Columns, Media, Politics, Society

Orange is the New Black: Clinton Complained Of Being “Shivved” By Comey

Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on latest statement on the cause of her electoral defeat . . . other than herself.  Clinton’s use of prison lingo is only marginally better than her curious decision to compare herself to Cersei Lannister,the murderous, incestuous queen in Game of Thrones.  Notably, after the column posted, it was confirmed that there were roughly 3000 government communications found on Weiner’s laptop — leading to the re-opening of the investigation. As noted below, the belated discovery (and the delay in resolving the controversy) can be laid at the feet of Clinton and her staff.  The Clinton team delayed turning over material and participating in interviews.  Their disclosure of material was incomplete and ultimately lead to the “shiv” referenced by Clinton.

Here is the column:

 

Perhaps it was her orange pantsuit that so many lampooned or Trump’s constant mantra of “lock her up,” but Hillary Clinton appears to be auditioning for the new season of “Orange Is The New Black.” Clinton recently complained that former FBI director James Comey “did shiv me, yeah.” The shiv in this case was the letter on the reopening of its investigation into Clinton’s emails that Comey sent to Congress 11 days before the presidential election last year, a letter that she blames for costing her the win. Clinton’s reliance on the Comey letter is dubious at best.

Ironically, it was Comey’s earlier press conference closing the Clinton probe that has raised the greatest ethical issues. In comparison to her other self-inflicted wounds, the October letter was a shiv short of a viable excuse for Clinton’s defeat. Clinton’s gritty reference of being shanked on the political prison yard is only the latest addition to a long list of causes other than herself for a disastrous defeat.

Many believe that Clinton was the worst possible candidate and perhaps the only major figure that could have lost to Trump. In an election that was expected to be the most anti-establishment in history, Democratic leaders engineered the nomination for the ultimate establishment figure and a politician with record negative polling, even before the email scandal.

Clinton then magnified those problems with what many voters viewed as a thoroughly unauthentic demeanor and tendency toward evasion. On issues ranging from her still undisclosed Wall Street speeches to her past legal controversies to her email scandal, Clinton continually changed her rationales and deflected responsibility. After the election, Clinton alternatively blamed sexism, racism, self-hating women, domineering boyfriends, Russian hackers, Bernie Sanders, and of course, James Comey.

From a legal perspective, it was fascinating to see Clinton select the October letter as opposed to the press conference in July 2016. The focus of most of the criticism of Comey has been this press conference, where he cleared Clinton after a one-year investigation into their email scandal while also criticizing Clinton’s handling of sensitive and classified information.

Comey noted that the actions of Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” and that the emails did include classified information, including “top secret” information. He declared that “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” but he did not view the case as worthy of prosecution. He further acknowledged that his press conference was irregular, but “in this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.”

Comey’s clearing of Clinton was used by her campaign to argue that the matter was closed not just legally but politically. However, others remained deeply disturbed by the press conference. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein cited the press conference in his letter calling for Trump to fire Comey. Rosenstein said that Comey’s references to Clinton were “derogatory” and “a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.”

In comparison, Comey’s letter on Oct. 28, 2016 was far less problematic. Congress was actively investigating the email scandal and has coordinated congressional investigations with the Justice Department. Congress asked Comey (and he had agreed) to let the committees know if the status of the investigation changed. Moreover, Comey had previously testified that the investigation was closed. Accordingly, he wrote to inform Congress of the status change while stating that there has been no determination on the significance of the new information or whether it would change the prior conclusions. It did not. On Nov. 6, 2016, the FBI declared that the new information did not alter its earlier conclusions in closing the investigation.

It is important to note that, if the October information was a “shiv,” it was a shiv that Clinton and her staff effectively made themselves. The October letter was triggered by undisclosed files that were found on the computer of Anthony Weiner, the husband of close Clinton aide Huma Abedin and was under investigation as a sex offender. The late discovery was the byproduct to the reckless handling of the emails and the failure of the Clinton team to collect and turn over such evidence. While professing cooperation with federal authorities, Clinton and her staff were slow to appear for interviews and turning over evidence.

They refused to be interviewed by State Department investigators trying to determine if there was a national security breach. They then delayed handing over key computers and information until they were given immunity deals from the FBI. Had the Clintons and their staff been truly transparent and cooperative from the outset, all of this information would have been known to the FBI and the matter likely put to rest before the July press conference. Instead, in a signature Clinton strategy, they were too clever by half.

They ended up prolonging the scandal through changing accounts and withholding information. In my view, Comey would have been better to hold back from sending that letter given the close election date. However, it is really the July press conference that is the focus of those looking at Comey’s possible misconduct as director. There likely would have been little need for the October letter if Comey had not held the earlier press conference and made his ill-advised public statements.

In the end, Comey both helped and hurt Clinton. The letter was unlikely a serious game changer in the election. The problem is that the polls show that many voters were put off by Clinton herself and not her emails. Describing Comey’s status letter as a “shiv” does little to improve Clinton’s position. All of the colorful rhetoric in the world will not retroactively create a plausible reason for Clinton losing the election, other than herself. Worse yet, most voters have long lost interest in the past or current problems facing Clinton. As explained by Red in “Orange Is The New Black,” “All problems are boring until they’re your own.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

185 thoughts on “Orange is the New Black: Clinton Complained Of Being “Shivved” By Comey”

    1. Everyone is fully aware of what took place and of your OCD. Take care of yourself anonymous. We don’t want to see you fall apart and have to be institutionalized.

  2. About Allan’s unsourced “parable”:

    A simple “mea culpa” would have sufficed.

    1. Can we get an apology from you for clogging up threads with lies and witless trivia?

      1. Ah, SOT’s playground isn’t all his (or hers) — s/he has to share. Too bad, so sad.

        1. I’d rather my playground not have dog doo all over it left by you. I’m not alone in that.

          1. You are right DSS. In fact, I remember a recent set of comments from her yappy dog. The two of them made twice the mess.

    2. anonymous, After all the explanations this latest post is just pure dumb. There was no need to do more than I did separating my comment from the parable written by an unknown. Paul states he has seen this parable multiple times on this blog without further ado. It’s not a matter of “mea culpa”, though to the mentally challenged it might seem so. and that is why such a dumb entry is made so late in the game.

      Then again who is making the entry? Anonymous whose stupidity is her accepted norm.

      1. Allan — who needs to be right and doesn’t take responsibility — says: “There was no need to do more than I did separating my comment from the parable written by an unknown.”

