecting ones, would rise.
“People can’t express anti-Trump opinions here”.
That’s garbage, and anyone who has read these comments knows that that comment is BS.
But if an individual is “100-to-1”, or “1,000-to-2” tilted in their comments , and bombards this site repeatedly with qoutes and links from questionable sources, defends Hillary by falsely claiming that “Powell had a private server”, talks about “people who think…people like me”, then that individual is likely to get called out for being a blindly partisan hack.
But paint yourself as a “victim” of rabid Trump supporters, if you’d rather frame it that.
“Quotes”, not “qoutes”.
Also, the 100-to-1 coverage is, of course, anti-Trump-to anti Clinton ratio.
When challenged on this, edm MIGHT “salt” a comment with a very short, very mild criticism,of Hillary.
tnash,
You wrote that I defended “Hillary by falsely claiming that ‘Powell had a private server.” He did. It is not a false claim. President George W. Bush also had a private server. Don’t like the facts? Too bad. The truth sometimes hurts.
*****
Colin Powell’s advice to Hillary Clinton makes her private email server look like less of a scandal
Powell told Clinton in 2009, “I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without going through the State Department servers.”
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/8/12846988/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email
Hillary Clinton has come under withering criticism this campaign for setting up a private email server during her time as secretary of state.
But it’s not altogether clear that what she did was that unusual. While critics have said her decision to send emails over a private account allowed her to avoid public records laws, her defenders correctly note that scores of government officials also communicate outside of official channels.
Clinton loyalists got powerful new evidence to buttress their case last night. Before Wednesday’s presidential forum, House Democrats released an email that former Secretary of State Colin Powell sent then-Secretary Clinton, who had asked for guidance about using a private server.
The email makes clear that Powell, too, used private systems to avoid the State Department servers — and for purposes that appear to be clearly related to his government office.
“What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.)” Powell wrote on January 23, 2009. “So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.”
Now, there’s still a difference between Powell’s handling of the email server and Clinton’s. While it’s clear Powell used a private server to go around the State Department, he also did communicate over the State servers and maintained a State email account. By contrast, Clinton never set up a @state.gov account throughout her time as secretary of state and only used a private account.
But the distinction is increasingly looking like a matter of degree rather than kind. The torrent of criticism against Clinton is obviously connected to the extraordinary FBI investigation into her private server, but it also now looks wildly disproportionate given how close it mirrors that of her predecessor. And Powell doesn’t just admit to using a private communications system to chat informally with his top aides: He even admits to doing so to talk directly with foreign leaders to avoid open records.
edm…check,out Politifact on Hillary’s claims that her “predecessors did the same thing”.
There are numerous articles debunking this lie, and IF you try reading a cross section of news sources, rather than doing your partisan hack job by citing Slate, Salon, or Vox , you might get a clearer picture of facts.
Time is short…get back to your robocommenting and your VERY selective choice of the links you post.
tnash,
I provided you with a link to a Vox article about Powell having a private email server that was dated September 8, 2016. Can you provide me with a link to an article that shows proof that Powell didn’t have a private email server?
“Mr. Powell, who DID NOT HAVE A PRIVATE SERVER”, spoke out against Hillary’s recent statements that she did what her predecessors did.
ABC News, Sept.7, 2016
The last part of the senyence my not be the exact wording…the first part, in quotation marks, is verbatim.
The article further stares that Powell had a computer hooked up to a private phone line some communication.
I cited the Politifact ananylis of Hillary’s lie that Powell had a private server.
I probably read a dozen articles when this ” Powell and Rice did it too” canard was fliated by Hillary.
Her first degense was “I never sent or received classified material”.
When that was shot down, she shifted to “I never sent or received material MARKED ckassifued”.
When that was shot down she went the the “Powell and Rice did it too” defense”.
A fair reading of the articles on that last claim clearly shows that ckaim to be false as well.
Instead of cherry picking one articke, there is something out there called “google” that keads you to multiple sources on a topic.
Take a break from the robocomments and try it out.
PS.
Tge ABC Sept. 7, 2016 article was by Benjamin Suegel.
Yes, and my article dated the day following the date of your article provided information that showed that Powell DID have a private server.
tnash,
Let’s see: I have posted articles published in Slate, Vox, Salon, Talking Points Memo, Time, New York Times, Washington Post, Esquire, Newsweek, National Review, Yahoo…and other media sources. Maybe you could provide me with the names of the media outlets that you read for information.
Try teading my emails and the sources I cite.
In the meantime, I read the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Wahingyon Post, the Daily Beast.
TV top outlets I follow ate PBS evening news, CPAN ( when available, the Sunday AM talk shows _ depents on the guests, I sometimes flip back and forth.
Again, I have cited some of these sources on countering your propaganda blitz.
“Try teading my emails and the sources I cite.”
Which sources have you cited on this blog?
I guess propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, eh?
If you’re too friggin lazy to read them ( the sources I have cited), that’s your problem.
Go play those games somewhere else.
tnash,
Now, now don’t go getting all angry and stuff. Try to remain cool, calm, and collected.
Radical Reasoning 101 says if you can say something three times without being taken to task you can quote your own articles or speeches. Circular Logic but this seems to be a case of Radical Reasoning. It also says if repeat a fib enough eventually it may be taken as truth. For the rest of Radical Reasoning read Lenin and Lakoff. Lakoff however never leads his troops just programs them and sends them out to look…foolish.
tnash,
You wrote: edm…check,out Politifact on Hillary’s claims that her “predecessors did the same thing”.
FYI: I was recently criticized on this blog for citing PolitiFact.
Since you cited Politifact, so did I.
I was trying to make it simple for you, from a source you could not impeach.
And I was not the one who criticised your use of PoliFact as a source.
Mysogs are an easy problem to solve. Get rid of the Hillary supporters the enabling victimizers who since the 90’s have made a habit of turning their backs on their sisters in favor of Bubba Cute Butt and assisted Hillary in attacking them (another word for victimizing is attack). Having dumped the trash bring in those who wondered why she didn’t apologize to Bubbas Victiims sitting in the front rows during the debates but just ignored them. Makes it hard to play the woman card when one is the countries Chief Enabler and victimizer. In fact makes it impossible to look like anything but an insincere joke.
It’s called expressing an opinion and having a viewpoint. One that is just as valid for that person as yours are to you. They are right b/c that is their viewpoint. You are right b/c that is your viewpoint. It’s called freedom of speech. What’s your point?
Autumn, November 7, 2016 at 2:05 pm
“Oliver Wendell Holmes once said ‘the mind once expanded i cannot return to its original dimensions’ (or something like that). I used to believe that but time and experience has taught me otherwise.
You’ve reminded me here of Goethe’s observation, the truth of which has been amply confirmed by my experience of myself and others, that our consciousness must either expand or contract, but can never remain static.
Ken, thanks for sharing that. I guess “contracting” would be like a form of mental constipation – battening down the hatches so to speak to not allow any information that might be even remotely disconcerting.
I am shocked and stunned that Comey has not changed his position! Stunned, I tell you! I felt for sure that he was going to make an announcement like the following:
“It is with great shame and embarrassment that I must acknowledge that I’ve been utterly untruthful, craven, and cowardly in failing to carry out my duties and responsibilities as FBI Director. I have been an complete failure to date. But I must also tell you that I felt compelled in the past to yield to the wishes of my bosses and give Ms. Clinton the pass she needed to continue running for president. However, I’ve had an epiphany of sorts, and have realized that my extremely comfortable lifestyle is not the only important thing in life. Sometimes, the truth, honor, integrity, and decency–in rare circumstance–must take priority over caving to political demands and the continued deception of the public. I have decided that this is just such a moment. And, after a careful review of the evidence that I knew all along pointed to Ms. Clinton’s guilt, I have decided to tell the truth for one of those rare times in my life. Consequently, I am recommending that Ms. Clinton be prosecuted immediately, even though this will obviously have a critical impact on the presidential election.”
Comey really surprised me when he didn’t give this speech.
Hillary’s campaign ad:
“You can count on this, I’ve never quit and I never will.”
And she says this as if this is a good thing?!
Please, Clinton crime family – just go away already! The voters are tired of you.
This election is our last chance to vote once and for all to put an end to decades of Clinton corruption in Washington and clean things up already!!
Hillary’s campaign ad is saying this as if it’s a strength we should admire in her: “…you can count on this, I’ve never quit and I never will.”
Aaaand she says this as if this is a good thing?!
May I suggest an alternative view? Hillary clearly doesn’t understand that people are TIRED of the decades of Clinton corruption and lies. People wish she would quit and just go away already. People do not want to be forced to endure the national nightmare of endless Clinton scandals as we did in the 1990s!
Maybe if Hillary wasn’t such a power hungry, money grabbing sociopath out to enrich herself and her Clinton Crime Family, she might actually know when to do the right thing for the good of the country and QUIT already! Rather than putting the country through another scandal-plagued Clinton White House.
Including the responsible citizens who were supposed to be the center of all power. Not enough left but too many of the left.
Ideally, I guess the idea of a grand jury deciding on indictment is supposed to provide the checks and balances to prevent those who are above the law from getting away with it, but apparently there is nothing in place to force a grand jury to consider an indictment despite what investigators and prosecutors think.
