« Send me a message. 9 May, 2016 | Main | "Clinton aide Cheryl Mills leaves FBI interview ... " Washpost »

10 May 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I guess this was coming.


He will apologize, and he will spin it away. And the MSM will be more than complicit helping him. They will be as happy (and noble feeling) with the apology as they were yesterday after L. Lynch's presser on the NC case.

Noble and righteous creatures setting wrongs right, with the full power and wrath of federal Leviathan. And next up might be Hillary, wielding the sword. Anybody read Paglia's take on Hillary? Interesting.


William R. Cumming

IMO obstruction of justice.


"It's never the deed, it's the cover up."


Chances of FBI charging Hillary and President Gay Urekel giving her a pardon to pre-empt Emperor Trump from seeing that justice is done?

The Twisted Genius

The investigation and the reporting should concentrate on the cover up rather than on the mishandling of classified information. It's the cover up that did Nixon in. The cover up could do the same for Clinton. We badly need a Deep Throat and an intrepid journalist.

I found this timeline for the clintonemail.com server which lays out a possible framework for the cover up pretty well. The physical server was wiped prior to turning it over to the FBI. It was probably wiped to a military grade of sterility by that time. This missing pst file for the clintonemail.com sysadmin is part of the cover up. The backup files in Colorado could have also been wiped remotely by the right people making the FBI's job even harder. However, emails always leave a trail since they have to either come from some other server or go to another server. I would think the trail could be reconstructed. There has to be smarter people than me involved in the investigation.

The Twisted Genius

Here's the timeline I mentioned earlier:


The Twisted Genius

Here's the timeline I mentioned. The first one ended up in the spam bin. Why? It's one of the magical mysteries of IT that I'll never understand.




In regards to Obama's trip to Hiroshima I have to say I wonder if the Japanese feel the same about their civilization as he seems to feel about ours. To quote the NYT on the trip:

“Prime Minister Shinzo Abe framed it as a chance to honor the dead…”

Will Prime Minister Abe be traveling to Nanking "to honor the dead"? It might help express that sentiment, to quote him: “… we have a responsibility to make sure that terrible experience is never repeated anywhere”.

It didn’t go over well when an ex-Prime Minister went there but maybe things have changed in three years:



This "missing" is very curious.

I have emails/files (for personal protection,etc)
from the last 25 years that are stored in THREE different secured locations.

Far as I am concerned the absence(if they are all gone) is PROOF enough of wrongdoing.
It's so FAR beyond the pale of any type of IT operation ............

it shows a total lack of vetting in the hiring of these so called IT people OR ???

P.s. - My first post and I very much enjoy the site.

The Beaver


If they really want to comb the network to access those "wiped out" pst file and keen to know the truth - they don't have to go far. Need only to know who is/are or were the NSPs at both ends and the NAPs the service providers are connected to in Colorado and Chappaqua.

The Beaver


BTW: David Ignatius needed to insert this at the end of HardBall last Friday:

IGNATIUS:Israeli officials tell me in late April, Syrian President Bashar
al Assad used the chemical weapon sarin, the chemical weapon he agreed to
give up entirely in 2013 against ISIS fighters east of Damascus.

MATTHEWS: He`s lied and kept the weapons.

IGNATIUS: So, he`s clearly kept some weapons.

Guess needed to get his Hasbara allowance !!!


Borgistas are not going to let the queen of the Borgs to be touched on this issue, IMO, hoping to find out the truth on the server gate is hopeless.


My apologies for a return to Samuels-Rhodes.


It seems to have been both “payback” and a salvo in a coordinated counter-attack to derail the Iran deal (see lead editorial in today’s WaPo) and, perhaps, an effort to get the mercurial Donald Trump to leap into the fray with a blast against the JCPOA. As importantly, would be Samuel’s ire and spitefulness against Rhodes whom he hold’s responsible for the President’s rejection of the neocon project for direct intervention in Syria. He alludes to Syria throughout the piece and give four full paragraphs to support his conclusory accusation that he cannot understand “why we apparently spending so much time and energy trying to strong-arm the Syrian rebels into surrendering to the dictator who murdered their families . . .” and, implicitly, indicts BHO/Rhodes in the last paragraph for their inability, as moral actors, “to weigh the tens of thousands who have died in Syria against the tens of thousands who have died in the Congo”.

In defense of Rhodes, he seem to have gotten a few things right – Iraq, Syria, Iran and Cuba – which puts him on the wrong side of the Borg-Blog and David Samuels. Opposition to the Libyan intervention would have been consistent with Rhode’s foreign policy worldview (and a source of BHO’s numbing ambivalence), but I suspect he lost the bureaucratic fight for intervention relentlessly waged by Clinton, Rice and Powers. It would be interesting to know his real view about the expansion of NATO into the Ukraine and Georgia.

Rhodes does seem to have a lot more foreign policy experience than Samuels (if only learned at Lee Hamilton’s Knee). A perusal of Samuel’s Wikipedia Bio would reveal that Samuel’s has an MA in history but no apparent experience with international relations in any capacity.

Rhodes’ big mistake has been the intellectual arrogance so characteristic of this administration which blinded him to the risk of bringing the Samuel’s “Trojan Horse” into the White House. He was played for a fool, besmirched his copy book and has seriously jeopardized the JCPOA that he has worked 7 years to achieve.

