The Borg queen skates on ...

 

"The FBI director shredded so many of the talking points that the former Secretary of State and her top aides have used over and over again throughout this scandal, including that she never emailed classified material; that information in the emails was classified retroactively; that none of the emails were marked as containing classified information; that there were definitively no security breaches; that she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department; that the set-up was driven by convenience; and that the government was merely conducting “a security review.”

Rosalind Helderman, who has been covering this saga closely, writes that Comey “systematically dismantled” Clinton’s defenses. She juxtaposes Clinton quotes since last March against Comey quotes from yesterday. (Read her full piece here.)

-- While Clinton dodged a legal bullet that could have been catastrophic to her candidacy, yesterday was neither vindication nor exoneration, and it certainly will not put the matter to rest. Instead, Comey’s declaration that she was “extremely careless” in handling classified material and should have known better will dog her through November. Though the FBI director said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a criminal case against Clinton, his nearly 15-minute speech was tantamount to a political indictment."  Washington Post

-------------

It is clear to me that Hillary Clinton is an unscrupulous liar.  Are we really going to let her "skate" on this in order to avoid living with the clown Trump?  Washpost 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/07/06/daily-202-clinton-s-credibility-gap-widens-after-fbi-rebuke/577bff0c981b92a22d5b2044/

Comments

[robt willmann]

To make the obvious more obvious, attorney general Loretta Lynch, formerly on the board of directors of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve Bank, put out a press release on 6 July 2016 saying that, “Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State. I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”--

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-loretta-e-lynch-regarding-state-department-email-investigation

"...[N]o charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation". They are all off the hook.

What is meant by "within the scope of the investigation"? Hillary's use of a personal e-mail system during her time as secretary of state? If so, there should be an investigation of the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, and associated organizations and their money-shuffling operations. Is such an investigation going on?

With other things to do right now, I glanced at the television when walking by it, and the print at the bottom of the screen while the testimony was going on said something like, the FBI believed Hillary Clinton set up the private e-mail computer server at home "for convenience". Does James Comey really believe that? Another typed phrase referred to Gen. Petraeus, and that he had "a vast amount of classified information" at home, or something along those lines. Did Thomas Drake have a vast amount of classified information, if any, at home? Did Jeffrey Sterling?

[different clue]

Tyler,

Well . . . that is disappointing to learn. I never went there because of time limitations and such. I just assumed that any comment sent there would show up.

So . . . what are the second most visited newsy websites? The third most? The fourth most? etc.? If any of those permit comments to show up without pre-screening, would the approach of seeding their threads with outside-the-borg comments and links be useful?

[HankP]

Tyler -

I saw an entire Trump speech the other day. I wouldn't let someone who rambled and contradicted himself like that be a substitute teacher for my kids, let alone President of the country.

As far as "greatness", that's vague enough so that anyone can project their beliefs onto it. Trump is just a con man, it is pretty worrying that so many people can't see that.

[HankP]

different clue -

I don't think that's an actual quote, but yes she's been extremely lucky in her opponents. Actually the opposite of Nixon.

[turcopolier]

hankP

I think you are right about Trump, but you do not seem to see how bad HC really is. pl

[HankP]

Doug Colwell -

Everyone has to make their own choice as to what's "too much". Personally having a candidate call for torture and war crimes is more important to me than an offhand comment about an awful leader that supported terrorism for decades.

[HankP]

Col. Lang -

That may be. After the Presidents of my lifetime (since 1958) I just don't see the giant leap of awfulness about HRC. She is way too hawkish for my beliefs, but the fact remains that there are only two people who will be the choices for President, and it isn't even close.

I think George W Bush was an absolutely terrible President, but I'd choose him over Trump if that was the choice.

[turcopolier]

HankP

IMO we will go to war against Russia during her presidency. Nothing is worse than that. pl

[HankP]

Col. Lang -

That would be horrible. I don't think it's likely. For one thing there would be no support in either party for that, it's about the only thing I could see Democrats agreeing to impeachment over.

[kao_hsien_chih]

A shirt ad model and a son of a former PM. I hate generational politicians who have nothing to sell but connections and names...