        Ric Bayless was right. You wanted people to think that you’d dreamed it up yourself.

        Allan grasping at straws — again: “Paul states he has seen this parable multiple times on this blog without further ado.”

        Exactly once, back in 2011, it would seem — and with attribution. (Just because Paul says it — without backing it up — doesn’t make it true.)

        LOL. On both counts. You’re a joke.

        1. Anonymous, you and hapless together lack the intellect to recognize that the parable was written by an unknown person ~20 or more years ago and has been repeated over and over again. Perhaps you have never read it before or perhaps your brain is so impaired that you can’t remember. You even were fooled into thinking a specific person you mentioned wrote it.

          I don’t care what you think because thinking is foreign to you so all that comes out is useless material focusing in on your own problems and lack of an intellect.

          I am glad to at least give you a laugh even if it is for the wrong reason. You are a pitiful creature spending immense of time trying to prove something that for most people would be smaller than their brain. I am sorry that this parable has taxed you to the degree it has.

        2. anonymous – I am not sure I go back as far as 2011, so I wouldn’t have seen it then and I have seen it twice before the current appearance. BTW, if I say anything, it IS the truth. You can take that to the bank.

          1. The mighty Paul “handling” people: “BTW, if I say anything, it IS the truth. You can take that to the bank.”

            More laughter.

            Prove it, Paul. Find the other “appearances.”

            And frankly, it doesn’t matter. Anyone who uses material other than their own needs to source it. And you boys know it.

            1. anonymous – by definition, a parable doesn’t have a source, usually. Did Jesus source his parables, did Aesop? Come on, get a grip on reality here.

              1. Give it up, Paul.

                Someone wrote it — someone who is not Allan.

                (If anyone needs to “get a grip on reality”, it’s the stooges Paul, Allan and SOT. And you might “get a life” while you’re at it — all three of you. )

                1. Give it up, Paul.

                  Says the woman who’s competing with Diane to see who can demonstrate the most pathological determination to have the last word.

                  1. “the most pathological determination to have the last word.”

                    No, sweetie, that would be Allan.

                    1. I might get the last word, anonymous because I like observing your behavior. You, however, try to get the last word for pathological reasons. You need help.

                2. Everyone else to anonymous is a stooge as she flail’s herself screaming that she is the only sane person in the insane asylum.

                    1. Allan – I keep up on theatre, film, literature (modern to ancient), archaeology, art, history, mythology, politics and a few of the sciences. Just bought a new art book at Costco that looks at art scientifically. I will probably start it this afternoon, as soon as I figure out where my wife mislaid it. 😉

                    2. Paul if after looking at the book you think it is worthwhile, let me know and I’ll go to Costco to check it out. I get loads of books, magazines etc. from art dealers, but I never went into any great detail to really learn that much about it. I buy what I like and have done quite well especially with young artists a number of who now have names, but I have no understanding of why I liked their work. My preferences are generally realized in a “Blink” of time.

                    3. Allan – you may have to go today and take a chance. There was only one copy at my Costco.

                    4. I believe in fate. It will either exist when I get to Costco or it won’t. I have to be with contractors for a few days and then I go to NY. No time to leave the house for shopping.

            2. Paul is an honest guy so he doesn’t have to prove anything, but you anonymous seem to have an inferiority complex that leads you to this continuous nonsensical ranting.

          2. Anonymous is projecting. Most people try to be truthful even if sometimes one might make a mistake. Since anonymous lies or says things knowingly that may not be true she projects that appearance of a lack of truthfulness onto others.

  3. As promised to Enigma:

    It appears the Russia scandal though not starting in 1992, saw its foundation laid at that time. The time period though not the federal scandal runs through several administrations from George Bush all the way to the Obama administration.

    Here is a blurb that approximates when the scandal started:

    “The inflated payments served two purposes: They enriched Kremlin-connected energy officials in the U.S. and in Russia to the tune of millions of dollars; and they compromised the American companies that paid the bribes, rendering players in U.S. nuclear energy — a sector critical to national security — vulnerable to blackmail by Moscow.”

    It starts under George Bush and Clinton (no involvement of the President’s being suggested at this time)” Naïvely viewing Russia as a “strategic partner” rather than a malevolent competitor, the Bush administration made a nuclear-cooperation agreement with the Kremlin in May 2008. That blunder, however, was tabled before Congress could consider it. That is because Russia, being Russia, invaded Georgia.

    In 2009, notwithstanding this aggression (which continues to this day with Russia’s occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia), President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton signaled the new administration’s determination to “reset” relations with Moscow. In this reset, renewed cooperation and commerce in nuclear energy would be central.”

    The Russian side of the assumed conspiracy needed a lobbyist whose name has not been disclosed but is being represented by the counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee. That lobbyist contacted the FBI and revealed what he knew and became a confidential source for the FBI led at that time by Mueller. The investigation was run by Rod Rosenstein, the present deputy Attorney General.

    “Equally important: According to reporting by John Solomon and Alison Spann in the Hill, the informant learned through conversations with Mikerin and others that Russian nuclear officials were trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons.”

    “In 2005, former President Clinton helped his Canadian billionaire friend and benefactor, Frank Giustra, obtain coveted uranium-mining rights from Kazakhstan’s dictator. “ … “a $3.5 billion windfall. Giustra and his partners thereafter contributed tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”

    The story gets deeper and more sordid as Hillary Clinton is now Secretary of State.“
    “Alas, Putin, the neighborhood bully, also wanted the Kazakh uranium. He leaned on Kazakhstan’s dictator, who promptly arrested the official responsible for selling the uranium-mining rights to Giustra’s company. This put Uranium One’s stake in jeopardy of being seized by the Kazakh government.

    As Uranium One’s stock plunged, its panicked executives turned to the State Department, where their friend Hillary Clinton was now in charge.”

    That leads to the reset button and all sorts of Clinton payoffs and meetings.

    “Keeping Congress in the Dark”

    “Clearly, in this atmosphere, disclosure of the racketeering enterprise that Rosatom’s American subsidiary was, at that very moment, carrying out would have been the death knell of the asset transfer to Russia.” …

    “ That was not going to be allowed to happen. It appears that no disclosure of Russia’s racketeering and strong-arming was made to CFIUS or to Congress — not by Secretary Clinton, not by Attorney General Holder, and certainly not by President Obama. “

    “A Sweetheart Plea Helps the Case Disappear”

    “Still, a lid needed to be kept on the case. It would have made for an epic Obama administration scandal, and a body blow to Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes, if in the midst of Russia’s 2014 aggression, public attention had been drawn to the failure, four years earlier, to prosecute a national-security case in order to protect Russia’s takeover of U.S. nuclear assets.”

