203 thoughts on “The “Smoking Gun””

  1. I guess Scott Adams pegged it. This smoking gun, to mix a metaphor, is inside baseball. It is TLDR.

    Adams also suggested that the “octopus” comment was professionally scripted by a high-level campaign aid. This is highly emotional — no woman wants to be subject to that, and just about most men don’t want to be thought of that they would behave that way.

    The only hope for the Supreme Court is that people are responding to polls based on what they want people to think about them, not what they plan to do in the privacy of the voting booth (actually, we haven’t had a voting booth for nearly a generation, you get this wobbly plastic table with little side shields offering the privacy of the average men’s room).

    1. comment was professionally scripted by a high-level campaign aid

      Professional scripted without knowledge of the functioning of first class seats. They are large enough that one doesn’t need to lift the arm rest for more room, so it doesn’t actually lift at all. But hey, she’s a victim and thus must be believed! Well, unless she was victimized by Bill Clinton, then “Bimbo!”

    2. Polls could be wrong a little bit, as margin of error suggests, but polls weren’t bad last time. Its better to just accept the reality of it. I hope people change their minds. The last debate will be a big event but it might not matter.

      Without a doubt, the rollout of the women is scripted and coordinated with the press. Just as Hillary going to Trump’s side of the stage was planned so that she could attack him for being in her personal space. The media wont point out she walked into his space. No fact checking. The media are rigged.

      1. The way to get accurate polls is to lie about them then cheat to get those exact results. Why would the left’s corruption machine take any chances?

        The republic hangs in the balance. Wikileaks makes it absolutely certain that electing Hillary is the final end of it.

        The normal solutions will not work until we send the crime syndicate to prison. All the collusion we suspected has been confirmed.

        The only thing left after a presidential loss is either accept subjection or armed revolution. I expect very little revolution because the left understands divide and conquer and the right doesn’t know how to focus on priorities.

        I forget where, but America has historical examples of armed citizens reversing a stolen election. A very slim possibility here, but not a zero danger.

          2. That was an interesting read. Some people say the Democrats have changed from their days of creating racism and using it to attack their political opponents. Have they?

            Well, they don’t attack black people like they used to. Even non-Democrat blacks are only subject to the harshest racist rhetoric but not violence like we had in the late 1800’s to mid 1900’s. But black people were not Democrat’s only target for violence, racial rhetoric, or systematic oppression through government.

            Republicans were also their targets. Republicans were lynched in the South. In other parts of the country Republicans were also subjected to violent acts.

            This hasn’t changed.

            Democrats still use violence against non-Democrats. From the 1800’s to the present day, there is an unbroken stream of political violence. What happened in San Jose this year is a good example of the party organized violence. So are the BLM race riots and the assassination of cops in Dallas.

            Aside from the violence, Democrats still use the racial rhetoric to motivate their base. They redefined racism to mean only white people can be racist. Then they inculcate racism in their minority base directed toward whites. The Democrats created racist terms like white privilege to demand collective punishment of non-Democrats. They attack Republicans for being mostly white knowing that the demographics of the heartland mean there is a small minority population.

            Its just endless racial attacks as we can see from this cycle. Democrats are mobilizing each race to vote based on racial identity and loyalty. And this is explicit. Obama is making explicitly racial appeals to blacks. The two guys who play Sulu are making them to Asians. And Univision is doing the same for Latinos.

            That covers violence and rhetoric but what about systematic abuses? Sure there is the IRS, that’s an obvious one. But there is also the conflict over the use of public land. Rural people who engage in rural activities are being pushed off that land. Loggers, ranchers, miners, hunters, equestrians, ATV riders, and others are being pushed and punished. These groups are also subjected to burdensome and punitive regulations. Anti-gun laws are another example and there are many others.

            Are things as bad as they were in the 1800’s? No, but these actions are all ramping up. Democrats entire ideology is based around righteous indignation and racist dehumanization directed at people they scapegoat for all of society’s current and past sins. They direct this all against “white” people but specifically Republicans but never the party that was actually responsible for slavery and systematic racist oppression, the Democrats.

      2. I hear you. I’ve definitely soured on holding out a vain hope that the polls are wrong. Once you get past the margin of error, they’re pretty unlikely to be wrong.

        OTOH… Brexit, you know. This is an unusual year, and Trump’s supporters are rather passionate. Nothing like the past two elections where almost nobody was excited about McCain or Romney.

        And, though early voting disrupts the possibility, we do still have a few weeks to go, and another debate, and a lot can change. In recent days, the polls for DT have been recovering lost ground. Who knows what may happen?

        I’m discouraged – but then, whatever happens, I’m discouraged so many Americans can even think of voting for that thoroughly corrupt and horrifically incompetent lady – but I’ve not yet given up all hope.

        1. It is pure idiocy to grasp at straws because of not liking Trump. Not being all in for Trump is to be for Hillary. Because of Trump’s juvenile banter, he can be attacked (without any evidence) by as many women as Hillary can pay off. This is exactly the type of psy-op Hillary will use after getting elected to keep the masses in line while she destroys this country (along with the entire world.)

          I don’t really care. The tribulation is coming regardless of who gets elected. Past tribulations included parents eating their children but were limited in time and location. The great tribulation will be worse; worldwide until the end. There will be no escaping it.

          I still expect Trump to win because we are being lied to by the media. I expect he’d be one of America’s greatest presidents, not because he’s Mr. Wonderful, but because he would fight for America.

          Trump is not the octopus. Hillary’s criminal network is the octopus (or kraken.)

          16 losers ran against Trump. Losers because even if any of them could have beat Hillary (which I doubt) they would have done nothing about the downward slide we’ve seen for decades. Hate Trump as much as you like, he’s the only one that can shake up this huge criminal network because he’s the only one not afraid to take it on. The technical term for the other 16 (and others) is chicken-shits. One exception might have been Cruz, who while not a chicken, was no more effective than the others.

          1. I expect he’d be one of America’s greatest presidents, not because he’s Mr. Wonderful, but because he would fight for America.

            Why would he fight for America? He’s had 50 years of adulthood, and he’s spent ever minute of it out for himself, and been rewarded with fame and riches and beautiful women. Why would he change?

          2. he’s spent ever minute of it out for himself, and been rewarded with

            The fruits of his labor. Labor that created jobs that allowed people to raise families. Its called capitalism.

            How did Hillary make her billions? What did she create? She has been nothing but a leech, both in terms of her profession and in how she makes money through bribery, graft, and corruption.

            A person who starts businesses that employ people is doing something for others. This isn’t just true of the employees that benefit but also the people that use what is created. Also, and this should make you happy Jim, businesses are the dynamo that powers our tax system.

            Nothing politicians do could be possible without business owners out there creating jobs, products, and services. This is what Democrats always attack. But we all know that under Hillary, any business that pays the Democrat party will do just fine under their fascist system.

          5. “The fruits of his labor. Labor that created jobs that allowed people to raise families. Its called capitalism.”

            Sorry Wodun, but I have to take exception with this. It is not called capitalism. It’s called the Free Market. The word “capitalism” was coined by Karl Marx as the label for his straw-man caricature of a free market economy. When you use the word “capitalism” leftists think you’re talking about what Marx was talking about, and you’re really not.