[kao_hsien_chih]

I honestly think the current crop of Democrats would rather see the rest of the country as a heap of molten glass than join together with the Republicans to impeach their own party's president. (Granted, the same is true with the Republicans too.) I think, in this presidential race, there are/were two truly evil people, one in each party--Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton. I don't see myself voting for Trump, but I will NEVER ever vote for a Clinton.

[Fred]

robt,

Freddie Grey justice. She's white and a woman so she has uncheckable privilege.

[Barish]

Any read on this here?

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8b12febacb2648c1822e8c586e7241bd/apnewsbreak-state-department-reopens-clinton-emails-probe

"APNewsBreak: State Department reopens Clinton emails probe

By BRADLEY KLAPPER

Jul. 7, 2016 7:30 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department is reopening an internal investigation of possible mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and top aides, officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.

Although the former secretary of state's closest confidants have left the agency, they could still face punishment. The most serious is the loss of security clearances, which could complicate her aides' hopes of securing top positions on her national security team if she becomes president.

[...]

Additionally Thursday, Republican lawmakers said they would now ask the FBI to investigate whether Clinton lied to the committee. That announcement came in a testy hearing with FBI Director James Comey, who defended the government's decision not to prosecute Clinton over her private email setup.

Clinton was secretary of state until early 2013. Most of her top advisers left shortly thereafter.

But Kirby said this week former officials can still face punishment. Options range from counseling and warnings to the revocation of an individual's security clearance.

Beyond the Democratic front-runner, the probe is will most likely examine confidants Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin — who wrote many of the emails to their boss that the various investigations have focused on. Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department, has been viewed as a possibility for the same job in the White House. There is speculation that Sullivan, Clinton's former policy chief, could be national security adviser."

Reading through that, I am on one hand impressed how little exposure potential consequences for HRC receive here. On the other, seems that someone's ready to let some of her aides' heads roll so HRC can move on like nothing happened.

[Cortes]

Towards the end of the piece linked below is a reference to the Clintons' evasive measures re the US FOIA. Perhaps ammunition for opponents?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/07/clintons-web-of-deceit-she-lied-and-lied-again/

[Cee]

All,

Glad to report that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation funding is not over.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/07/07/jim-comey-poker-face-and-the-scope-of-the-clinton-investigations/

[turcopolier]

Cee

Marcy thinks the McDonnell case would e a bar to prosecution. In McDonnell's case the absence of a quid pro quo was the deciding issue. pl

[jld]

For one thing there would be no support in either party for that,

In the situation as of today!
But if things turn sour and after "unexpected" Russian "agressive" actions in response to "legitimate" concerns of the likes of Kerry and the Harpies there will be plenty of support for gung ho suicidal initiatives.
This is how the sleepwalking worked in August 1914.

[Diogenes]

If the Senate could muster 60 votes to convict Hillary for "high crimes and misdemeanors" based on FBI Director Comey's verification of her multiple lies concerning use of her email server, the US law allows for banning the defendant from ever serving in government again as a consequence of the conviction! This is a much simpler process that Congress making a referral to the FBI for perjury and the legal complications for prosecuting this. Impeachment is strictly a political judgement and that reduces the problem of having enough votes. Check reference below and the UK deliberation on whether to impeach Tony Blair on the evidence in the Chilcot Report to prevent him from ever holding office again in the UK government.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/01/15/bush-legacy-post-term-impeachment/

Does it sound farfetched for Congress to impeach and try someone who is no longer in office? It has happened! In 1876, Secretary of War General William Belknap [who served in the scandal-plagued Republican administration of Pres. Ulysses Grant], accused of accepting a bribe, resigned just hours before the House was scheduled to consider articles of impeachment. The House went ahead and unanimously impeached him, and by a vote of 37-29 the Senate rejected the argument that Belknap’s resignation should abort the case. The Senate proceeded with the trial, but Belknap was narrowly acquitted.

[Lefty]

Expect EW's right that the DoJ will not indict a major party presidential candidate in an election year.

In this case it will be millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation or "speaking fees" and billions in export licenses from Sec State. Guess we'll find out if those pass the new "standard" for a quid pro quo in a corrupt act. The dollar figures will certainly be large enough to attract attention.

Any doubt that 100% of the emails involving the Clinton Foundation were categorized as personal and deleted? Without a smoking "give me this and I'll do that" email Comey will not likely find any closely linked actions as evidence of intent.

Amazing that Comey turned 793(f) on its head and read it as requiring intent where it explicitly does not.

[Cee]

All,

The Blowback Begins: Marine Demands Same Treatment As Hillary
Marine Corps officer Jason Brezler has been locked in a legal battle with his service after self-reporting that he improperly disseminated classified information now intends to demand the same treatment that Hillary received.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/blowback-begins-marine-demands-treatment-hillary/218189/

[Dante Alighieri]

Esteemed Colonel Lang, in politics, between a liar and a clown, I would always choose the liar. But I agree the choice is a very unpleasant one. Whatever makes you think that Trump, in addition to being a clown, isn't also a liar. Your current choice is actually between a lying serious person and a lying buffoon. We over here in Europe - even those of us like myself who are fully aware that we are largely ignorant about the USA - believe you will have to swallow the toad named C. The future of reasonable American politics isn't starting now but, at best, in 4 or more likely 8 years. Don't get hysterical now, get prepared for then.

[turcopolier]

DA

I actually know Hillary. I would never vote for her. Nor will I vote for Trump. How did you miss that? What I said was that these were left wing talking points. IMO she actually believes in nothing. pl

[David Habakkuk]

‘Dante Aligheri’,

You write:

‘We over here in Europe – even those of us like myself who are fully aware that we are largely ignorant about the USA – believe you will have to swallow the toad named C.’

Speak for yourself.

In recent British elections, not living in a marginal constituency, I have been able to avoid having to choose between alternatives both of which I much dislike. How I vote would not make any difference.

If I was in a similar situation in the United States, I would probably ‘write in’ a candidate I knew had no chance of winning.

If I was not, however, there is a fundamental consideration.

I do not think it is that likely that Hilary Clinton would get us into a war with Russia – but I do not think it is entirely impossible.

Such a war would be quite likely to escalate to nuclear exchanges.

Let us suppose that there is a 10% chance of her getting us into a war. And a 30% chance of such a war, if it started, escalating to nuclear confrontation.

(Whether nuclear war, once started, can be limited, is an interesting question, but a great deal of evidence suggests that all-out escalation is the most likely outcome.

This is too complex a question to go into here. But, for the purposes of argument, I will assume that escalation is unlikely to be controllable.)

What would then follow is that voting for Hillary would imply a 3% chance of the end of the world.

In contrast, nothing that Trump has said makes me think there would be any serious chance of his getting into a war with Russia.

Let us however not be overoptimistic, and suggest that there would be, say, a 2% chance of his getting into a war with Russia – with still a 30% chance of such a war escalating to a nuclear exchange.

So what is my choice? A 3% chance of the end of the world with Hillary, and a 0.6% chance with Trump.

What then do I do?

Short answer, have a few stiff whiskies, and – swaying slightly from side to side – go into the voting booth and vote Trump.

Which part or parts of my chain of logic to do you want to dispute?

[different clue]

HankP,

There are many people who CAN see that and DO see that and may well vote for Trump regardless. Some of those people detest Clinton just that much. Other of those people are SanderBackers who are well aware of the primary election-rigging against Sanders in Clinton's favor, of Debbie-poo Wasserschultz's steady bias against Sanders in terms of trying to schedule the fewest possible debates at the fewest-viewers possible times, of lying fake reports of Sanderbacker "violence" "against" Clintobackers, etc. They (maybe me among them) may vote third party or write Sanders in. Or if Clinton presents the threat of being more-dangerous-enough a President than Trump would be . . . a few of us ( maybe even me) may vote for Trump. " Vote for the Con-Man. It's important.")

Trump will also get the Burn This Mother Down vote. I don't know how large that vote will be. There are people who will vote for Trump because Fork this Sheet. They will just want to see a President Trump kick some sheet over sideways and stomp on it. Just to see if something changes.

[different clue]

HankP,

It is an actual quote. But it is not her actual quote. It is my actual quote which I made up to illustrate my point.