    Arrests were made, but kept quiet and lesser charges were utilized. That involved Rosenstein again. This kept the facts secret despite the fact that our national security was being undermined.

    “Interestingly, as the plea agreement shows, the Obama DOJ’s Fraud Section was then run by Andrew Weissmann, who is now one of the top prosecutors in Robert Mueller’s ongoing special-counsel investigation of suspected Trump collusion with Russia.”

    “There was still one other problem to tamp down. That was the informant — the lobbyist who alerted the FBI to the Russian racketeering enterprise back in 2009. He wanted to talk.

    Specifically, as his attorney, Ms. Toensing, explains, the informant wanted to tell Congress what he knows — about what the FBI and the Justice Department could already have proved in 2010 when CFIUS signed off on Russia’s acquisition of American nuclear material, and about what he’d learned of Russian efforts to curry favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton. But he was not allowed to talk.”

    “It turns out, the lawyer explains, that the FBI had induced him to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The Justice Department warned him that it was enforceable — even against disclosures to Congress. “

    “This stinks.” The rest of the article is below.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/node/452972/print

  4. It appears the Russia scandal though not starting in 1992, saw its foundation laid at that time. The time period, though not the federal scandal, runs through several administrations from George Bush Senior all the way to the Obama administration.

    Here is a blurb that approximates when the scandal started:

    “The inflated payments served two purposes: They enriched Kremlin-connected energy officials in the U.S. and in Russia to the tune of millions of dollars; and they compromised the American companies that paid the bribes, rendering players in U.S. nuclear energy — a sector critical to national security — vulnerable to blackmail by Moscow.”

    It starts under George Bush and Clinton (no involvement of the President’s being suggested at this time): “Naïvely viewing Russia as a “strategic partner” rather than a malevolent competitor, the Bush administration made a nuclear-cooperation agreement with the Kremlin in May 2008. That blunder, however, was tabled before Congress could consider it. That is because Russia, being Russia, invaded Georgia.

    In 2009, notwithstanding this aggression (which continues to this day with Russia’s occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia), President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton signaled the new administration’s determination to “reset” relations with Moscow. In this reset, renewed cooperation and commerce in nuclear energy would be central.”

    The Russian side of the assumed conspiracy needed a lobbyist whose name has not been disclosed but is being represented by the counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee. That lobbyist contacted the FBI and revealed what he knew and became a confidential source for the FBI led at that time by Mueller. The investigation was run by Rod Rosenstein, the present deputy Attorney General.

    “Equally important: According to reporting by John Solomon and Alison Spann in the Hill, the informant learned through conversations with Mikerin and others that Russian nuclear officials were trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons.”

    “In 2005, former President Clinton helped his Canadian billionaire friend and benefactor, Frank Giustra, obtain coveted uranium-mining rights from Kazakhstan’s dictator. “ … “a $3.5 billion windfall. Giustra and his partners thereafter contributed tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”

    The story gets deeper and more sordid as Hillary Clinton is now Secretary of State.“
    “Alas, Putin, the neighborhood bully, also wanted the Kazakh uranium. He leaned on Kazakhstan’s dictator, who promptly arrested the official responsible for selling the uranium-mining rights to Giustra’s company. This put Uranium One’s stake in jeopardy of being seized by the Kazakh government.

    As Uranium One’s stock plunged, its panicked executives turned to the State Department, where their friend Hillary Clinton was now in charge.”

    That leads to the reset button and all sorts of Clinton payoffs and meetings.

    “Keeping Congress in the Dark”

    “Clearly, in this atmosphere, disclosure of the racketeering enterprise that Rosatom’s American subsidiary was, at that very moment, carrying out would have been the death knell of the asset transfer to Russia.” …
    “ That was not going to be allowed to happen. It appears that no disclosure of Russia’s racketeering and strong-arming was made to CFIUS or to Congress — not by Secretary Clinton, not by Attorney General Holder, and certainly not by President Obama. “

    “A Sweetheart Plea Helps the Case Disappear”

    “Still, a lid needed to be kept on the case. It would have made for an epic Obama administration scandal, and a body blow to Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes, if in the midst of Russia’s 2014 aggression, public attention had been drawn to the failure, four years earlier, to prosecute a national-security case in order to protect Russia’s takeover of U.S. nuclear assets.”

    Arrests were made but kept quiet and lesser charges were utilized. That involved Rosenstein again. This kept the facts secret despite the fact that our national security was being undermined.

    “Interestingly, as the plea agreement shows, the Obama DOJ’s Fraud Section was then run by Andrew Weissmann, who is now one of the top prosecutors in Robert Mueller’s ongoing special-counsel investigation of suspected Trump collusion with Russia.”

    “There was still one other problem to tamp down. That was the informant — the lobbyist who alerted the FBI to the Russian racketeering enterprise back in 2009. He wanted to talk.

    Specifically, as his attorney, Ms. Toensing, explains, the informant wanted to tell Congress what he knows — about what the FBI and the Justice Department could already have proved in 2010 when CFIUS signed off on Russia’s acquisition of American nuclear material, and about what he’d learned of Russian efforts to curry favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton. But he was not allowed to talk.”

    “It turns out, the lawyer explains, that the FBI had induced him to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The Justice Department warned him that it was enforceable — even against disclosures to Congress. “

    “This stinks.” The rest of the article is below.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/node/452972/print

  5. Comey’s letter was released on a Friday. In the days leading up to that letter, the news was packed with stories speculating that Clinton would win by a landslide. Those same stories suggested Democrats might take the Senate in addition to the White House. ‘

    Did Comey’s letter change all those dynamics? I’m sure they did! Comey’s letter strongly hinted that Clinton faced imminent indictment; creating the impression that there was no point in voting for her. That was ‘my’ impression, and I’m a staunch Democrat. Nevertheless I voted on Election Day. But no one can possibly measure the number of would-be Hillary supporters (and former Bernie supporters) who stayed home on Election Day.

    1. Likewise, one might argue that the fake Russian-hooker-piss-party dossier full of wild allegations against Trump also influenced the election. Now we have the Fusion GPS founder refusing to testify before Congress as to who paid them to compile the dossier that was based entirely on unverified disinformation gathered from Russian government officials. Then they shopped it around to the DC media until BuzzFeed finally published it. So a highly questionable document full of allegations damaging to Trump was released in the media in order to give voters “a chance to make up their own minds about the truthfulness of the allegations” against Trump — without any verification by the media — and that didn’t influence the election? The kicker is that the allegations in the dossier came from “Russian government officials” and our media ran with the story anyway to hurt Trump.

      1. One might argue that the refusal to testify to “Congress” was actually a refusal to respond to a renegade Committee Chair who allegedly recused himself from the investigation and who seems determined to disrupt the investigation and not advance it. The company is definitely talking to Mueller though so don’t worry.

        1. Sen. Grassley is not “a renegade committee chair”.
          Attempts to interview Christopher Steele by Grassley’s committe predate the appointment of Mueller.
          It’s been reported that Steele is talking to Mueller…I have seen no reports that Fusion GPS is talking to Mueller.
          It remains to be seen if the Fusion GPS execs will reveal who hired them to have the Russian dossier compiled.

          1. I wasn’t speaking of Grassley but of Devin Nunes who after recusing himself has been issuing subpoenas without the knowledge of the Committee. Attempts to interview Steele is a completely different thing than Fusion GPS who has testified before one of the committee’s for several hours and talked to Mueller.
            I’m sure I’ve seen reporting that Mueller talked to Fusion GPS, I don’t doubt at all that Mueller know who hired Fusion which to my understanding was initially Republicans doing opposition research. It’s clear that Nunes and Grassley are trying to discredit the report which includes many things disputed by Trump, many things verified by independent investigation (i.e. Trump Tower Moscow) and absolutely nothing proven false.

            1. Russian shenanigans started innocently in the 1990’s under Bush Senior and Clinton. Since then things spiraled and the Trump/ Russia case is a ruse. I’ll repost part of the history of Russian entanglement previously posted and will so above since it is long. The original citation exists there as well for anyone wishing the complete article.

            2. From what I’ve seen reported to date, the Fusion GPS executives testified in closed session before the Senate (Grassley) committee.
              Those executives took the fifth on a number of issues…the most significant issue they ducked was the question of who hired them.
              Steele consistently refused to testify before the Senate committee; it’s unknown what he told Mueller.
              I have seen no reports that Mueller talked to Fusion GPS, or that Mueller knows who hired GPS.
              Mueller and Grassley are investigating Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign/ election.
              It is the belief of some that they should only investigate collusion on the part of the Trump campaign, and forget about the connection between the Russian dossier and Americans.
              So there is selective interest by some as to the extent and targets of investigation; i.e., is the investigation about Russian collusion, or only collusion on the part of the Trump campaign.

              1. We’ve seen no reports whatsoever from Mueller which is as it should be. Steele had no obligation to talk to anyone, not being a citizen, yet voluntarily talked to Mueller. Let’s not forget that it was Steele that sent the dossier to the FBI in the first place. Not wanting to talk to the highly political House investigations and the sometimes political Senate one seems to be merited. Especially when Nunes and Grassley are doing all they can to discredit it.
                I’m curious as to who hired Fusion GPS but not to the point that not knowing makes the information not usable. Investigators are independently verifying what they can and have done so in a number of instances. If Steele chooses not to reveal information about his sources to Congress, knowing they leak like a sieve (same could be said of the President) who could blame him if it might get those sources outed or killed.

                I believe the investigation is looking at any American involvement, even outside of the Trump campaign to see if Americans indeed helped. We don’t actually know what Mueller is investigating with certainty and have no reason to believe he isn’t looking into everything. I have a personal ranking as far as the credibility of the investigations. Mueller 91% Senate 55% House 22%. These could change daily but that’s my present opinion. I’m also not sure that if presented actual evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors” the Congress would do a damn thing. We will see?

                1. enigma – I have always held the crime must be committed while in office, not before taking office. So far, Trump has not done anything illegal. However, the courts have held that impeachment is a political crime and it is up to the legislatures to decide whether the crime has been committed.

                  1. So if for example “the party” had been receiving funds from a foreign Country before taking office after pledging to make things better for that country by performing acts after taking office (like removing sanctions) then no problem? Or if studies of financial records demonstrate a pattern of illegal activity before taking office, still okay. Or if “the party” is in office due to illegal foreign contributions. Imagine “a party” is charged with a rape or murder that took place when out of office, no harm no foul?

              2. Reply to Enigma’s 6:49PM comment.
                I don’t think that Mueller himself has commented publically on any aspects of his investigation.
                There were numerous, credible reports that he met with Steele…I referred to those reports, and to the fact that I had not seen reports that Mueller has met with Fusion GPS executives.
                You ststed that you have seen reports that Mueller has talked with Fusion GPS and your belief that Mueller knows who hired them.
                If you run across those reports about Mueller talking with Fusion GPS, I’d like to see those reports.
                There is a more fundamental issue than the parsing of words about “what Mueller said” and what’s been reported.
                If Fusion GPS had hired Steele to compile a damaging Russian dossier on Hillary Clinton, would there be, or should there be, questions about who hired Fusion GPS.
                Or do you just ignore that, and focus on the unsubstantiated claims claims in the dossier.
                I don’t know if Steele gave the report to the FBI, or if the FBI paid him to get the report.
                When McCain got ahold of it, he gave it to the FBI…I’m not sure of Steele’s contact with the FBI prior to McCain rurning over the report.
                Steele and GPS are being sued for libel in a British court, based on allegations made in the Russian dossier.
                Steel may be beyond the reach of the U.S. criminal justice system, but he may have get tangled up in a protracted civil suit.

          2. There has been so much scandal by the FBI when Mueller was in charge and Rothstein was acting as a prosecutor that it is in the best interest of all of these people involved in dirty dealings to keep the public from knowing what actually happened. Deals were made before to protect themselves so one can only assume that they will attempt to make more deals and hide their tracks if they are able.

        2. Enigma, One might also argue that the refusal to testify to “Congress” was actually a refusal to reveal the role the FBI had in digging up dirt on Trump in order to influence the election.

          Do you really believe Mueller is above taking action to “disrupt the investigation and not advance it”? Mueller will be ‘advancing the investigation’ alright, but why do you assume it is necessarily in the direction of truth and not agenda driven? Mueller was FBI director for over a decade. If the evidence reveals institutional corruption within his beloved FBI, do you really believe he will expose it rather than bury it? Why question Nunes’s integrity, but not Mueller’s?

          1. And keep in mind that finding out who paid for the GPS oppo research matters because this unsubstantiated dossier, based on info provided by Russian government officials, was used to obtain a FISA warrant that allowed the Obama administration to spy on members of the Trump campaign. So it matters who paid for it. Afterall, Mueller is investigating “Russian influence” in the election, right?

          2. “Why question Nunes’s integrity, but not Mueller’s?”

            Ideological blindness.

            1. I’ve seen nothing from Mueller to give me cause for concern.

              You mean a pre-dawn no-knock raid on a target who has legal counsel and has co-operated fully is not a cause for concern?

              How about allocating 30% of the positions on your legal team to 4-digit Democratic Party donors? Very few people pony up cash to political parties on that scale. It’s not that difficult to find lawyers who do not.

              1. How do you know Manafort was fully cooperating? Think before you answer. 4-Digit Democratic party donors, such a huge amount, Did they also give to Republicans? You’re stretching in both instances.

    2. One might also argue that the MSM made sure that “the news was packed with stories speculating that Clinton would win by a landslide” in order to influence the election so that would-be Trump voters might stay home on election day?

    1. 34,000 deaths by gun.

      2,500,000 deaths by aging.

      88,000 deaths due to alcohol.

      40,000 deaths by travel on highways.

      Opioids have been declared the “enemy.”

      There is nothing as beneficial to a politician as an “enemy.”

      Do liberals every think that people can and should take care of themselves?

      Leave the poor little “opioids” alone and compel people to be responsible for their own lives.

  7. SIDEBAR:

    Res Ipsa Loquitur.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    – Xi Jinping states, “It is time for us to take centre stage in the world…” and enter a “…new era…” as the

    leader of the Chinese communist dictatorship, sets goals for global economic hegemony.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    – President George W. Bush states, “…we cannot wish globalism away…” and that the

    U.S. must continue “…wise and sustained global engagement.”
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    The American “swamp” and shadow government’s “globalism” is the same as

    China’s “communism,” both of which require the global nullification of national sovereignty.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________

    So say comrades Jinping and Bush.

  8. (music to tune of Henry The 8th)
    I’m Hillary the 8th I am!
    Hillary the 8th I am I am!
    I got married to the criminal next door.
    He’s been rear ended seven times before.
    I am not talking car crash.
    It’s rear enders of the other kind…
    For there ain’t no name like Hillary!
    Hillary the 8th I am!

  9. Oh, I don’t know. Her usage of prison lingo may be prophetic.

    The DOJ delayed their investigation of Russian bribery to the Clinton foundation, and its infiltration into our entire Uranium industry, until after Obama’s Administration granted them 1/5 of all of our Uranium and Russia paid the Clinton foundation $145 million, and Bill Clinton $500,000, double his normal speaking fee of $250,000 an hour.

    1. “A day earlier, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, vowed at a public hearing to “get to the bottom of this issue.” This was as The Hill reported that the FBI had evidence as early as 2009 that Russian operatives used bribes, kickbacks and other dirty tactics to expand Moscow’s atomic energy footprint in the U.S. — yet the Obama administration approved the uranium deal benefiting Moscow anyway.”

      I read about this years ago, and it turned out to be true.

      If Obama’s name had been replaced with Trump, would the wrongdoing have been clear?

  10. Day after day reading JT’s posts reminds me of Mark Twain’s quote, “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled”

  11. There you go again. With the daily failures of your favorite President, leaving no doubt whatsoever that he is totally unqualified to be President, you pivot to slam Hillary Clinton, AGAIN!

    1. What failures?

      Congress has failed on both sides, but that is not to be blamed on the President. He has done a lot including increasing GDP growth to 3% in nine months while Obama was telling us that we would all have to learn to live with less.

        1. The original estimate for 2nd Q. GDP growth was 2.6%.
          The final number was 3% for 2nd Q. GDP growth.
          This was reported in late August by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, CNBC, and others.

        2. Swarth, first you say the growth was not 3% and then when showed it was you again try to diminish the President’s success with a follow-up comment that might turn out to be true or untrue. It shows how your mind thinks. You don’t give credit where credit is due and you are willing to jump on any bit of information that matches what you wish to believe. Even if the economy was growing at 2.6% at this time it still would be an improvement. It demonstrates that you think with your ideology and not with your mind.

          1. I give Trump some credit for a rising stock market but that it is about it although the fed deserves more of the credit. He has no tax bill, no healthcare proposal, and no infrastructure bill. Should the fed raise rates too quickly or should a tax bill fail to materialize, lookout below. When it comes to the markets, I try to keep my political beliefs separate from my investing.

            1. Swarth, it appears you do not understand the functions of the different branches of government. If the Congress refuses to act, nothing can get done except for what the President has done which has been substantial and has caused our economy to improve along with the labor force increasing. He has been pushing and eventually, Congress will either act or hopefully be replaced.

              With the corruption that existed from the last administration and the lack of budget constraint, we were moving towards a failed government. Today the direction the government is heading is much better.

                1. Again you seem to lack the ability to put these ideas into your own words and then provide a citation for further explanation. This means you might not adequately understand what is being said.

                  1. Holier than thou, Allan wrote the following to swarthmore mom:

                    “Again you seem to lack the ability to put these ideas into your own words and then provide a citation for further explanation. This means you might not adequately understand what is being said.”

                    LOL, Allan.

                    https://jonathanturley.org/2017/10/19/orange-is-the-new-black-clinton-complained-of-being-shivved-by-comey/comment-page-2/#comment-1666571

                    1) Not in his own words.
                    2) No citation.

                    and hmmm….

                    3) “This means you might not adequately understand what is being said.” -Allan

                    1. I copied one form of a parable that has been around for about 20 years, maybe more. I can’t help it that you don’t know these things. There is no point in rewriting something that has been written in so many forms. You, anonymous always back away from using your own words when it comes to factual data and its interpretation because your knowledge is very thin.

                      Read the parable and then debate the subject of taxes and why when raising taxes the rich pay a lot more than the poor and why when lowering taxes the tax break is greater for the rich. That is the point of the parable, but you want to provide names of people that have denied any involvement in writing the parable.

                      There is virtually no substance in anything you say and that has been strongly proven in your most recent coments.

        3. Are you saying that the fat, immoral moron stinking up our White House has anything to do with the economy? What, exactly, did fatso do? Please enlighten me.

