Memo to Republican Committee members:
Stop doing interviews of people who are so much smarter than you. Of course that may restrict you to members of your own party- you know, the guys who nominated Donald Trump.
I think the obvious solution is to vote for Donald Trump instead of crooked Hillary. Heâs definitely a man of the people. I means sure, heâs been the target of multiple full scale IRS audits, been through bankruptcy court multiple times, had his incompetent ass covered several times in bail outs, and been defendant in over a thousand court cases over negligence, breach of contract, fraud, defamation, tax disputes, etc. But who among us hasnât? Heâs still a man of the people, not one of those shady 1-percentersâŚ
Meanwhile weâre supposed to give a shit about Hillary Clinton and her email server? When the guy investigating didnât even put any of it on record, didnât even interview all the people who spoke to her, and canât prove a single bit of wrong doing besides his gut feeling that she wasnât responsible? Got any proof at all, like anything at all? Nope, nothing. But her last name is Clinton so something must be wrong right?
The funniest part about this isnât that there is not one shred of anything even close to resembling proof of wrong doing, but that 50% of Americans will actually buy into this amateur hour of an investigation and think it means something. How low can the bar get this election cycle?
The obvious solution is for the FBI in particular and the U.S. legal system in general to stop interrogating anyone under oath, recording interviews with potential suspects, prosecuting anyone for perjury and/or obstruction of justice so weâre all equal under the law finally. That and exonerating Martha Stewart and expunging her criminal record and anyone else whom the FBI ensnared in perjury and obstruction of justices charges because it interviewed them under oath and kept a record of the proceedings. Improving the educational systems in the U.S. and Canada wouldnât hurt either so citizens of both countries have more than a rudimentary understanding as to how their legal systems work.
Maybe all these silly agencies which keep to secret information on antiquated secure facilities should just do away with them all and create a Facebook page instead, every time they enlist a new covert agent they can update their twitter feed.
Interesting, when it comes to Donald trump you seem to get not being charged or not being found guilty of a crime is not the same thing as âcanât prove a single bit of wrong doingâ or the same as being exonerated.
From the hearings; questions in italics , Comeyâs answers in bold
âŚ
[quote] Did Hillary Clinton lie?
To the FBI? We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.
Did Hillary Clinton lie under oath?
Not to the FBI. Not in a case weâre working.
âŚ
Do you agree with the claim that General Petraeus âgot in trouble for far lessâ? Do you agree with that?
No, itâs the reverse.
What do you mean by that?
His conduct, to me, illustrates the categories of behavior that mark the prosecutions that are actually brought. Clearly intentional conduct, knew what he was doing was a violation of the law, huge amount of information. Even if you couldnât prove he knew it, it raises the inference that he did it. An effort to obstruct justice. That combination of things makes it worthy of a prosecution.
âŚ
If youâre going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?
Correct.
Was there a header on the three documents that weâve discussed today that had the little âCâ in the text someplace?
NoâŚThere was no header on the email or the text.
So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at whatâs classified and whatâs not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
That would be a reasonable inference.
âŚ
I understand why people are confused by the whole discussion. I get that. But you know what would be a double standard? If she were prosecuted for gross negligence.
âŚ
Did you get any political interference from the White House?
None.
Did you get any political interference from the Hillary Clinton campaign?
None.
âŚ
[John Mica, Republican, Florida]
Tomorrow weâll go back to our districts and we have to explain to people, in a couple cafes where I see folks and have meetings. Theyâre going to ask a lot of questions about what took placeâŚOne week ago, former president Clinton meets with the attorney general in Phoenix. The next Friday, last Friday, Mrs. Lynch, the AG, says sheâs going to defer to the FBI. On Saturday morning I saw the vans pull upâŚThen on Tuesday morningâŚyou basically said youâre going to recommend not to prosecute. Correct? And then Tuesday we had President Obama and Secretary Clinton arrive in Charlotte at 2:00. Shortly thereafter we had the attorney general closing the case. This is rapid fire. I mean, my folks think there is something fishy about this. Iâm no conspiracy theorist, but there are questions on how this came down.
I hope what youâll tell the folks in the cafe is, look me in the eye and listen to what Iâm about to say. I did not coordinate that with anyone. The White House, the Department of Justice, nobody outside the FBI family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath, I stand by that. There was no coordination. There was an insinuation in what you were saying. I donât mean to get strong in responding, but I want to make sure I was definitive about that.[/quote]
motherjones.com/kevin-drum
But of course heâs saying that; that just shows heâs part of the cover-up. Wait for the whistle-blowing from all the other FBI agents who worked on the case- unless theyâre in on it tooâŚ
As Kevin Drum points out at the link, the Republicans shot themselves in the foot on this one- it was a great chance for them to pound away at the charges of carelessness and negligence.
Instead, out of a combination of CDS , desperation over Trump being their candidate, and a need to throw red meat the base to avoid being primaried rom the right, they completely overshot.
Meanwhile, whoâs got time for the minor stuff?
[quote]While Congress dithers over the advancing Zika virus, another smoldering epidemic keeps threatening to burst back into flame.
Ebola.