        2. Trump’s done a lot more for me than Hillary has. Trump has provided jobs and beautified cityscapes. That, sir, is “fighting for America”. The everyday workers who put in their 8 hours making this country a better place are “fighting for America”.

          Hillary has accomplished… absolutely nothing positive. Her story is one of failure, upon failure, upon failure. In all areas, except enriching herself at our expense.

          2. Trump built monuments to his ego with other people’s money, leaving a trail of lawsuits, bankruptcies, cheated contractors, and swindled shareholders in his wake. He failed so badly in the casino business that he hardly builds anything anymore, he just slaps his name on other people’s properties for cash. He creates jobs the same way the Kardashians do: by being famous for being famous.

            The funny thing is that Trump and Clinton both make money by monetizing their celebrity. Trump used his dad’s money, ugly public divorces, reality TV and relentless self-promotion to become a celebrity. Clinton used decades of public service.

          4. Even Jim thinks that Hillary is taking bribes.

            I don’t know where you get that. Clinton is famous, and lots of organizations will pay big money to have someone like her as a speaker, just like people will pay big money to have Kim Kardashian show up at a club opening, and just like people will pay big money to put the Trump name on a hotel. It isn’t bribery, it’s selling fame for cash. Isn’t that sort of exchange of perfectly legal services for money an example of free enterprise?

          5. Giving a Secretary of State and a future president millions of dollars in exchange for useless speeches and political influence has absolutely nothing to do with free enterprise.

      3. Almost unbelievably the most corrupt candidate for high level national office ever, Clinton II, will win. The GOPe will blame the amateur non career politician. I blame the shitstorm being thrown out by the media while covering for the left. I’d blame the GOPe for making Trump possible, but I doubt any of the potential candidates wouldn’t have withered under what amounts to a media coup de’tat.

        2. I’d blame the GOPe for making Trump possible, but I doubt any of the potential candidates wouldn’t have withered under what amounts to a media coup de’tat.

          This is true but you think by now Republicans would have seen the pattern of how they are treated by the Democrat’s pr wing.

          I do find some fault with the GOPe. Their backstabbing of Trump doesn’t help. They made him sign a loyalty oath but the GOPe had no intention of being loyal themselves.

    3. This smoking gun, to mix a metaphor, is inside baseball. It is TLDR

      There are so many scandals coming out in the leaked emails that no single one can gain traction. Its hard to keep track of them. Any one of them would have ended another candidate’s campaign.

      1. Maybe they’re not gaining traction because the MSM isn’t treating them like they were something truly monstrous and disqualifying for high office – like walking into a women’s dressing room or goosing a starlet.

        1. As I said in a previous thread, it requires the jackhammer of MSM repetition to create a scandal. Otherwise, no traction, no scandal.

  4. Long before Comey threw the case, when the “investigation” seemed to be petering out, I heard speculation that Hillary had struck a deal with Obama to avoid prosecution – and that her leverage would probably turn out to be that he, too, was involved in the emails. I thought it far-fetched. I guess not.

  5. I think one reason that Trump is not doing better is that most Christians are electing to stay out of the election.
    That’s the case for my wife and I, We’ve held our noses and voted for the lesser of two evils before. We took seriously the promises that we SoCons would be listened to and actions taken, only to be dumped like a trash bag full of aborted babies
    No more. We are not voting for anyone this time and I suspect a lot of people feel the same way.

    2. Don, I respect you choice and do believe that there is value in a vote of conscience. Have you weighed your choices between casting a ballot without a vote for president vs. choosing a third party or writing in an acceptable choice?

      Darrell Castle is not my cup of tea, but from what you wrote I would expect that you and your wife would find him agreeable, and he is either on the ballot or has gained official write-in status across most of the nation.

      Does anyone here know if the reported percentage of popular vote is from all ballots cast or only those with a valid vote for the office in question? The figures most often quoted for the 2000 election (47.87% / 48.38% / 2.74% for Bush / Gore / Nader) appear to come from the FEC’s “2000 Presidential Popular Vote Summary For All Candidates Listed On At Least One State Ballot”, which suggests that ballots without a vote for president will not be used for computing the popular vote and thus be of less protest value.

    3. Don, all I can say is “It’s your funeral”.

      Kiss your Republic goodbye under Clinton, this is the watershed moment in US history.

    4. Don, the Hillary campaign is lying to you and you’re buying it.. The woman accusing Trump are part of that lie. Proof that they are lying is out there, but that’s why it comes out just a few weeks before the vote so that there is no time to refute them. The quantity of accusations also, counter-intuitively, makes them less credible because it’s orchestrated. Otherwise these accusations would trickle out over a longer period of time… any accusation during October should just be dismissed.

      1. Otherwise these accusations would trickle out over a longer period of time

        Not if the serial offender was all over national television, first bragging that he attacks women in this way, and then denying that he had ever attacked any woman in this way. That’s a sure-fire way to encourage victims to come forward. And the more who come forward, the more will follow, feeling more confident that their stories will be believed. It’s exactly what happened with Bill Cosby: media attention and his denials brought out more victims, and then even more victims.

        1. These ‘victims’ (some of which have already been shown to be false) are coming out during a time when many people are smart enough to dismiss their unsupported accusations.

          Perhaps I should accuse Trump of fondling me? There could be money it. Think of the book deals. Movie of the week!

        2. bragging that he attacks women in this way

          The access Hollywood tape explicitly talks about consensual acts.

          1. The access Hollywood tape explicitly talks about consensual acts.

            Really?

            “Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it, you can do anything… Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”

            That is you definition of explicitly consensual?

          3. “they let you do it”

            Read for comprehension.

            Yes, read for comprehension. Trump says that he kisses and grabs women without waiting for their consent. He expects that they will “let him do it” because he’s rich and famous. And sometimes it turns out that way. Other times it doesn’t.

          5. At no point does Trump say against their will as is being claimed.

            Anyone who has ever kissed a girl, or been kissed by one, knows that until that first kiss happens, you never really know how things will go. Even after a relationship is established, you still wont always know when your partner is receptive to a kiss.

            I am sure Kirk and Jim always ask their wives if they can have a kiss before kissing. Or do you rely on nonverbal clues?

            When did we get these new Sex Laws of Affirmative Consent? Who has to follow them? Do women? Cause if that is the new standard, I have been sexually assaulted a few times by women and there is a 100% chance you have sexually assaulted someone too.

          6. Yes, read for comprehension.

            Yes indeed.

            The word “let” does no necessarily imply consent, or is anyone here suggesting that I am consenting to theft when I let an armed robber take my wallet, and then fail to report it to the authorities for whatever reason, be it that I fear retribution, that I am ashamed to admit that I was walking alone on that street at that time of night, or that I was simply convinced that nothing productive would come of the report? I let the robber have my wallet, and I let them get away without even alerting the police, but I did not consent to the robbery.

            That is an imperfect analogy to Mr. Trump’s boast because he was not discussing a threat of force, but instead a surprise assault (“Just kiss. I don’t even wait.” and “Grab them …”) more analogous to a snatch theft (which itself leads to unfortunate puns). So instead consider a businessman from four or five decades ago saying, “Wow! Check out that babe of a stenographer they sent up from the pool. I’ve got to put on my reading glasses, in case I start staring at her breasts. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just lean in and leer. It’s like a magnet. Just lean over and stare down their shirt. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a executive, they let you do it, you can do anything… Pinch them on the bottom. You can do anything.” The stenographer might warn her friends to try to avoid that particular executive and to try to protect themselves when they have to work with him, but just because she chooses not to report the incident for fear of repercussions and thus lets him get away with it, she has not consented to the harassment.

            I have more respect for his supporters who say that yes, Mr. Trump is a lout, but the supposed benefits of his proposed policies outweigh his personality defects. Unfortunately for them, Mr. Trump himself has managed to do what his many opponents have tried and failed, to turn this election into a referendum on Mr. Trump’s personality and his treatment of and attitude toward women. This is a referendum that Mr. Trump will lose.

          7. Or do you rely on nonverbal clues?

            Nonverbal communication is a vital ingredient of that intricate and often awkward dance we call courtship, but nothing in Mr. Trump’s “… just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.” and “Grab them by …” suggests his relying on nonverbal clues, beyond his target’s attractiveness.

            … new Sex Laws of Affirmative Consent?

            It is certainly bizarre if consent laws allow an existing couple to legitimately charge each other with rape following a night of equally drunken sex, but conflating groping with courtship just enhances the apparent prevalence of the existent but exaggerated rape culture which has been a driving force behind affirmative consent rules.

        3. Please Jim. Keep your hands to yourself. I’m not that kind of guy. I’m so ashamed. No Jim No! BTW I had to tell a dozen of my [political] friends how you sexually assaulted me.

          I would suggest you never run for office.

          2. Yes, Trump opened himself up to this line of attack by being an idiot. What he said about rich celebrities getting away with stuff is absolute and indisputable truth. He never said he did such things, just that he could. Anybody looking up gold digger on youtube can find examples.

            People are impressed with the quantity of accusations. How difficult would it be to get another 100 to make false accusations? Money and fame are waiting… along with a job because of loyalty to the corruption machine. Victimhood is a career path. Milo even gives a talk where he exposes examples of lesbians creating hate crimes against themselves… even burning down their own houses.

            The timing makes these accusations not credible. That they are unsupported makes them not credible. That Trump is a billionaire which increases the potential payout if they filed suit at the time of the supposed incidents when corroboration might be available makes it not credible.

            That media bias is well established and proved by the wall to wall coverage makes it not credible.

            Finally, even if absolutely true, he’s still the better choice!!! Fix this broken, corrupt govt. would be worth opening a brothel in the WH (which may already exist… would the media report it or use it?.)

        4. Oh, the national media. Now that’s an objective reality!

          Where was the national media for Bill’s victims? Where was the national media when Joe Biden groped women?

          Where was the national media for women raped in Europe by muslims? Where was the national media for terrorist victims in the US?

      2. I’m sure some of the accusations are true, but they appear to generally be of the “peck on the cheek” variety. Why would we even give a shrug about that? Women have a very effective way of avoiding a wayward smooch – they just turn their heads.

        Especially, why would we care when the opponent is the enabling wife who covered for her own spouse’s actual and extreme sex crimes? Voting for Trump isn’t voting for the lesser of two evils. It’s voting against true EVIL, with a capital E.

        Some are glaringly absurd, like the woman who claims he was all over her in a first class compartment full of other travelers, one of whom has actually, after two decades, come forward to dispute her. The fact is that, many men and women live in fantasy worlds, and deal with rejection by spinning it in their minds so that they were the reject-or rather than the reject-ee.

        It is painfully obvious that this is a set-up by the Democrats that has been planned for some time – fling enough sh%# at the wall, and maybe some will stick. But, there’s no smoking blue dress.

        1. It’s really something to label Hillary Clinton as “EVIL with a capital E” for doing precisely what you are doing in this comment: disputing the veracity of charges of sexual assault.

          1. Not precisely. Bill used subordinates to facilitate his actions. Trump is accused with no supporting evidence and in some public locations.

            So now Hillary is playing the wounded surrogate. What BS.

          2. They’re not evil for disputing charges. They are evil for actual acts, and evil for going after the women who dared to divulge them. And, you are evil for trying to sweep what is known under the rug and obfuscate clearly delineated issues.

          3. Disputing facts is far different than using violence to intimidate and other actions to destroy their lives.

        2. but they appear to generally be of the “peck on the cheek” variety.

          Ya, the one lady from Utah seemed to be dealing with some culture clash.

        3. And, note this part of my comment: “But, there’s no smoking blue dress.” Bill Clinton was caught in such a web of lies that he was disbarred, and had to pay out nearly $1M in cash. Wake me when such a mountain of evidence exists re Trump.

      3. The woman accusing Trump are part of that lie.

        I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them were true because some of them are really mild accusations. Hillary created the perception that the worst allegation is what all of the allegations were. CNN isn’t going to talk to the lady who said he grabbed her butt. They are going to talk to the ones with the sensational stories.

        None of them have any evidence though and it is interesting to note that the media no longer cares about fact checking during this fact checking frenzy going on.

  6. To which list Trump added in the second debate, and it had nothing to
    do with sex. It was his threat, if elected, to put Hillary Clinton in
    jail. After appointing a special prosecutor, of course. The niceties
    must be observed. First, a fair trial, then a proper hanging. The day
    after the debate, at a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump responded to chants
    of “Lock her up” with “Lock her up is right.” Two days later, he told
    a rally in Lakeland, Fla., “She has to go to jail.” Such incendiary
    talk is an affront to elementary democratic decency and a breach of
    the boundaries of American political discourse. In democracies, the
    electoral process is a subtle and elaborate substitute for combat, the
    age-old way of settling struggles for power. But that sublimation works
    only if there is mutual agreement to accept both the legitimacy of the
    result (which Trump keeps undermining with charges that the very
    process is “rigged”) and the boundaries of the contest.
    ….
    This is not to say that the investigation into the Clinton e-mails was not itself compromised by politics. FBI director James Comey’s recommendation not to pursue charges was both troubling and puzzling.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441054/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lock-her-up-threat-democracy

    What is puzzling is that Charles Krauthammer doesn’t seem to see that
    James Comey is merely following the rules Krauthammer is espousing.

    I would say what Krauthammer doesn’t understand is the LEFT doesn’t follow his idea of the rules.
    I am all for having rules and open borders, but people involved must have rules that they agree to and follow. And this is why it’s a bad reason to have open borders with Mexico.
    This is in addition aspect to top of having governmental welfare and it’s conflict with open borders.

    This also related to issue of what to do with terrorists. With terrorists it matters whether they are at war with the US. Wars have rules, if people involved in war follow rules, than both parties follow the rules. When parties don’t follow rules of war, then they are war criminals- rather than prisoners of war.
    Obama and Clinton were involved with arresting a person for making video, when they knew the video was not related to terrorism in Libya.
    Obama and Clinton corrupted the rules “because they get away with it”.
    That’s is example of the kind of stuff lefties routinely do- violating the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

    Were Krauthammer in James Comey position, why would not apply his idea of not convicting Clinton for obvious failure to maintain US classified material?
    Or if President Obama didn’t want to convict Clinton, why can’t a President Trump instead choose to convict. Now it might to bad idea,
    and what might good idea to grant all kinds of immunities so one can get to bottom of it- as what is actually important is addressing the massive amount of governmental corruption rather than having Clinton in jail cell, but I would not suggest completely remove the jail cell option.
    Otherwise it’s useless academic exercise, rather than deterrence to future governmental corruption. Or rules must be enforced [and equally]
    else rule are unjust and it undermines the rule of law.