      2. Thought he was a great deal maker. lol Mnuchin said yesterday if they don’t get their tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations, the markets will crash.They have yet to come up with a bill.

        1. You call it a tax cut for the wealthy when it is a tax cut for everyone. Take note that 70% of taxes paid are paid by the wealthy and 84% of the taxes are paid by the top 20%. You seem to believe that tax the rich is the road to wealth. Therefore, you might advocate raising taxes on everyone or just the rich, but when there is a tax decrease you want to deny the rich the same decrease.

          Below is an explanation of the Tax System in a form that might be easier for you to understand.

          1. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

            If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
            So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

            The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so – the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

            But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.”

              1. Swarth, you were working on a Masters in Economics, but you are unable to say in your own words what someone else is describing. This type of reliance isn’t good for one’s future, present or past.

              1. Dummy, this is something straight from the net and has used dollars as well as pounds (maybe other denominations as well). It’s been sent all over by email for a long time and I think the author is unknown. I didn’t try to take credit for it nor would I. I posted it separately and below my comment. Your accusation sounds as if you have low self-esteem and need to puff yourself up.

                  1. Tell what to the judge? That you are a dummy? He probably knows that like most of us do.

                    I went to Snopes one of your favorite left wing sites and as I said the authorship of this parable is unknown and has been penned many times in slightly different forms. I guess your attribution of David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. — Professor of Economics demonstrates just how dumb you can be. Even Bill Buckley used the basis of this parable for National Review in 2001.

                    You really have to develop an intellect. It might help boost your self-esteem and permit you to think a little better.

                    2. Are you finally getting the point of why there was no name attached and it was placed separately from my comments? You got snookered into who wrote it and what the original content said. You were wrong and you can’t admit it.

                    3. Allan’s twisted “reasoning”:

                      “Are you finally getting the point of why there was no name attached and it was placed separately from my comments? You got snookered into who wrote it and what the original content said. You were wrong and you can’t admit it.” –Allan

                      LOL, Allan. I didn’t get “snookered.” I don’t give a rat’s a$$ who said it. The point, which almost everyone — but you — will understand, is this:

                      You aren’t the author. You didn’t even need to include a link. Just saying something like the following would have sufficed:

                      This has been around for a lot of years and has been attributed to a number of people. I’m not the author — and I’m not sure who is, but…

                    4. You got snookered anonymous and just can’t admit it. You even provided an author’s name and he wasn’t the author. It’s all over the net, but you were too lazy to check out your work before trying to correct another and by doing so you made a fool out of yourself and now recognize you were snookered.

                      Keep trying to place the blame on another when your research was terrible. If you weren’t sure of the authorship instead of making a fool of yourself trying to score points you could have asked who wrote it. You didn’t because you believed this was your chance to shine with the original author’s name. But instead, you made a fool out of yourself and involved others in your stupidity.

                2. Seems you could have copied the tag line as easily as you copied the entire article.

                  This is not paraphrasing, your post and the linked article from anonymous match word for word. The only differences are line breaks and the final quotation mark at the end of yours.

                  And your response is to call her a dummy?

                  Aren’t you the one who chides people for making comments that, in your opinion, don’t contribute to the discussion?

                  You stomp your feet real quick whenever someone offers a contrary opinion.

                  1. Which “tag line” should I have copied? The story is all over the net in multiple forms and repeated all over. Your friend anonymous copied it from a site that attributed the parable to the wrong person and you still don’t know that. You guys are terribly uninformed. I do not believe anyone knows who originally wrote this piece.

                    “one who chides people for making comments that, in your opinion, don’t contribute to the discussion?”

                    That parable contributed by way of explaining something that is pretty simple to most educated folk that aren’t trying to prop up their ideology. How come you didn’t check anonymous’s work? How come you took the attribution anonymous provided as if that were documented.

                    Your complaint demonstrates the shallowness that you live in. It would be good for you to get off the net and go to a library.

                    1. You missed my point, Allen.

                      I don’t care about the tagline — the point is that your post is word-for-word with the link anon provided. You copy/pasted most likely from the very link anon provided.

                      The quotes line up (except for the very last one, which you probably added as there is no opening quotation mark, just a misplaced closing one), the commas, periods, question marks, exclamation points, etc., all match.

                      So if this ‘parable’ is so widespread, don’t you think it odd that anon found a version that matches your post word-for-word?

                    2. Ric Bayless – it is odd that a number of people have attacked the supposed attribution of this parable (which by definition has no attribution) which we have seen variations of over the last couple of years. It is really much ado about nothing.

                    3. “one who chides people for making comments that, in your opinion, don’t contribute to the discussion?” says the mighty wordsmith, Allen.

                      I was referencing yoiu calling anon a dummy, not your copy/pasted parable.

                      “Your complaint demonstrates the shallowness that you live in. It would be good for you to get off the net and go to a library.” says the word warrior, Allen.

                      You’re here every time I stop by, and that’s not very often, with many comments in pretty much all the threads, so maybe you should take your own advice and stop assuming what others do with their time because it is very obvious how you spend yours.

                    4. “I don’t care about the tagline — the point is that your post is word-for-word with the link anon provided. You copy/pasted most likely from the very link anon provided.”

                      You missed the point. The citation provided copied it from elsewhere and you can find exact copies and slightly different copies all over the net. Anonymous’s citation wasn’t original. She was snookered believing it was and was written by David R. Kamerschen. She was wrong and so was the one that cited the parable. I copied it from one of many and you were trapped by anonymous’s foolishness.

                      “So if this ‘parable’ is so widespread, don’t you think it odd that anon found a version that matches your post word-for-word?”

                      Of course, it can be word for word for he copied it from somewhere else and all those copies and paraphrases are all over the net and in many people’s email boxes time and time again over around 20 years or more. Don’t bring yourself down to anonymous’s level. The water is dirty at that level.

                    5. “I was referencing yoiu calling anon a dummy, not your copy/pasted parable.”

                      She was a dummy. She tried to get a cheap shot and didn’t check her work over and that made a fool out of her, If she was confused as to the authorship she could have asked and I would have explained that I didn’t think anyone knew nor does anyone know for sure what the original words were. If I had said that I wrote it, then her claim would be justified. But I even separated that story from my text.

                      “You’re here every time I stop by”

                      I have plenty of time and I already know what I am talking about something that anonymous is lacking. She was snookered and was hooked and you followed through and became entangled with someone who just isn’t up to snuff.

