43 thoughts on “The Cover Up Continues To Unravel”

  1. It’s the 90s all over again: unending Clinton investigations, and full employment for D.C. lawyers.

    According to a thorough piece in the Washington Post there are nearly 150 FBI agents working on the Clinton email investigation, or about 1% of the entire FBI.

    Hillary Clinton erred by keeping her private server, just as Bill Clinton erred by having an affair, but in both cases the significance of the original offense is dwarfed by the politically-motivated investigative overreaction.

      1. ‘Yes, because the FBI and the Department of Justice are such politically motivated anti-Hillary organizations. Have you any idea how insane you sound?”

        Most of here do. Of course how much is insanity and how much knee-jerk party-line-ism is anyone’s guess. It’s always hard to tell with “liberals.”

      2. C’mon Rand — it IS the ’90s all over again.

        Don’t you remember the “waste of government resources to continue all of these investigations” argument?

        I remember it as if it were . . . yesterday. Ah, such nostalgia, the glory of times past.

      3. The story I heard is that the former Sec State had an Oval Office meeting with the President of the United States and demanded, “Barack, call off the dogs!”

        The response was somewhat along the lines of how cognitively impaired does a person have to be to ask something of the president that he could not, would not, should not, shall not, cannot do?

        As in, “What part about Nixon’s role in Watergate did you not understand”?

      4. Yes, because the FBI and the Department of Justice are such politically motivated anti-Hillary organizations.

        They’re just the latest conscripts, just as law enforcement was brought into the long GOP effort to bring down Bill Clinton in the 90s. The GOP has been gunning for Hillary Clinton ever since it became clear she’d be the 2016 front-runner. Hence the plethora of Benghazi investigations, which in turn triggered the email investigations. Just as the Whitewater fishing expedition turned into an investigation into sexual harassment and from there a successful scheme to get Bill Clinton to lie under oath about having an affair.

        The Clinton email story is about classified information and computer security only in retrospect; the prime mover was partisan politics.

        1. Imagine if the State Department hadn’t lied about the spontaneous demonstration. As Rand wrote, the cover up continues to unravel despite Jim’s lame duck efforts.

          1. Imagine if the State Department hadn’t lied about the spontaneous demonstration.

            The GOP wanted the administration to come out and say: “Four Americans were killed in Benghazi because al Qaeda is on the rebound, we are feckless and weak, and our anti-terror policy, along with our overall foreign policy, have been complete failures.”

            Anything short of that would have been (and has been) treated as a lie, and reason to launch investigations. The GOP didn’t want the truth about Benghazi, they wanted a partisan fantasy.

          2. LOL. I note you can’t even refute that the State Department lied about the spontaneous demonstration.

            Your best response is to build a complete fabricated strawman argument and then stumble in the effort to burn it. The reason to launch the investigation is that an US Ambassador was killed. Most Americans found that a compelling reason for Congress to investigate.

        2. They’re just the latest conscripts

          The FBI is under the control of Obama. If he doesn’t want them assigning 150 agents to investigate Clinton, then he can call them off easily. So not only is the FBI “conscripted”, so is the US president.

          You know, the Republicans wouldn’t be able to coopt the largest federal law enforcement agency like this, if Clinton hadn’t committed multiple felonies involving national security. You know, don’t brazenly break the law and all that?

    2. I’ve had a security clearance as part of my employment for over 35 years. I know for a fact that had I done even 1% of what Hillary has done, my clearance and job would be gone and I might well be in jail. That’s what angers me so much about asswipes like you who try to minimize what Hillary did. She committed multiple criminal violations but that’s fine by you because she’s on your side. She sold influence through major donations to the Clinton Foundation, including payments from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State but that’s fine by you because she’s on your side. To hell with her, you, and everyone like you.

      1. “She committed multiple criminal violations but that’s fine by you because she’s on your side.”

        As that OFFICE SPACE parody video from the Cruz camp said: “Damn–it’s good to be a Clinton.”

      2. I know for a fact that had I done even 1% of what Hillary has done, my clearance and job would be gone and I might well be in jail.