    1. Such incendiary talk is an affront to elementary democratic decency

      The indecency is that she has not been locked up. There is absolutely no question of her guilt. Her trial has been public. Shes guilty.

      This isn’t a case of trial by media. This is her own testimony before congress. Her guilt is not at all in question. Comey’s guilt is not in question. Lynch’s guilt is not in question Obama’s guilt is not in question. The criminal corruption is in all our faces.

      The incredible thing is that rule of law has been made into a joke. People have had to scramble for their lives because of Hillary. The discussion should be the names of those that she has murdered by her handling of top secret data.

      1. There is absolutely no question of her guilt.

        ‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’

        1. There is absolutely no question that they should have empaneled a grand jury and performed a proper investigation, instead of conspiring with the Clinton campaign and the State Department to obstruct justice.

          1. You are so sure that Clinton is guilty that you would question the legitimacy of any investigation that failed to convict her. You call for an FBI investigation, and when the FBI concludes there’s no case, you call for an investigation of the FBI. The crimes you allege, and the conspiracy that supposedly carried them out, grow more far-fetched with each passing week.

          3. Jim, remember this is the same FBI that destroyed the evidence and lied about what took place in their investigation.

        2. Jim, Ken can be as convinced of her guilt as he wants to be. Given that we do have hard evidence of multiple felonies committed by her and her cronies, I think the court case would be straightforward.

          1. You see guilt because you want to see guilt. Your “hard evidence” did not persuade career FBI investigators.

          3. Read this Politico piece about what the FBI found. A sample:

            Together, the documents, technically known as Form 302s, depict less a sinister and carefully calculated effort to avoid transparency than a busy and uninterested executive who shows little comfort with even the basics of technology, working with a small, harried inner circle of aides inside a bureaucracy where the IT and classification systems haven’t caught up with how business is conducted in the digital age. Reading the FBI’s interviews, Clinton’s team hardly seems organized enough to mount any sort of sinister cover-up.

            You think they managed to not only mount a sinister cover-up, but also get the FBI to go in on it. In that sense, I think you give Clinton and her staff far too much credit. But it doesn’t add up: the sort of organization that would leave incriminating evidence on various servers and devices scattered all over North America wouldn’t be able to mount a successful cover-up, and the sort of organization that could elude the FBI wouldn’t have left itself so exposed to begin with. The boring, obvious answer is sometimes the correct one: Clinton’s people messed up in various ways but weren’t criminals, and the FBI just did its job.

          4. Your “hard evidence” did not persuade career FBI investigators.

            So we were told by a person whose ability to tell the truth is now very questionable. The same guy that read into a law something that was not there at all.

          5. “Your “hard evidence” did not persuade career FBI investigators.”

            It didn’t persuade Comey. Or, more likely, Comey is either a hack in the tank or a coward. The rank and file are rumored to be upset with the decision, as well they should be.

          7. The boring, obvious answer is sometimes the correct one: Clinton’s people messed up in various ways but weren’t criminals, and the FBI just did its job.

            And we are just supposed to ignore emails about withholding evidence? Communications about how to destroy evidence?

            You did read the links at the top right?

            Also, the claim that Hillary is a bumbling idiot who doesn’t know how to use more than a single device is BS. She had over 13 devices and use multiple devices concurrently.

            You can’t claim she is an idiot on simple stuff like this but will be a genius as President. She isn’t dumb and you don’t think she is dumb, so stop with the BS.

          8. Your “hard evidence” did not persuade career FBI investigators.

            You can see what they did. You can’t assume what they were persuaded of. Several judges have put their reputations on the line saying she should have been indicted. Beyond that, when Comey introduces the mythical ‘intent’ requirement, Trey went above and beyond to prove that.

          9. Your “hard evidence” did not persuade career FBI investigators.

            Actually, I’m reading a fair bit indicating career FBI investigators were so convinced, but got overruled by Comey.

        3. ‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first — verdict afterwards.’

          A verdict requires a trial. Can we have one?

          1. A trial requires an indictment. An indictment requires an investigation. You already got one.

            So we were told by a person whose ability to tell the truth is now very questionable.

            His ability to tell the truth was unquestioned until he did the unthinkable and declined to recommend indictment. Your reasoning is perfectly circular: Comey didn’t recommend indictment because he can’t be trusted, and he can’t be trusted because he didn’t recommend indictment.

          2. His ability to tell the truth is being questioned by his own investigators, who were reportedly shocked at his laying out a fact case to indict, which they thought should have happened, and then saying he wasn’t going to do it.

          4. Jim there is waaaaaayyyy more evidence here than there is with women accusing Trump of things.

            There is an established timeline of events and actions taken. We know what some of the contents of Hillary’s emails were, and those contents show she broke the law. There was more evidence but she destroyed it. Then the FBI destroyed the devices used to destroy her emails.

            We can read the law and then look at the evidence that has come out through the FBI and Democrat hero Wikileaks. All of this shows that laws were broken.

          5. Comey didn’t recommend indictment because he can’t be trusted, and he can’t be trusted because he didn’t recommend indictment.

            Comey can be trusted or he wouldn’t have been selected to run the “investigation”.

          6. His ability to tell the truth was unquestioned until he did the unthinkable and declined to recommend indictment.

            After clearly outlining an indictable case and introducing a non essential requirement as an excuse not to indict. Along with the fact that Lynch made the unique statement that she would do what Comey recommended… After Bill met with Lynch which should never have happened.

            So Jim, your characterization of others motivation is complete BS (as usual.)

          7. His ability to tell the truth was unquestioned until he did the unthinkable

            Not completely true, but yes, he did something extraordinary, an officer, not a prosecutor, made the decision not to prosecute. It wasn’t his job to make that decision. He made it to give Lynch cover. What he should have done is provide the information collected in the investigation to the DoJ, because that’s his job. Comey didn’t do his job.

      2. “Such incendiary talk is an affront to elementary democratic decency.”

        Get used to it, because the proles are tired of having their boots pissed on and being told it’s rain. Trump is not the one to blame for calling out what the rest of us see. The ones to blame are the criminals who are foisting this outrageous corruption upon us.

        1. Re: “proles”: Trump supporters have a higher median income than whites Americans, or Americans in general.

          2. Bourgeoisie are often the targets of fascists and socialists. We can tell you support the targeting by the way you talk about business owners.

          3. Note to self: Jim states accurate stat. that contradicts several lines of BS that he usually promotes. Retain for future reference.

  7. This election has really opened my eyes. I changed registration from R to I about a year ago, disgusted by the spineless failures of the GOPe to even pretend to resist Obama. Now, I see many the “conservative” talking heads, people I used to avidly read, telling people to abandon Trump. As a middle-class person, a member of the new lumpenproletariat, I’ve come to accept that people like me have simply been abandoned by the ruling class. It really is the top and bottom allied against the middle. Trump is a threat to the ruling class because of his rhetoric, so whether you have a D or R after your name on the talk-show info crawl, you’re united in stopping him. And you’ll help Hillary because You’re With Her.

    1. You are not alone Agent J. If not for Trump, we would all continue to have been fooled. Rand still is, but I still have hope.

        1. I’ll take the bait, Rand. Are the Trump supporters the fools? Should we be voting for the Losertarian candidate instead?
          As I wrote, I quit the GOP. I realized they are my enemy. I’ve known my entire life that the Dems are my enemy. The danger of vast swaths of the populace feeling disenfranchised and cornered is that Rules 9, 12, 22, 38, 44, 45, 223, 556, and 3006 might be invoked. (Did I miss any?) *I don’t want that.* The GOP had been a useful pressure relief valve for the establishment, but I think that valve has finally stuck closed. The phenomenon of Trump 2016 is people trying one last time to reduce pressure. We’ve tried A, we’ve tried B, and now we’re trying C, but the ground is coming up fast.

      1. +2

        How did you get away with that? When I put in just two characters, I get a message saying my post is too short.

        2. What Ken said. The system automatically removes whitespace, but there was a good amount of italicized whitespace when I posted.

    3. Now when these articles from places like NR popup on various blogs, I close them. If I notice by hovering over the link, I won’t click it.

      Not exactly true, sometimes the lead in or quote can suck me in but 97% of the time their content is avoided.

  8. Last night I had an intense exchange about Trump down at the Shell station with several young black men in athletic wear. They were pretty livid. Their argument surprised me.

    “This shit about Trump is just fucking bullshit! You tell me women ain’t throwing themselves at billionaires like that? NBA stars [I forget which they mentioned] and billionaires got chicks coming at ’em left and right! And these chicks wait till now to bring this shit up? That is fucking political bullshit! And Hillary? What kind of fucking woman wants a job where she’s going to sit at the same desk where her husband got his dick sucked!”

    In the media’s zeal to smear Trump with everything under the sun, they’ve apparently alienated the black male demographic and made them kick into OJ defense mode. And these guys were extremely vocal about it. If that opinion catches fire and goes viral, the Democrats are done.

      1. You think the average person cares about the damn desk and whether it is the exact same one?

        Small sample size or no, these guys are right. Women DO throw themselves at rich men. The plausibility that this both true and is only coming out now is zero. Not small, miniscule or infinitesimal, but zero.

        1. What was the song again? Oh yeah Gold Digger. It was penned and recorded by a black guy, who drops the N-word in the song many times. It was a big hit too. The same guy is famous for dumping on a pastie white girl who lives mostly in the Hamptons and dates young Kennedy’s and such.

        2. That was my point that the bus banter was two things. Vulgar and true. For those that overlook vulgar, just true is all that remains.

        3. Haha, that’s like the fact checking going on these days.

          We rate this as False because Hillary would not be sitting at the same desk as Bill and we don’t think she would because what woman would want to sit at the same desk her husband got his d*ck sucked on?

          However, we rate as True Hillary’s claim that Trump shouldn’t sit at the same desk as Washington and Lincoln. There was no reference to a specific desk but rather desk was being used as a metaphor for the office of President.

      4. Isn’t it a little amazing that professional athletes are now being praised as pious examples of society’s greatest virtues? You do notice how last week they were all womanizers right?

  9. “Think we should hold emails to and from potus?”

    I have questions.

    Were they, in fact, withheld? (I apologize for not keeping up with this story, but I’m genuinely asking the question. I’m not being sarcastic or making a point.)

    Also, did Cheryl Mills answer John Podesta?

    In any case, just asking the question doesn’t strike me, a non-lawyer, as obstruction of justice. To obstruct justice, at the very least, wouldn’t someone have to say, in the affirmative, “lets hold back the POTUS emails”, showing their intent. And, if they released them anyway, would intent matter?

    1. They were under subpoena. If they wanted to withhold for executive privilege, they should have done so. Instead they bleachbit them. That is obstruction of justice.

          1. No, I mean withheld. Clinton’s lawyers went through her emails, printed out the ones deemed work-related, gave those to the State Department, and told the server admins to delete the rest. That all happened before any subpoena, and before the date on the Podesta email above.

            So what is Podesta talking about? Withholding some of the printed emails that were given to State from Congress? If so, that sounds like a conversation about executive privilege. And again, we don’t know that anything was actually withheld.

            If they weren’t withheld/destroyed, or there was no claim of executive privilege or classification, why haven’t we seen them?

            We haven’t seen everything that was given to State.

          2. “…and told the server admins to delete the rest…”

            That is a crime, Jim. The person being audited doesn’t get to pick and choose what records to provide. When investigators say “all”, they mean ALL.

            It is absurd to argue that we should take defendants at their word when they claim innocence. There would never be any convictions, ever, if that were the case. That is why we have investigations.

            No small fry defendant would ever get away with this kind of obstruction. There is a rule for the elites, and a rule for the little people. And, you are an enabler for the elites.

          3. That is a crime, Jim.

            What law was broken? The emails weren’t under subpoena at that point. Clinton was under no legal obligation to preserve non-work emails.

          6. They were under subpoena at that point.

            None of Clinton’s emails were under subpoena in December, 2014, when Mills told the server admin to delete all emails older than 60 days.

          9. If you have reasonable knowledge that documents will be subpoenaed, it is illegal to destroy them. For example, the day before the subpoena shows up you destroy all the evidence, is still destruction of evidence.

            That is of course if you are a regular person that laws apply to.

          10. and told the server admins to delete the rest

            Remember earlier about how you were saying there was no evidence?

        2. We now know that there were emails between Clinton and Obama. If they weren’t withheld/destroyed, or there was no claim of executive privilege or classification, why haven’t we seen them?

        3. Jim, it’s funny how you’re able to make all these pronouncements about the case when you can’t even answer this question.

          1. Exactly. The FACT is that the whole PURPOSE of the independent server was to illegally circumvent disclosure rules, rules that the rest of us peons have to abide by or risk harsh penalties.

      1. Perhaps I don’t understand logic either (or perhaps I just don’t follow your sarcasm), but “Were they, in fact, withheld?” seems like a perfectly reasonable and relevant question. Do we know?

        1. If they were not delivered to Congress as ordered by the subpoena, then yes they were withheld. Whether the reason they were withheld is that they had already been destroyed is immaterial to whether they were delivered to Congress or not.

        2. Yes, they were withheld and destroyed.

          We know that Obama was using an alias to communicate with Hillary. None of those emails came out.

          Considering the rampant use of private emails and aliases in all federal agencies controlled by Obama to bypass record searches based on keywords, this is big news. Did the IRS use this alias when searching for communication between Obama and the IRS?

          Its easy to bypass keyword searches when you construct a shadow government that operates on aliases and fake email accounts.

        3. What Ed and Wodun said. If you have evidence, I ask for it; and you then don’t provide it for whatever reason; it was withheld.

          The notion that jim bob is pushing is that they were deleted prior to the subpoena, time went by with no evidence or mention, WikiLeaks publishes Podesta’s emails, and now executive privilege was claimed. Why claim executive privilege of evidence that was destroyed? OH….

          I guess Nixon should have just claimed the tapes were executive privilege.

          1. Nixon did claim that the tapes were covered by executive privilege, and he pursued that argument all the way to the Supreme Court. The court ruled against him, 8-1.

  10. I’d estimate about half the people on my Facebook wall appear to be completely okay with Clinton, even actively in support of her. They usually don’t even try to deny her corruption and criminality. It’s just that political correctness is more important to them than rule of law, and it’s not really even close. I have never been quite this disappointed in my fellow Americans.