One possible reason for the emperor has no clothes thing going on is that everybody in charge of investigating, from the DOJ, to the FBI, all the way to the President himself, probably communicated sensitive information over Clinton’s unsecured email server. That would be equivalent to mailing top secret documents by U.S. Postal Service to the recipients (which is illegal). If Clinton is charged, they open the door to charging everyone who sent classified information to Clinton during her time as Secretary of State. Just imagine how many top level people that would include. Nobody wants to go down that road. It doesn’t matter what the law says. They will ignore the law because there is nobody left to force them to observe the law.
Including the responsible citizens who were supposed to be the center of all power. Not enough left but too many of the left.
That is one of the reasons corrupt politicians interlock themselves with others. It is a mutual check in the event one side fails. But the interlock is not limited to support, it can include possessing mutually dirt on the other to protect themselves. (If you rat on me I rat on you.)
Yet, as I’ve mentioned earlier, these systems have a fatal flaw. Because of the internal stresses manifest in the system, it might appear strong, but since there is so much linking and stress as soon as some outside influence comes about, a strong example is the Wiki Leaks information, the system can fail. A physical example is a Prince Rupert’s Drop.
I never heard of a Prince Rupert drop, but after reading the link, I found it on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe-f4gokRBs
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Good post David!
Meanwhile, here’s what the FBI will do:
https://www.rt.com/usa/365667-muslims-fbi-interview-election/
They are sending agents to Muslim’s homes to ask questions about ISIS. These people are not suspects. If they want to know about ISIS why don’t they just ask Clinton and Obama about THEIR actual ties to ISIS, with all the money they receive from that group.
WTF. By what right is the FBI criminalizing ordinary citizens and failing to complete address obvious criminality in the oligarchy.
The right of power garnered over a hundred years during which time they rolled and hosed the American Public supposedly the center of all power in a Constitutional Republic and turned the nation into a Socialist Autocracy. Each election responsible citizens had a chance but election by election and war by never ending war and one economic disaster after another the term responsible was uncoupled from citizen and now they have enough.
Don’t cry America you got exactly what you asked for and what you deserve. Looks like you are going to get the whole enchilada this time.
By right of might and right of being supported by a majority who through the years held their own constitutional convention
Guess what..
You are on the losing side.
But look at it this way. Is there anybody left alive who lived in that Constitutional Republic? Only if they are 103 years of age.
Ignorance of history and the lack of humility in character is the grease upon which tyranny rises and our great nation will fall.
Amen! Of the two, I think the lack of humility, or better yet, sheer overwhelming hubris, is the worst of the two. That’s the mechanism through which Liberal types keep from assimilating new facts that do not confirm their own bias. Conservatives do it too, but it seems to be more often on tangential issues, not civilization destroying things.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Excellent observation Squeeky. I think the majority of people are sheep – they feel most comfortable in a flock – whether it’s Liberals or Skinheads or hardcore evangelicals (Christian/Jewish/Muslims). They live in their own bubbles and accept the “doctrines” so they don’t have to tax their own minds. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said “the mind once expanded i cannot return to its original dimensions” (or something like that). I used to believe that but time and experience has taught me otherwise. It’s almost genetic – certain people are born curious and entertain different POVs whereas others run from them. This is why so many highly educated/credentialed people are essentially close-minded IMO. And the current PC climate in higher ed is not helping.
OWH didn’t have TV Reality Shows and Social Media to do his thinking. Minds not used will contract and those two particular diseases of the mind inevitably end up with the participant becoming a zombie airhead. Ask them when was the last time they read a book. Excluding check out counter tabloids.
Sheep??? Oh, I saw this today on Twitter:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwsV-OZUUAAdcpF.jpg
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I agree Squeeky. We cannot possibly know everything, but to assume we have all we need to know is a fool’s errand.
Oily –
What you said goes right to the heart of the matter. Precisely because most people devote very little time to learn enough to become informed, the media should be more about explaining the most important issues first and foremost. It’s more important to know about political positions that might or might not likely involve military actions, than whether or not a given candidate said something offensive? Which is more to be feared: bombs or bimbos?
Thanks Bill. There are only three truths that guide me in everything else; 1. We have natural and unalienable rights. 2. Everyone has a sinful nature. 3. History will repeat itself if we deny the 2nd because that WILL lead to the denial of the 1st.
It is a mistake to be reliant on the media to explain anything. It is a mistake to expect the government will report on their own malfeasance. It is a mistake to elect anyone to a position of power over your life, liberty and property if they will not be held to any measurable standards. At this point I do not see any legitimate reason to place restrictions on who gets to vote. I sincerely doubt the outcome of this election would look much different if we simply allowed anyone breathing to enter the franchise.
Oily
Even people who are being held against their will in our version of the Gulag Achipelago should be allowed to vote.
Most people would sooner die than think; in fact they do so.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. – Bertrand Russell
Here’s a difference–
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-07/impeachment-process-starts-french-president-hollande-disclosing-classified-informati