What is interesting is how we have all been played for fools by the coordinated reviews and comments on the Samuel’s article launched in Foreign Affairs on the day before publication with the angry Tom Rick’s “asshole” blog piece . It took us all a while to understand that the Samuel’s feature was just a part of the neo-con anti-Iran, anti-Syria project with the critique of Rhode’s being an attack on the Administration’s turn towards foreign policy rationality vis a vis Iran and Syria.


Unfortunately, this time it appears all those institutions that took down Nixon are in on the grift.

There is no shortage of material for the Post or Times to press Clinton/Obama to a breaking point on this, but there is lack of motive: they both expect to get exactly what they want (TTP TTIP among other goodies) from President Hillary.

Unaoil, Panama Papers, Snowden, Wikileaks: none of these have had measurable policy impact, except maybe for NSA to double down. Our secrete agencies probably like the idea of Pres Hillary as they no doubt have lots of interesting emails on record. The message sent is clear: leaking is comparable to manslaughter if you're little people and inconsequential, or maybe a good leash, if your important. How many times do we have to see this before we believe our system no longer works?

Mark Pyruz

The decision to nuke two cities in Japan is complicated. There exists evidence that suggests the Japanese decision to quit the war was based more on the Soviet entry into the war against Japan and the extraordinary effectiveness of Soviet land forces against the Japanese Army on the Asian continent. Additionally, after the nuking, the Japanese an extent, the United States more or less acquiesced to terms the Japanese were more readily willing to accept before the nuking.

If the above evidence is correct, then the motive for the nukings suggests an attempt at impressing Stalin and USSR. If so, it calls into question the morality of the nuclear attacks.

However, from the perspective of ordinary Marines like my nephew's grandfather--the ones that were expected to hit the beaches on the Japanese mainland during Operation Olympic, the nukings appeared to save many of their lives.

This all said, I expect Obama to focus not specifically on the morality of these two attacks but on the larger issue of WMD usage in the current and future contexts.


Wouldn't GCHQ have them, as they regularly collect stuff for the NSA that it's not allowed to legally collect itself? But then that would really be letting the cat out of the bag if they came to light that way, wouldn't it?

The Beaver

@ Seamus


Those optical repeaters required at every 80 kms under the sea entails the use of amplifiers also in addition to some couplers to direct the same optical wavelengths to Vauxhall Cross.

robt willmann

I do not know what the current bureaucratic rules of the FBI are about filing a criminal complaint against somebody without an indictment and without the approval of an Assistant U.S. Attorney, but in Hillary's case, it is safe to say that no criminal charge is going to be filed against her unless the Attorney General herself approves it (with Obama's approval, too, as a practical matter). Thus, the FBI will not be deciding if any criminal charge is brought; that "decision" will be made through the Justice Department.

I had previously thought that a grand jury might be working on the case, but lately I have been thinking that a grand jury is not involved at this time. This also means that the immunity that Bryan Pagliano got is likely to be the informal "hip pocket" immunity established in an agreement between Pagliano and the Dept. of Justice, and was not created by a court order.

Not long ago I mentioned that after Obama said that the Bernie Sanders campaign was not doing well, and Democratic donors should give money to Hillary, he was telegraphing that she will not be charged with a crime. Obama is not going to tell money people to donate to Hillary if he is going to torpedo her campaign by having her charged with an offense. He also recently said something to the effect that she was "careless" with the e-mail process. So I think that nothing is going to be done, and Obama, Hillary, et. al. will just ride out the bad publicity, which the mass media largely will not dwell on, because they want her to be elected, and any negative publicity will be overtaken by other campaign news and events.


The BBC reported tonight that Obama did not intend to apologize for the bomb but perhaps to speak of honoring the dead: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36260642


Obama to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Sorry bro, time to look forward...not back.

different clue

The Twisted Genius,

I believe I remember that a young Hillary Rodham was some kind of staff lawyer involved with some aspect of the Watergate Hearings . . . or something Nixon-connected.

I wonder if she has studied the Nixon "coverup" very carefully for clues as to how to avoid doing it wrong. She and her people may well have "covered up" the "coverup".



Well my point was more that she is indeed indicted so Obama can pardon her as a final act. As far as I know you can't pardon someone for something they haven't been charged with. So if it looks like she's going to lose or that it might be a photo finish, she's indicted and then pardoned to preclude a Trump Administration ripping open the whole rotten orifice using Hillary as its lever.

I think Obama is enough of a narcissist and small enough that he doesn't care what people do with their money to the point where he would telegraph his support for Hillary just to say "Neener neener" to the whites in this country that he hates so much.

The Twisted Genius

Clinton pardoned Deutch before the DOJ could file a case against him for mishandling classified info. I don't think Obama has to wait for an indictment.


All federal criminal charges are formally brought by the US Attorney's office whether through indictment or information. The FBI can arrest someone for a crime, but until the US Attorney's office files one of those two documents there is no criminal prosecution. There are some relatively short time constraints once someone is arrested before the attorneys have to bring formal charges. The FBI doesn't do prosecutions any more than the local police department does. It's an investigative and law enforcement agency.

As a practical matter in the 99% of cases which are pedestrian, the prosecutors and the attorneys work together. We'll see what happens in this very un-pedestrian case, particularly if the FBI recommends prosecution and the attorneys decline to charge.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad