Tag Archives: Hillary’s Email Problems

King Barry the Hypocrite

Actually hypocrite is an understatement but as with all things derogatory, King Barry is the unexcelled master.

Witness his performance on “The Daily Show” on the appropriately named Comedy Central network.

Firstly, Obama whined to host Trevor Noah that he didn’t understand why there was such a ruckus by Republicans about Hillary Clinton’s perfectly “ordinary” emails. Of course Obama was lying through his teeth on this. He knows that the emails in question were not “ordinary” but rather classified, some of them containing the information with the highest levels of classification.

That was just one of Clinton’s crimes. A second one, which Obama knows about since he participated in it as well, is that Clinton set up an independent email system outside of the secured State Dept. system. One which that only she and her cronies controlled not the State Dept. IT security people. That is in direct violation/purposeful subversion of so many federal government record-keeping/archives/public oversight laws that Clinton & Co. should be facing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and decades in jail.

Remember Gen. David Petraeus? He got two years probation and $100,000 fine after he pled guilty to what is a single quill on a porcupine compared to Clinton’s activities. Amazingly when Petraeus’s name popped up as a potential Sec. of State nominee, Democrats and the MSM immediately pointed out that Petraeus was unqualified for the job because he was guilty of leaking some secrets.

It was as if fish were complaining that a cactus was too wet…

But back to Obama on “The Daily Show.” The Hypocrite in Chief had the nerve to castigate Donald Trump for Trump’s questioning whether he’d need a daily intelligence briefing. John Hinderaker takes our foolish lame duck president to task for this Mt. Everest of hypocrisy.

If one remembers, Obama is known for eschewing daily intel briefings or playing with his phone on the rare occasions he does take one. See, The One knows all so no one could ever possibly brief him… At least in his own mind.


What to Do With Hillary?

There have been times when a defeated general or political leader was executed. Some would argue that we’ve “progressed” beyond that.

So what will the victorious leader, Donald Trump, do with the defeated leader, Hillary Clinton?

In most American elections, the defeated can regroup for another try or they can do something else. But in the case of Hillary Clinton there’s the case of the series of felonies she committed as Secretary of State.

The FBI investigated and its leader, Jimmy the Weasel Comey (bet he’s sweating bullets now), declared a fat “Meh,” when it came to prosecuting the obvious crimes of the private server and illegal handling of her emails.

Some, in a sense of magnanimity, have offered that Trump should pardon Hillary. (Many of these people were NeverTrumpers so they truly are playing with house money.)

Such a move would be a disaster for Trump. It would be the equivalent of George H.W. Bush’s famous breaking of his “No new taxes” pledge. He never recovered from it and became a one-term president. Nothing would cheese off Trump’s troops than to let Hillary escape.

She must face the music.

If Trump is in a forgiving mood, I’d say that he could recommend that, due to her health conditions, etc. she not face jail time. But such an offer should be highly conditional on her issuing an admission of guilt (no weaselly ‘Other secretaries did the same… and it was approved’ BS) along with a detailed listing of all the crimes and her involvement along with names and details of her various cronies and their crimes (Mills, Sullivan, Samuelson, Abedin, Kendall, et al). All of them would give up their law licenses and leave Washington, do no lobbying and stay away from politics (don’t worry, they’ll quickly be employed by Ivy League schools and large corporations… They won’t starve.)

The admissions should also include King Barry’s negligence as well. (Maybe while they are at it they could get her to confess her incompetence on the night of Benghazi and the subsequent string of self-dealing lies she issued in the following weeks.)

Most importantly, Clinton needs to be made an example of — no one is above the law. It will be a good lesson for everyone and set an example for the children. It will also be a shot across the bow of our amoral-yet-self-righteous arrogant left who think that the law doesn’t pertain to them.

Dismantling of the Clinton Foundation scamhaus should also be a priority. A reformed IRS could revoke its charity status (at a minimum).

There’s always the possibility that King Barry I will pardon her on his way out. Let that be on his head.

How Propaganda Is Masked as “News”

Despite an avalanche of damning Wikileaks releases chronicling the crimes and cynicism of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign, the American news media, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Socialism International DBA the Democratic Party, chooses to focus monomaniacally on the petty foibles of Donald Trump.

Witness WTOP radio, the top news station in Washington, D.C. and America, Tuesday morning. Plenty of dirt on Hillary — news that her State Dept., in the form of flunkee Patrick Kennedy, pressured the FBI to change the classifications of some of the emails recovered from Hillary Clinton’s illegal email server. Kennedy even offered some horse trades to the FBI if they covered for Hillary. The FBI, to its credit, refused.

There was also news that Hillary’s security detail at State hated her and had unusually high turnover and that she refused their instructions, choosing to do her own thing and often putting the detail into awkward positions.

So, lots of great news material? Not for WTOP. Somewhere Donald Trump looked cross-eyed at someone and the public needs to know about it!

They then did a story about “Broadway” Bill Clinton. Barely audible, and sounding tired and weak, Clinton attacked Trump in front of a pack of uber-wealthy Hillary supporters. No cutting analysis was offered by the anchors.

Then there was NBC cutting Billy Bush loose. And just in case you didn’t know, Billy Bush was on a tape saying naughty things with Donald Trump!

This is WTOP’s news priorities. They do this diversionary dance basically everyday.

When finally confronting the new allegations, WTOP downplayed them as “Donald Trump claims.”

Ignoring the fact that the origin of the news was not Trump, this was amateur hour. To add to the insult, WTOP didn’t bother to have an actual reporter report the news but rather just read a few lines of copy and then accepted the Clinton campaign’s simple dismissal as nothing worth worrying about.

After a break their decent national security correspondent J.J. Green took on the story. You could tell his heart wasn’t in it as he outlined the new revelations and then summarized the State Dept.’s and the FBI’s spokesmen’s utterly lame denials. The State gentleman apparently told reporters that the accusations that Hillary’s security detail hated her, etc., weren’t actual transcriptions and probably had been “garbled.”

Now if this had been a Republican, this would have set off alarm bells, complete man-the-battle-stations claxons for every news organization. Whistleblowers used to be treated as oracles by Washington-based reporters but now, when it’s a Democrat, they might as well be a lonely wind out in the desert.

No wonder so many in Washington seem unaware of what went down with Clinton, WTOP isn’t reporting anything. (Note, Howard Dean and the searing Washington elite partisan cynicism he displays here is one of the things that is giving rise to Trump.)

About That “Informal” Agreement

There’s something that James Comey, forthwith to be known as “Jimmy the Weasel,” said in his recent Capitol Hill testimony that seems to have gone unremarked upon.

Jimmy the Weasel explained the granting of immunity to miscreants such as Cheryl Mills as being wise because “You often get more information from ‘informal’ agreements…”

Informal” agreement? An immunity deal is an “informal” agreement?

Immunity agreements are not informal. They are tightly negotiated and have to be approved by many sets of eyes. And from what we keep learning as they peel the onion of these immunity deals that were handed out, aren’t your ordinary immunity deals but apparently quite encompassing, covering many transgressions, some of which we are only now learning about.

Clearly, this was not an “informal” agreement but rather a complicated one covering a great many things that were not clear from day one. Either the FBI was hoodwinked by Mills & Co. or they know a whole lot more about what went on with Hillary’s email server scandal than they are letting on.

I’m thinking it’s the latter. There’s more going on here than we realize. Why the FBI went along is one great mystery.

One theory that was recently bolstered by the apparent discovery that Obama knew all about Hillary’s skirting of the law and participated in it peripherally himself — using a pseudonym to hide his involvement — is that the FBI is trying to protect the president and other White House participants from their participation in a series of felonies.

Remember, King Barry told us he learned about the secret server on the news when everyone else did. Turns out, like the sun rises in the morning, he lied.

Interestingly, on Thursday morning broke news that an employee of Booz, Allen, Hamilton contracted to the NSA was arrested for having some “classified” documents on his home system. It’s not known if he meant to break the law, immediate indication is that he might just be a harmless show-off, but everyone is talking about throwing the book at him. The stories I heard on the radio didn’t invoke the Hillary Defense — I meant no harm. In fact, Hillary wasn’t even mentioned.

Funny how that always seems to happen.

And speaking of Hillary, she seems to have disappeared off the campaign trail again. I’m guessing she’s resting up after the first debate and resting for Sunday’s effort. Rumor is that the seemed so perky at the first debate because she’s using Modafinil for public appearances; then crashing afterwards.

What Do You Call the Gall That Gall Demonstrates?

Hillary Clinton!

Hillary Clinton gives a speech on how her record on foreign policy qualifies her to be president, especially compared to the foreign policy of Donald Trump? And insists that Trump is “unfit” to be president?

That’s a lot of gall. It’s like Mario Mendoza giving hitting tips, if you know your baseball analogies. He’d be more effective telling you what NOT to do and the same for Hillary Clinton. If there’s an expert at failing at foreign policy, it’s Hillary Clinton. She can give pointers to President Trump on what NOT to do.

Yet she trots it out as if it’s some badge of success.

Kind of like her insistence that her email practices were identical to those of previous secretaries of state. No matter how many times she’s told that they weren’t she chirpily repeats the lie.

Not a single previous secretary of state had a private email server. None. Nada. No one.

She seems to hang her big fib on the fact that Colin Powell sent about two-dozen emails from an AOL account (or some such similar) way back when — long before the email practices of the State Dept. were settled upon.

Hillary Clinton sent tens of thousands of policy-violating emails. It’s the difference between an anthill and Mt. Everest.

It really is like the kid who kills his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he’s an orphan.

You’d almost have to applaud her on her chutzpah but, well, she’s the handmaiden of Satan and knows exactly what she’s doing.

Laugh all you want but, you know deep down, it’s true.

Disinformation Peddlers

There comes a point where the consistent misreporting of something by a journalistic entity needs to be as a active disinformation campaign.

A good recent example is the “North Carolina law” which is regularly reported by the largest journalistic organs in America, print and electronic, as taking away “protections for the LGBT community.” Here was my take.

Another example is Hillary Clinton’s email problems.

As I occasionally note here, I listen daily to a little of Washington’s news radio leviathan WTOP. It’s worked hard to not cover what should be a juicy Washington story. You know that there are a thousand liberal journalists crying in their organic kasha and Starbucks mocha lattes that this didn’t happen to a Republican. If this had been a Republican it could have been bigger than Watergate.

Anyway, WTOP took another crack, ever-so-briefly at it Friday morning by regurgitating a couple of sanitized sentences from a Washington Post sanitization attempt. WTOP listeners were assured that as the lengthy investigation continued “there was no evidence that [Hillary Clinton] had any malicious intent.” They offered no explanation of the illegal personal email server controversy and then quickly moved on — nothing to see here, move along.

There’s two interesting points here. The first is that this is part of the new angle the DNC and the Clinton campaign is going to try to sell: “no malicious intent.” Remember, the first defensive line was that she had done nothing wrong/was a technophobe. Then there was the “Others/Republicans did it before me” line. Then the utterly ludicrous “no classified documents were ever received or sent” line. Or maybe those were in a different order. But the point is that they are now morphing the position that they will have their flying monkeys in the press peddle to she meant no harm so everyone should give her a break and just move on (sound a little familiar?).

Hey, let’s ask David Petraeus about “meaning no harm.”

The second point is that WTOP’s listeners are going to be surprised and furious IF Hillary gets indicted since they’ve been told nothing but that this whole thing is a Republican nothingburger. This is one of the most insidious ways the MSM spreads Democratic propaganda — by misleading many people who trust them to tell the truth. Keeping the populace basically ignorant. IF she is indicted many will initially wonder — How’d that happen? It must be a political coup launched by Republicans! That angle will be backed up by hard left members of Congress parroting it much in the same way the peddled Bill Clinton’s impeachment as being a “coup.”

The simple facts are not whether Hillary Clinton could be indicted, there’s already enough publicly known to guarantee that most anyone else in the same situation would have been indicted by now (ask David Petraeus!), but whether the FBI will recommend it and whether the Attorney General will do it.

If it goes forward, a lot of people are going to be shocked because they barely knew she was being investigated.

What If It Were Dick Cheney?

Watching the softball coverage, or lack of any coverage at all, of Hillary’s email problems, I can’t help but wonder what the coverage would be if this had been a Republican, say Dick Cheney?

I don’t think it would be any stretch to say it would be 24/7 and several major papers crowing how they had “flooded the zone.” All one has to do to recall the coverage of the “outing” of CIA bureaucrat Valerie Plame or the obsessive coverage of the Scooter Libby case or the planeloads of journalists who went to Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin within hours of her being named as a vice presidential nominee while essentially none could be bothered to look into Obama’s past.