        That might be true. You’d be in the same jeopardy if you did what Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice did with regard to classified information. For top officials, operating by different rules than the rank and file is utterly routine. The fact that Clinton is being called on it is nothing but politics.

        1. Are we back to Colin Powell? You have been repeatedly told that Powell was different. Here is an interview snippet from This Week:

          POWELL: I — I can’t speak to a — Mrs. Clinton and what she should do now. That would be inappropriate.

          What I did when I entered the State Department, I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly.

          So we put in place new systems, bought 44,000 computers and put a new Internet capable computer on every single desk in every embassy, every office in the State Department. And then I connected it with software.

          But in order to change the culture, to change the brainware, as I call it, I started using it in order to get everybody to use it, so we could be a 21st century institution and not a 19th century.

          But I retained none of those e-mails and we are working with the State Department to see if there’s anything else they want to discuss with me about those e-mails.

          So stop bringing up Powell. This is a red herring and more proof of how you lie.

          1. Further, if you want to keep bringing up Powell, fine. He should be investigated. So should Rice. As the saying goes, “if they did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about…” Why is Hillary worried? If it is the cost of fighting the investigation (which State is primarily paying, thus taxpayers), then imagine what individuals attacked by the IRS had to pay. All of this is exactly why the federal government needs to be reduced and limited.

            To paraphrase the Reverend, “Hillary’s chickens are coming home to roost”.

          2. So stop bringing up Powell.

            I’m sorry that it complicates your narrative, but Powell and Rice had emails with classified information, just like Clinton. Powell used a non-government email account that was invisible to FOIA requests, just like Clinton. Powell even destroyed his work emails. The only reason the Clinton story is a big deal, while Rice and Powell were never even investigated, is that Clinton is running for president, and the GOP wants to bring her down.

          3. Further, if you want to keep bringing up Powell, fine. He should be investigated. So should Rice.

            Fine, make it FIFO (first in, first out); there’s no reason for Clinton to jump the queue. Put a hold on the Clinton investigation until after Powell and Rice have been investigated at least as thoroughly as Clinton has been, with 50 FBI agents, multiple Congressional committees, years of dribbled-out emails, the works. You want to find the truth no matter how long it takes, right?

          4. Why? Is there any reason that these cannot happen concurrently?

            If your nose gets any longer, Jimmoccio, we’d be able to walk to orbit on it.

          5. As Ed notes, I’m fine with concurrent. We have the resources.

            You want to find the truth no matter how long it takes, right?

            Never said anything like that, nor do I believe it. I rather know the truth much sooner. I support the concept of a speedy trial, which is why Clinton’s perjury is so offensive; it prolonged justice for Paula Jones.

        2. but Powell and Rice had emails with classified information, just like Clinton.

          It’s not enough to “have emails”. You have to show these emails were inappropriately handled and that Powell and Rice didn’t act to correct the situation. That’s what makes it a felony. So are you claiming that Powell and Rice committed felonies like Clinton did?

    3. It might surprise you to know that Democrats now consider what Bill did to that intern as rape and the way he and Hillary attacked the intern and other women he sexually assaulted as being on par with rape.

      Because of the power imbalance, it isn’t even possible for the student to have consented.

      1. I don’t defend Clinton’s treatment of Lewinsky. It was outrageous. But if you’re here out of concern for Lewinsky, you should start by admitting that her being used as a pawn in a political effort to unseat a president did her more damage than the affair itself.

          1. Were it not for the affair with Lewinsky, Tripp and Curry wouldn’t have been involved at all. Whatever the merits of Jones’ claim, she wielded it as a political weapon. She even turned down a settlement recommended by her lawyers in hopes of inflicting greater political damage. The Lewinsky affair gave her anti-Clinton replacement attorneys the opening to set the perjury trap that led to impeachment, the finding of civil contempt, and Clinton’s disbarment.

          3. To be punished for his alleged sexual assaults he’d have to first be found guilty of a crime or liable in a civil court. Neither ever happened.