                      I’m pretty new here trying to learn the logic of a group of people that seem ignorant of history and politics where ideology seems to dominate their thinking processes. I find that interesting and I find anonymous to be one of the most interesting of subjects. I do this while I do other things. Right now I am watching TV news on Tivo so I can speed up the shows. Anonymous doesn’t have enough intellect to make me actually have to concentrate so I find her pretty boring.

                    6. “It is really much ado about nothing.”

                      Thanks, Paul. I think anonymous is much ado about nothing.

                    7. Allen,

                      Warble all you want, but your ‘parble’ comment is a word-for-word copy of the link anon supplied.

                      “I’m pretty new here trying to learn the logic of a group of people that seem ignorant of history and politics where ideology seems to dominate their thinking processes.” — Allen

                      How does one learn the “logic of a group?” Either things are logical, or they are not.

                      The ‘people’ not ignorant of history and politics left this place long ago.

                      It’s been fun to witness your and DSS/SOT, et al., arguments; which can be summed up as lacking, especially in instances of where others point out your diminished lack of attention which leads to declaratives by both parties mentioned above.

                      In other words — you’re full of shit.

                      Good luck.

                    8. “but your ‘parble’ comment is a word-for-word copy of the link anon supplied.”

                      Ric, I guess no one can help you. You still don’t get the point. Anon’s copy was a copy off of someone else’s who copied still someone else. This parable (with changes) has been around for around 20 years or more being copied over and over again. Not only did she use a citation that quoted another, she attributed the citation to the wrong person.

                      “How does one learn the “logic of a group?” Either things are logical, or they are not.”

                      Not all logic is the same and logic can be based upon false constructs. False constructs are what anonymous frequently bases her ideas upon.

                      ” you’re full of shit.”

                      Unfortunately, Ric, that seems to be all you have, foul language and dependence upon another’s dumb claims. Next time we meet have a bit of fact that is documented and try to use a bit of logic.

                    9. “Not all logic is the same and logic can be based upon false constructs.” — so says Allen.

                      Perhaps you’re not familiar with logic — as in formal logic — as in deductive reasoning in which false constructs are found and addressed by a deductive process.

                      It seems you are a more an inductive reasoning kind of guy, ya know — relativism — to prove your point, and then move on to your next point hoping no one notices.

                      The purpose of deductive reasoning is to ferret out false assumptions in the chain of premises, which you seem to have in abundance.

                    10. “Perhaps you’re not familiar with logic ”

                      I’m quite familiar with logic and the lack of it which creates a big problem for many with beliefs similar to yours.

                      “ to prove your point, and then move on to your next point hoping no one notices.”

                      That is a strange one in this circumstance. The discussion revolved around taxes, not plagiarism. Did you not note that? Anonymous changed the subject with a comment. Everything she said didn’t amount to a pile of beans, but she said it and stands by it. Fine. I stated what was in my mind at the time and why I wrote the parable in a paragraph all by itself. One can believe whatever they want, but at this point, everything said on the matter was said. Nothing was being added or subtracted.

                      In comes Ric Bayless substituting for Anonymous’s yappy dog going off on a tangent from what the conversation was really about, taxes.

                  2. @Ric Bayless

                    Ric,

                    Thanks for your insights and input last night. I appreciate your support.

                    1. Anonymous, you need all the support you can get. As far as Ric goes one day he might even recognize that when he, without thinking about the stupidity of your attack and the mistakes contained within that attack, went down in the mud with you he got himself dirty. He probably can clean himself off, but can you?

                    2. Allen,

                      With what grace you fall.

                      Speak for yourself; leave my presumed responses to me.

                      Do you understand?

                    3. “Speak for yourself; leave my presumed responses to me.”

                      Ric, first learn to attribute things to the right person and learn when it is worthwhile to argue.

                      The parable was to explain why raising and lowering taxes affect the rich more than the poor and why that makes sense. That should have been the discussion, but anonymous is a mindless twit so without realizing that the parable was is in common usage written by an unknown person she decided to create an issue that didn’t exist. The real discussion got lost. She can’t discuss anything of substance. Can you?

                    4. I understand the lame ass parable, Allen.

                      The first defense of plagiarizers is to claim they didn’t claim it was their work — as if this resolves anything.

                      Writing, unless otherwise stated, is assumed to be the work of the author. If not, it is the author’s responsibility to point out ‘borrowed’ phrases — or in this case — paragraphs of identical text.

                      What you don’t seem to understand is that — by omission — you probably hoped the ‘parable’ would be attributed to you.

                    5. Ric Bayless – in the years I have been on this blog I have seen that particular parable used at least three times. At no time did was there an attribution and never did I think the author created it. Same happened this time. You are having a little trouble with the learning curve on here. 😉

                    6. “I understand the lame ass parable”

                      I guess Ric, that means we are making progress. I thought it may have been a little too complicated for you. Do you realize that the name provided by anonymous was wrong or haven’t you figured that out yet? Do you realize that what anonymous linked to was copied from somewhere else? You should realize that by now because you have been told numerous times.

                      Did I take credit for the parable? If I did why did I place it outside of what I wrote and why didn’t I make it clear that I wrote it? If I wanted credit wouldn’t I want to make sure people understood? You aren’t a slow learner, are you?

                      Anonymous changed the subject from discussing taxes to discussing who wrote the parable. I don’t care who wrote the parable. In fact next time I will place your name as the author just like anonymous placed the wrong name as the author. You have permitted your brain to be taken over by anonymous… a horrible fate.

                    8. “Anonymous changed the subject from discussing taxes to discussing who wrote the parable. I don’t care who wrote the parable.”

                      Of course you don’t care — now that it’s known that it didn’t spring from your ever present fount of knowledge.

                      So what if anon changed the subject. That’s the way blogs work.

                    9. Ric letting everyone know: “At least i have a brain”

                      The more you speak, the less obvious it is that you have a functioning brain.

                    10. “So what if anon changed the subject. That’s the way blogs work.”

                      That was your complaint, silly (just one or two replies earlier you said I changed the subject). Do you do dog tricks for anonymous?

                      You are NOT Bayless. You are Hapless and though you may never realize it you have been shafted by anonymous.

          2. I understood exactly what Mnuchin said. Not getting into the weeds on this today.

            1. Swarth, You think you understand. Unfortunately, economics is complex so the simple answer for those not well informed is to create wealth by taxing the rich.