Emergency funds to fight that deadly virus may run out in October because they were poached to fight Zika until Congress agreed on a plan to battle the new, mosquito-borne epidemic.[/quote]
Read more: politico.com/story/2016/07/c ⌠z4DyLqSAwu
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
[quote=âMikeNâ]From the hearings; questions in italics , Comeyâs answers in bold
âŚ
[quote] Did Hillary Clinton lie?
To the FBI? We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.
Did Hillary Clinton lie under oath?
Not to the FBI. Not in a case weâre working.
âŚ[/quote][/quote]
All true, of course. She didnât lie under oath to the FBI because they didnât put her under oath when they questioned her. And Comey has no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI because he wasnât at the interview, it wasnât recorded, no transcript of the interview was made and he didnât talk to all âfive or sixâ of the agents who interviewed Clinton. Maybe thatâs why he didnât give a simple yes or no answer to the question whether she lied or not.
Too bad the interview wasnât recorded in some way though because apparently Clinton told the complete truth this time.
[quote]During testimony before Congress on Thursday, FBI Director James Comey stated that the FBIâs interview with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not under oath or recorded, but it still would be a crime to lie to the FBI.
Comey stated that he did not personally interview Clinton, and did not talk to all of the âfive or sixâ who did interview Clinton.
He was then asked, âdid she testify or talk to them under oath?â Comey answered, âNo.â But added that âitâs still a crime to lie to us.â
When asked if there was a transcript of the interview, Comey stated that there wasnât one because the interview wasnât recorded, but there was an analysis of Clintonâs interview.[/quote]
Time to bump this flamewar. Evidence of criminal intent is emerging. Gotta love Wikileaks.
[quote]In a brief email chain released by WikiLeaks on Tuesday, Clinton allies seemed to scurry to respond to Obamaâs claim that he was unaware of Clintonâs use of a personal email account while she was secretary of State until after it became public.
â[L]ooks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it in the news,â Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin told other campaign aides in a March 7, 2015, email, using acronyms for the president and Clinton.
â[W]e need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov,â responded Cheryl Mills, Clintonâs former chief of staff at the State Department.
The White House has insisted that Obama was unaware of Clintonâs unusual email setup during her tenure at the State department, even though the two occasionally communicated by email.[/quote]
AlsoâŚ
[quote]âThis is a cheryl special. Know you love her, but this stuff is like her Achilles heal. [sic] Or kryptonite. she just canât say no to this shit. Why didnât they get this stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy,â Tanden wrote.
âUnbelievable,â Podesta replies.
âI guess I know the answer. They wanted to get away with it,â Tanden said, urging that Clinton turn over the emails to the National Archives immediately.[/quote]
Itâs only an October surprise if youâre surprised.
When the windsock shifts, you know the wind has changed direction:
1 Like
Because sending emails is so eeeeeeeeevil! Booga booga!
Republicans are so desperate!
Again, the Republican propaganda machine is making a mountain out of a molehill, and is lying to you (as they always do).
Why do people even believe or support Republicans when all they do is lie, lie, lie?
Funny that the mainstream media is covering this email nonsense, but Trumpâs upcoming CHILD RAPE trial, not so much.
Take a chill pill Chris, Trumps been on the receiving end of media hysteria for months now, Im sure Clinton can withstand a few hours of media scrutiny.
Besides all those work related emails should be available to the public anyway since they are public servants. If they havenât said or done anything wrong then there should be nothing for them to worry about. Isnât that what they tell all of us private citizens whose email should be kept private unless there is good reason to want to see them but instead harvest them all anyway?
1 Like
So the new narrative line from democrats is:âLeaked emails donât matterâ ?
Wow. Just wow.
2 Likes
I think the official line goes along the lines of ânot going to comment on stolen private emailsâ thatâs for the wikileaks stuff anyway. Donna Brazile was playing the victim card when asked about the question she provided to Clintons on the John Podesta emails. Oh and Russia!!
But yeah, I donât know what to say about the Democrats that are ignoring all the leaks as if they donât matter. I second your sentiment, wow is right.
1 Like
No. The narrative is âHere we go again. More Republican bullshit.â
I believe that peopleâs private email correspondences should remain private. I oppose government snooping into peopleâs emails.
That âI donât have to worry if Iâve got nothing to hideâ argument holds no water. Private is private.
Bill on the money here, except for that last bit 
https://www.facebook.com/Maher/videos/10154125315122297/
I fall into the trap on saying âtheyâre all the sameâ at times. In some ways I believe itâs true, but thereâs enough there to make a difference.
There should be a word for this kind of shrill, desperate poo-pooing.
Bubbette has turned on the FBI, end everybodyâs turned on Bubbette, and thereâs protest resignations from the FBI. Oh, and it looks like Huma committed perjury.
What a lovely kerfuffle. When Bubbette lies down with dogs, they get fleas from her.
This guyâs also a gift that keeps on giving:
Not really a surprise:
1 Like
The FBI investigation is into Wiener, and has nothing to do with Hillary.
There are 3 investigations. The one with Antony Wiener, the one related to Clintons Email server and one related to the Clinton Foundation.
If you donât think the discovery of tens of thousands of emails from Hillary Clintons top adviser at the State Department and on her Clinton Foundation donât relate to Hillary Clinton youâre wrong.
You dont know what they are, nor do I. But stop with the silly statements. maybe they have all already been disclosed. I donât know. Republicans didnât create the ClintonEmail.com mess that was all her own doing.
1 Like