          5. Maybe he should have been punished more, but that’s why we have courts and trials. More time and money was put into proving Clinton’s alleged sexual harassment than is remotely typical, and yet he was not found guilty or liable. It’s doubtful he’d ever have been sued if it hadn’t been in the interest of his political enemies.

          6. To be punished for his alleged sexual assaults he’d have to first be found guilty of a crime or liable in a civil court.

            Um, $850,000 + $90,000 fine (and loss of law license) for perjury is what to you, Jim?

    4. Also, Bill Clinton didn’t “err” by “having an affair.” Bill Clinton committed multiple federal felonies by perjuring himself, and suborning perjury from other via bribes and physical threats to a witness’s family, in order to prevent a young woman in his employ whom he had sexually harassed from getting a fair trial. But please, continue to lie and rewrite history.

      1. a young woman in his employ

        And her name isn’t Monica. It was just one of a list of women that Bill harassed as a Chief Executive for the State of Arkansas and then later for the United States. If he had been in private industry, he would be just another CEO drummed out for assaulting the women in the office. He made it criminal when he lied in court.

      2. Despite interminable investigations, Clinton wasn’t convicted of any of the things you think he was guilty of. The only thing he was caught dead-to-rights on was lying about Lewinsky, and even that didn’t merit a perjury charge.

        For decades GOP attitude towards both Clintons has been: if we investigate every whiff of possible wrongdoing, using every legal avenue to generate an enormous paper trail of disclosure and testimony, eventually we’ll find the right loose thread to pull, and the entire fabric of their political power will unravel. They made Clinton scandal-chasing an entire industry. That effort has not only failed to accomplish its goal, it has backfired. By crying wolf so many times, and making it so obvious that every investigation of the Clintons is transparently politically, the GOP has made them more bulletproof.

        1. Despite interminable investigations, Clinton wasn’t convicted of any of the things you think he was guilty of. The only thing he was caught dead-to-rights on was lying about Lewinsky, and even that didn’t merit a perjury charge.

          O. J. Simpson wasn’t convicted, either. Did you believe he was innocent?

          Clinton was caught “dead to rights” suborning perjury, via bribery and physical threats to a woman’s family. The only reason that he (and she) weren’t “caught dead to rights” on their other crimes is that they had henchpeople do it for them, many of whom ended up in jail, and/or dead. The Paula Jones affair was one situation in which he couldn’t do that.

        2. Wrong. Perjury was upheld and he lost his law license. Paula Jones wasn’t bringing a criminal complaint, but a civil suit which would not lead to a conviction. Bill settled the case and paid $850,000.

          Is there anything you won’t lie about, Jim? I hesitate to call you Jim, because I’m sure that is a lie too.

          1. In case Jim tries to deflect again, perjury was upheld for the civil case, and thus not a criminal conviction, which is a point only Jim cares about. Bill sexually harassed Paula Jones and lied about it, according to Congress, a federal judge, and the Arkansas Bar. Lying is a form of cover-up.

          2. Bill sexually harassed Paula Jones and lied about it, according to Congress, a federal judge, and the Arkansas Bar.

            No, the House, a judge and the Arkansas Bar only concluded that he lied, not that he had harassed Jones. The suit alleging he harassed her was dismissed by the judge twice, appealed twice, and ultimately settled out of court without an admission of fault.

          3. concluded that he lied about sexual relations with the women that worked for him. That’s what they concluded was his fib.

    5. The Post has now posted a correction. Multiple law enforcement sources put the number of agents as under 50. Apparently the figure they ran originally (147) came from a legislator; any guesses on the legislator’s party?

      2. Based on Jim’s whining about costs, I’m betting it is a Democrat trying to make it sound like too much effort is being put into the case. It matches Jim’s false narrative.

  2. It won’t make any difference. They could have video of her boozing it up, selecting “format” on her mail server’s hard drive, and laughing and crying out, “Let them die!” And it wouldn’t make any difference.

  4. I keep seeing claims that Trump is as crooked as Hillary. If there was half the evidence against Trump, or any other Republican, as we have against Hillary he’d be sitting in jail.

Comments are closed.