    1. Its an identity thing. This is why identity politics is practised by Democrats. All white people are racist and you can only get absolution by being a Democrats and since all white people are racist, you can’t be a minority that votes for the bad white people.

  11. Why would [Trump] fight for America?

    Beside the answer already given by others; just his fight against (who in the establishment is he not fighting against?) shows him fighting for America, but including issues the other chicken-shits ™ don’t have the courage to.

    I started defending Trump because he was clearly being slandered (something I would even do for Jim.) but as time goes by, I’ve come to realize Trump is on target on a whole range of substantive issues. He has opened my eyes to the ‘soft’ collusion that’s been going on behind the scenes forever.

    1. The only thing I believe about Trump is that he wants the USA to succeed. He wants a strong America.

      Obama hates the USA and you can tell by how his policies are all designed to weaken the country.

      1. He wants a strong America.

        And that’s why he kowtows to Putin? That’s why he violated the Cuba embargo? That’s why he rented space to an Iranian bank with terror ties? That’s why he tells the world that U.S. elections are stolen at the ballot box?

        Trump is for Trump, nothing more.

          1. I am very doubtful the Republican Party would ever impeach Trump. Look at how virtually ever elected Republican has lined up behind him as nominee. That isn’t because they like him, it’s because they are terrified of his voters. And that won’t change if Trump wins, it will only get worse.

          2. Look at how virtually ever elected Republican has lined up behind him as nominee. That isn’t because they like him, it’s because they are terrified of his voters.

            No, it’s because they’re terrified of Hillary Clinton being president. I share their terror. Once he’s in, with the prospects of a President Pence, all bets are off.

        2. And that’s why he kowtows to Putin?

          The Democrats have been kowtowing to Russia since they were the USSR. Remember Obama’s promise to be more flexible? Obama’s unilateral reduction of nuclear weapons? Failing to do anything about Russia his entire term until now when he is threatening war to get Hillary elected?

          Going to war with Russia over Syria or the DNC emails is straight up retarded. The time to intervene in Syria was prior to Russian involvement. Now, they have ground troops, air defenses, and fighter jets. The time to hold Assad to account was in 2005. The time to be tough on Russia was any time prior to now when they were abusing Obama’s “smart” foreign policy.

          The only reason Democrats have flipped 180 on Russia in the last couple of weeks is because Russia has damaged the Democrat party and Democrats need a boogieman to threaten with war to get low information voters to the polls.

          That’s why he violated the Cuba embargo?

          The embargo Democrats have been against for generations because it hurts their communist hero?

          That’s why he tells the world that U.S. elections are stolen at the ballot box?

          Democrats have over a hundred year history of using voter fraud in elections. And its still happening in NYC on a massive scale.

          Trump is for Trump, nothing more.

          America succeeding is good for Trump. America doing poorly is good for Hillary, Obama, and the Democrats. We know Hillary isn’t out just for herself but also everyone that has given her billions in bribes.

          1. America succeeding is good for Trump.

            Hardly. America was booming in 1995, while Trump was losing a billion dollars. When Trump Casinos shareholders and employees lost everything, Trump himself walked away with a big score. Look at Trump University. Trump isn’t about succeeding with others, he’s about succeeding at the expense of others.

          2. Trump is campaigning on improving America. America doing well is in his interest. Democrats want a weaker America.

            Did you notice that your soviet inspired anti-business rhetoric slipped in? Business aren’t screwing people over.

            If you have problems with failed ventures, you don’t know anything about business. You might want to take a look at the millions the Clintons have made from taking bribes from scam for profit colleges.

    2. “(something I would even do for Jim.)”

      Something I have in fact done for Jim on this very blog. And then he comes back with even stupider shit than was falsely attributed to him.

    3. Opened my eyes, too. Establishment Republicans are a bunch of milquetoasts whose only strategy is to slow the rate at which Democrats get what they want.

      Reagan, too, was looked at askance by the milquetoast contingent. In fact, I have watched as the whole 1980 race played out again before my eyes. The actors are different, but the script is the same.

      The only difference is that the country wasn’t so far gone at the time as to reelect Carter, a bumbling supercilious idiot who had cratered the economy and produced a string of foreign policy failures, creating untold suffering and both domestically and internationally, and dramatically increasing the risk of war. Just like Barack Obama and the woman who would assume his mantle.

      1. The decline of a knowledgeable and ethical populace seems like a coordinated effort.

        nd as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking – and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

        Hey look, race based politics makes an appearance too.

  12. Isn’t it strange how Obama and Hillary want to start a cyber war with Russia at this moment?

    Why now? Why Russia?

    Did we go to cyber war over the OPM hack, Manning, Snowden, or any of the other highly damaging hacks that have taken place over the last 8 years? No we haven’t. Why is this?

    I will answer my own question, because what Wikileaks is doing now damages the Democrat party while those other hacks damaged the United States and its citizens. The Democrats don’t care about the USA, only their party power. It is also possible they liked those other hacks because they did damage the USA, as anti-American sentiment is just as high with our friends to the left as it is anywhere else in the world.

    Hurt the Democrat party though? War!

  13. “But it doesn’t add up: the sort of organization that would leave incriminating evidence on various servers and devices scattered all over North America wouldn’t be able to mount a successful cover-up, and the sort of organization that could elude the FBI wouldn’t have left itself so exposed to begin with. ”

    Jim, you just spelled out very clearly the reason why Clinton printed out the f*****g emails rather than submit them in electronic form. It isn’t because “lawyers do that” (they do, but not when submitting emails as evidence), it’s because she was destroying the header information which would have allowed the FBI to track that information across all of those servers.

    I don’t know how to make this point any clearer. The fact that she printed out the F*****G emails was prima facia obstruction of justice, and she is a felon. Period.

    1. The fact that she printed out the F*****G emails was prima facia obstruction of justice

      That’s ridiculous. It’s SOP in the federal government to preserve electronic records by printing them out.

        1. But it’s the only way to preserve info in some parts of the fed.gov. I mean, look at how subpoenas cause drive failures and inadvertent backup tape recycling at the IRS! It’s so bad that the FBI had to agree to destroy laptops of two Clinton co-conspirators after NOT examining any emails on them from after Jan. 31, 2015 just to keep things fair. You wouldn’t want one division of the Executive branch to have an unfair advantage in the stink-to-high-heaven contest would you? Would you?

      2. You can’t tell if a printed email has been doctored without access to the electronic versions that were erased, bleach bitted, or checking the devices that were physically destroyed by Obama’s IRS.

        It all on the up and up. Ignore the emails that were leaked by Democrat hero Wikileaks!

        1. Oh, I said Obama’s IRS when I meant Obama’s DOJ. It gets confusing when they all act the same way. Could have easily got mixed up with the EPA too.

      3. I am a federal government civil servant, and you don’t know what you’re talking about. Furthermore, you completely ignored the main point, which is that printing the emails out prevents anyone from ever being able to trace their path through the internet.

  14. Why would [Trump] change?

    Running for president has already changed him (certainly not completely, but easily seen with any perceptive ability.)

    He may have started as a pure con man (I don’t believe that, but let’s suppose it true.) That’s not who he is today. He didn’t know the crowds or its individuals before his run. It has had it’s effect.