              1. Since i worked on but did not complete on a masters in econ, I don’t need you to mansplain economics to me.

                1. You studied economics but you write in progtrash talking points, some of which entered circulation nearly 40 years ago. You ought to ask your old school for a refund.

                  1. Another mansplainer heard from: frequently tossing in “progrash” to try to make his “points”

                    1. He is both smarter and meaner than most here but very very narrow minded. 🙂

                    2. There is no such thing as a ‘mansplainer’. It’s another rhetorical game. Most of us get enough of that in domestic settings.

                      In your case Elaine, if you wish to be spoken to respectfully, you could meet us half way and quit being a twit.

                2. Swarth, all that tells us is that you worked on something you never had a good grasp of. The economics I refer to is quite basic unless you believe in something other than capitalism. If so you are behind the times as even the Chinese are relying upon more capitalistic enterprises.

                3. @swarthmoremom (about DSS/SOT)

                  Yep.

                  (He’s not as smart as he likes to think he is, though.)

                    1. You need to re-read Allan’s illustration. Twitter shit will only take you just so far in understanding how the real world works.

                    3. Anonymous, this has been sent all over by email and I don’t think there is any known attribution. It is simply a good lesson in economics that probably flies over your head.

                      I don’t plagiarize and placed that story as a separate entity. Apparently, you like cheap tricks because there is not much behind your mask of anonymity.

                    5. Anonymous, I know it is hard for you to think, but I placed the item separately to be used as an example. I guess you need a lot of help to know truth from fiction and all those things that come naturally to your more intellectually inclined fellow bloggers.

        1. Allan concludes: “Not the brightest statement one can make.

          So says Pogo-man.

          1. anonymous, you don’t even know your own name. Can’t you say anything that has significant meaning? Are you that devoid of intellect?

    3. Most of the world saw Hillary get ‘shivved’ into the back of her Scooby van as she literally collapsed on the anniversary of 9/11 just weeks before the election. Hillary is, and always has been a mess.

      There’s just so much rich material to choose from when it comes to explaining what’s wrong with Hillary. First time she ran, she lost to an unknown black man with a muslim name, and then she lost to Donald Trump! Do you see how smart the voters really are? She was counting on the stupidity of the American people to put her into the White House. She was wrong (again) and the voters were right (again).

      Remind us again, what qualified Crooked Hillary to be President? That she’s corrupt as the day is long? That she is a sociopathic congenital liar? That scandal follows her wherever she goes? That she has terrible judgment? That she is owned by Wall Street? That she didn’t even bother to campaign? That her campaign slogan was “I’m With Her” which had nothing to do with what she would do for voters or the country – but rather it conveyed her expectation that all the voters should help her achieve her lifelong dream of being president and breaking the glass ceiling with her vajayjay? The voters elected Trump who actually campaigned and worked hard to earn their votes with a campaign that told voters what he would do for them and the country. And he is keeping his campaign promises.

      As Jimmy Dore says so succinctly about Hillary: “You lost to Trump! You’re a loser. People hate you. You’re repulsive. You’re a bad politician. And you’re an even worse person.”

      Every day that people hear what comes out of Hillary’s mouth it becomes absolutely clear that Donald Trump was the correct choice in this election. No doubt about it.

      1. If you cycle back to the year Dwight Eisenhower retired, you find that candidates who were serious competitors who had a measure of executive experience or something which might substitute for it were as follows:

        Stuart Symington
        Hubert Humphrey (3x)
        Lyndon Johnson
        Barry Goldwater
        Nelson Rockefeller (2x)
        Wm. Scranton
        Henry Cabot Lodge
        Robert Kennedy
        Edmund Muskie
        George McGovern (2x)
        Henry Jackson (2x)
        George Wallace (4x)
        Jimmy Carter
        Morris Udall
        Jerry Brown (2x)
        Ronald Reagan (2x)
        George Bush (2x)
        Walter Mondale
        Gary Hart
        Michael Dukakis
        Richard Gephardt
        Albert Gore (2x)
        Robert Kerrey
        Bilge Clinton
        Paul Tsongas
        Ross Perot (2x)
        Robert Dole (2x)
        Steve Forbes
        Alan Keyes
        George W. Bush
        Bill Bradley
        Howard Dean
        Wesley Clark
        Mike Huckabee
        Mitt Romney (2x)
        Donald Trump
        John Kasich
        Bernie Sanders
        Gary Johnson

        Leaving aside incumbent presidents, you have 50-odd candidacies spread out over 15 presidential elections, or about 3.5 per year. That’s a generous accounting. You’d have Henry Jackson, Gary Hart, Al Gore, and Bill Bradley on the list because they’re capable wonks. That’s the weakest sort of preparation. You’d have Lyndon Johnson, Morris Udall, Robert Dole and Richard Gephardt on the list because these men knew how to work Congress (Johnson’s executive experience was limited to a couple of years as a 2d echelon official of the WPA and the rest had none at all). When deficiencies of that sort are evident (see Jimmy Carter), you do notice that. The thing is, Gerald Ford’s relationships with the Hill did not help him and Lyndon Johnson was a disastrous president in spite of his effectiveness with Congress. George McGovern’s executive experience consisted of about a year as a federal bureau chief (and he was a fatuous though decent man, not really suitable). Hubert Humphrey was a legislator at heart – he’d served just two years as Mayor of Minneapolis. Alan Keyes had a couple of years in a subcabinet job in the Reagan Administration; not enough. With Barry Goldwater, Steve Forbes, and Donald Trump, you have to ask to what extent private sector executive function is transferrable. Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, George Wallace, and Bilge Clinton were all gross above and beyond the call of duty. Were you to subtract all these, that would leave you with ~34 candidacies over 15 elections, or just north of 2 a year. Always a shortage of satisfactory people.

  12. Yeah, first Comey sprinkled her with fairy dust and ground unicorn horn. Everything was good. Then, later, he shived her!

    I think there’s a song like this that has a tag line…”and then he shived me…!”

    Maybe Clinton should reconsider taking this defeat lap?

  13. Comey and Clinton sittin n a tree ..
    K I S S I N G.
    First came love,
    Then came marriage..
    then came Trumpster in a baby carriage.

    1. My name is Liberty 3rd not Turd. I speak New York and it came out wrong on the speech computer.

    2. That could not have been a homosexual marriage because it produced children. Ergo, homosexual marriage is impossible as an oxymoronic contradiction in terms. Marriage, by definition, is “effecting motherhood.”

Comments are closed.