    By making stump speeches Trump has programmed himself to some degree. Surrounding himself with conservatives has a similar effect. He may be shallow, but he get’s things done. When wrong, he will get pushback. Is he going to go along with those that tried to destroy him or those that supported him?

    1. Running for president has already changed him (certainly not completely, but easily seen with any perceptive ability.)

      I have plenty of perceptive ability. He’s the same ignorant, narcissistic, boorish ass hat he’s always been.

      1. I would say that running for President changes anyone, including
        Trump.
        Though change in terms of how someone manages/governs is different matter. Or I think experience governing, also changes someone.
        Or obviously there is merit to picking someone who already has experience as governor of some state, as there should be is less of learning process being the President.
        But roughly speaking, Trump is and will remain the “same ignorant, narcissistic, boorish ass hat he’s always been”. And just because he might want to make America great again, does not mean he has the ability or luck [as in given the chance] to do this. But it seems in terms of being disruptive factor- Trump should manage to continue doing/being that- if President or not.

        1. Re the: “if President or not”
          If Trump is not elected, maybe he will become the chairman republican national committee.
          On basis that Trump might have changed due to election process-
          and he might have become quite fond of the election process- and he is unpredictable.
          Now, one could argue Trump has better things to do, but I tend to actually think to that Trump is retiring from his business in order to allow his children to take over- so he needs a hobby.

          1. related:
            “Godzilla is a monster, causing endless destruction, but when he goes down losing, you get this crazy empathy for him. Am I saying Trump is a monster? Trump is like a monster, tromping through the built-up structures of American politics. How can he be stopped? Nothing seems to work. He keeps going. Yes, but in the end, he’ll go down. Afterwards, you’ll remember and think oddly fondly of him, and the characters who defeated him won’t have your heart. Unlike a dead movie monster, Trump will still be a live human being, doing… whatever. The movie monster, even though killed in the movie, manages — if we’ve loved him — to get brought back to life for the sequels and remakes. But Trump will be around, and we’ll want to see him again. His relentless, unstoppable rampage was so perversely rousing and even, for some, endearing.”
            http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/10/donald-trump-has-lost-little-support.html

            I don’t get the “oddly fondly” of Godzilla thing- probably why I don’t like these movies.
            But Trump and Godzilla have similarities.
            One thing is that Godzilla represents the US, and so does Trump.

    2. Is he going to go along with those that tried to destroy him or those that supported him?

      You can’t predict what he’d do. His attitude and policy positions echo those of the last person he spoke to. These days that’s Bannon, but earlier in the campaign it was Monfort or Kushner.

      1. I thought I was being obviously rhetorical. Of course we can’t predict precisely, but we can assume those he surrounds himself with will have more influence than his opponents.

        Plus the fact that we’re not electing Emperor (Empress if we screw up.) We might get back our three branches if we don’t put the criminal democrat in power.

      2. Its pretty easy to predict what Hillary would do because she has a record we can look at. More sex slavery, genocide, and tens of millions of refugees destabilizing every country they go to. And more fascist policies that reward Clinton donors with taxpayer money while punishing those that are not donors or part of the Democrats.

        Judging by the way she is reacting to her former ally Russia, it looks like we could have WWIII because Hillary wants to prove she is a tough lady. The dum dum Democrats will probably want to ally with jihadists to do it too (because that is what they are and have been doing).

  15. For whatever it’s worth, here’s the entire supposed content of Podesta’s email:

    Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That’s the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I [sic] seems like they will.

    I.e. he was asking whether the emails should be protected by executive privilege. Podesta isn’t even sure that the White House will care whether Congress sees the emails! So much for a “smoking gun.”

    As Roseanne Roseannadanna would say: never mind.

      1. Lots of her emails have not been released by State, either because they’re now classified or because State hasn’t yet cleared them for release. The FBI certainly had emails from Obama to Clinton, they are discussed it the interview notes that have been released. So no, there’s no reason to believe the emails Podesta referred to were withheld.

        1. Are you under the impression that the representatives of The People are not allowed to know what government employees are doing on The People’s time and money? Because that’s shadow government talk. That’s saying that the People are not in control of their own government.

          Is the Left actually trying to start another civil war?

    2. Nothing to see here, move along? Dude, this full email is no less damning than the excerpt. It shows Podesta believes that Hillary and Obama are both above the law.

      Well, if all the laws are flat, then there’s nothing left to protect either Hillary or Obama.

      You have some serious thinking to do, Jim. Do you really want to live in a world where whether the law applies to you depends on with whom you are politically affiliated? Because you personally can become part of an unfavored group with the stroke of a pen. You might want to peruse The Rise And Fall of The Roman Empire, and decide whether President Nero should be above the law.

      You need to understand this, Jim. You simply must, at least so that you’re not completely bewildered when you and the other useful idiots are lined up against the wall and shot, as has happened over and over and over in just the last century, and as will happen again if the rule of law is ignored in the Presidential election. Don’t make me look up the citation again, we’ve discussed this before.

      1. Jim should watch this video on YouTube. It of a former KGB agent explaining exactly what you say. Its shocking how much of the modern day Democrat party grew out of an alliance with the KGB.

        For someone as worried about Russia as Jim, knowing that the core planks of the Democrat party came from the KGB must be really troubling.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

      2. It shows Podesta believes that Hillary and Obama are both above the law.

        No, it shows that he believes communications between a president and the Secretary of State is, at least some of the time, protected by executive privilege. Which it is!

        1. If the communication is over unsecured channels? There is a reason the law is very specific about conducting government email over a secure system. That is unless you think espionage at the highest levels is no big deal. If the President was conducting official government business with the Secretary of State over a private server, and could see by the email address itself that it was not a government email address, then Obama himself committed a felony.

          This BTW is a felony that carries with it as part of the penalty a prohibition from ever holding public office or working for the US government again. For all involved.

          1. If the President was conducting official government business with the Secretary of State over a private server, and could see by the email address itself that it was not a government email address, then Obama himself committed a felony.

            You are just making things up. There is no law banning unclassified official government business over unsecured channels.

          2. WTF do you think official government communication between the President and the Secretary of State are? Pray tell what federal government business between the President and the chief foreign diplomat would not be classified at birth?

            Because the only official government business between those two people is foreign policy specifics that are not public knowledge. |You just think for a moment what that entails.

            Jim, admit it. Stop being obtuse. It’s so obvious it’s like saying the sun generally rises towards the East. She’s a felon. And this smoking gun implies Obama is a felon too.

            This blind adherence to Party above Truth is just stupid and in the long run dangerous like you would not believe. Give it up.

    3. I.e. he was asking whether the emails should be protected by executive privilege.

      Emails Obama is on record as denying he ever sent?

      Did the IRS do a keyword search for Obama’s alias and fake email?

      Its a web of lies and corruption. Even when you think you are providing a defense, you just reveal that everything Obama and Hillary have been saying are lies to protect their fascist corruption.

        1. He said he’d never known that Clinton had her own illegal, insecure, outside-the-government email server until it was reported in the news. Of course, he’s said that about a number of other inconvenient things, too. Is he the most clueless president in the history of the Republic, or just a liar? And yet, he emailed her at a non-state.gov address. Does not compute. If Hillary and Obama are so supremely incompetent with email that they didn’t understand this, they’re probably dumb-fucks at most everything, as well. Incompetence and/or ignorance is not a legal defense, though it might play a part in sentencing.

          2. I.e. he never denied sending her email. He denied knowing that she was using a private server for all her email, and simply knowing an email address for her wouldn’t tell him those things.

          4. Hey everybody, Jim doesn’t know the difference between a .com and a .gov email address!!!

            It’s not just government classification systems for which Jim is clueless.

          5. Knowing that it’s not *.gov tells him that it’s not secure.

            Huh? .gov doesn’t mean secure either. We know that state.gov was hacked.

            Obama said he didn’t know that Clinton was using a server in her home for all of her email. The fact that he sent her email to a non-.gov address doesn’t contradict that statement in the least.

          7. It’s a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

            Nope. There are secure addresses that aren’t .gov, and .gov addresses that aren’t secure. And it doesn’t matter — it isn’t as if it’s illegal for the White House to use insecure email.

            Wodun claimed that Obama was caught in a lie about when he learned about Clinton’s server arrangement. He wasn’t.

          8. ” it isn’t as if it’s illegal for the White House to use insecure email.”

            YES IT IS YOU FREAKING NINCOMPOOP! That’s what all this is about ffs.

          9. Wodun claimed that Obama was caught in a lie about when he learned about Clinton’s server arrangement. He wasn’t.

            Yes, he was. He was in communication with Hillary and it is impossible not to notice the @Clintonmail.com address. Her use of this system wasn’t a secret. There is no reason to think that anyone would see that address and think it was a secure government run email address.

            Obama lied, again.

            Now we need to know if Obama’s fake email and alias were used in communicating with other government agencies and if a shadow government was set up to bypass record laws and prevent accountability when scandals like this, the IRS, F&F, the EPA, the VA, or any of the crap going on with the DOJ helping to organize Democrat party riots.

  16. –At the time, Ted Cruz seemed to be doing well — my how appearances can be deceiving! — and already there were troubling stories about Hillary Clinton’s health. I said that I doubted she would be up to the rigors of the campaign, but he replied: she won’t need to campaign. She will win the primary and then the election by acclamation.

    “Er, ah,” I said, or words to that effect. I didn’t believe a word of it. Now I am not so sure.–
    https://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2016/10/16/do-we-even-need-elections-anymore/
    And:
    –And the ongoing WikiLeaks dumps show that it was always a foregone conclusion that we would be played by the Clintons. The whole FBI investigation was a travesty, an expensive fraud on the public. Hillary was never going to be charged, for the very good reason that the president of the United States was complicit in her flouting of security protocols and mishandling of classified materials. —

  17. I agree, generally with this:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441126/donald-trump-conservatives-should-vote-president

    So much so, that the article inspired me to nit pick it- or look for what I don’t quite agree with. Starting at beginning:
    “Donald Trump needs a unified Republican party in the homestretch if he is to have any chance left of catching Hillary Clinton..”

    I think Trump focus should getting more voters to polls and get Dems to vote for him. So in terms of unemployment of youth and blacks and minorities in inner cities. Address school choice of having more options
    towards their children’s education. A main issue is more policing to reduce highest crime areas- that people in these areas have corrupt and incompetent [and uncaring] political leadership. This political corruption is a matter criminal neglect. And continue what Trump saying about removing guns from gangs and other criminals. [and not from people who have guns to protect themselves from criminals activity]. One mention the growing number of women owning gun for there personal protection and women doing this to prevent being victimized from crime.
    Of course add in problem illegal immigrant, with the connection with drug trade and organized crime. And major thing the federal government can do, is doing their federal responsibility of securing the US borders. Etc.
    Or Trump got here by being a populist outsider- he needs to take this to a broader audience.
    Next:
    “Nor is the election a choice even between four more years of liberalism and a return of conservatism; it’s an effort to halt the fundamental transformation of the country. A likely two-term Clinton presidency would complete a 16-year institutionalization of serial progressive abuse of the Constitution, outdoing even the twelve years of the imperial Roosevelt administration.”

    I don’t think Clinton, if she wins, she will get 2 terms and what important about having Clinton elected will be in the next 4 years. Or it’s the short term damage which I think is the major problem.
    Obama blamed everything on Bush. Clinton will blame everything on Congress.
    It only way for her to do anything. Clinton has no mandate, and she really has not campaigned.
    Instead she has been selected by MSM and Dem machine and corporate interests which owni it. She has been selected because she is a woman. She will argue she has 100 days
    of allowing everything as she dictates, and condemn anyone saying anything which she imagines is opposition.
    The Congress doesn’t have much public support- for a variety of reasons. And since blame Bush worked, why wouldn’t blame Congress work?
    But I am too worried about that, the problem is the world is in trouble and Clinton is about the worst choice possible for the Commander-in-Chief. She will manage to make Obama look good in comparison.

    She will continue as President with what she did as Sec of State- which was everything is about her interests and nothing to do with American interests.
    Or Clinton is not popular [quite an understated] and she will also not be popular with the rest of world. Obama was weak, Clinton will be much weaker. Which is very dangerous- her weakness will start wars and she will choose violent ways to resolving them.
    So in 4 year she could start a global war and in the middle of such war, have the worst possible situation of having her impeached in the middle of it. Or idea of people rallying around Clinton is unlikely- they never have and her having office of President is not going to change this.

    1. I doubt she’ll live through her first term, or if she does, she’ll be in a severely disabled state. If she can’t take the stress of campaigning, how in the world will she be an effective president? Maybe Putin will give her 3-4 days warning before he make a move so that she can rest up, and then the Chinese won’t make a move until later in the week until she recovers from that day’s exertion…

    2. They keep harping on republican unity (which seems mostly to be a minority of elites.) What about the rank and file Sanders supporters that will never vote for Hillary (except for being ballot stuffed for her?)

  18. Well many more smoking guns are appearing:

    Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

    https://d1sb17b1leotpq.cloudfront.net/rigging-election-video-i-clinton-campaign-and-dnc-incite-violence-trump-rallies.html

    One person mentioned in this article (Foval) has been removed from his job with the liberal advocacy group Americans United for Change.

    Related:

    James O’Keefe Gets Another Scalp: Subject of Undercover Video Ousted

    “Fovel has already removed traces of his associations with Americans United for Change from his LinkedIn account.” (Breitbart)

    Activist Who Took Credit For Violent Chicago Protests Was On Hillary’s Payroll

    An activist who bragged about disrupting multiple Donald Trump campaign events in a recent Project Veritas video was on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign payroll, a search of Federal Election Commission (FEC) records reveals.

    In a Veritas video released Monday, filmmaker and provocateur James O’Keefe recounts meeting activist Zulema Rodriguez at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. In the video, Rodriguez takes credit for violent protests in Chicago that forced Trump to cancel a March rally.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/18/activist-who-took-credit-for-violent-chicago-protests-was-on-hillarys-payroll/#ixzz4NRirLRry

    O’Keefe’s timing is really good. The Foval video is labeled Video #1. That suggests there will be more.

    The rot and corruption that is the Red Democrat Party is now being exposed to the light.

    Why do I call them the Red Army? Because that’s what they call themselves:

    From Wikileaks:

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2893

    We see that the Lib/Dem/Soccies have pulled the mask off and are letting their Commie roots show.

Comments are closed.