39 thoughts on “The FBI Report On Hillary”

    1. I don’t see corruption on Clinton’s part. The facts laid out are consistent with things we’ve known for quite a while:

      * Clinton isn’t tech-savvy, but was addicted to using her Blackberry for personal and work email
      * Clinton didn’t want her personal emails read by the public or Congress
      * Like her predecessors and many State Dept. employees, Clinton was in the habit of using unclassified email for information that other people in the government consider classified

      The FBI looked at the facts they gathered and concluded that there was no evidence of intentional criminal behavior. Comey reported that this conclusion was unanimous across the FBI team that worked the case. There was speculation six months ago that if no indictment was forthcoming, the FBI would leak like a sieve to portray that DOJ decision as a political whitewash. Instead it’s the FBI that has been publicly defending its recommendation to not indict.

      So now you have Rand calling for Comey’s impeachment. The right is so invested in Clinton’s guilt that career FBI agents and even a Republican with Comey’s reputation are suspect when they decline to use the justice system to achieve the right’s political goals.

      1. * Clinton isn’t tech-savvy, but was addicted to using her Blackberry for personal and work email

        Lie. She said she only used one device. She was quite tech savvy.

        * Clinton didn’t want her personal emails read by the public or Congress

        Lie. She used her server for public use. You’ve fudged on this before and called you on it.

        * Like her predecessors and many State Dept. employees, Clinton was in the habit of using unclassified email for information that other people in the government consider classified

        Lie. Conflation of two issues. You first claimed that the Governor of Florida used a personal server and backed down after I told you that he is not subject to Federal laws on emails. Then you said Powell did the same thing, but I pointed out that Powell initiated the standards.

        1. Sorry Jon, but Jim is right. Clinton didn’t want her emails read by Congress or the American people. It was a requirement of her job, but she didn’t want to do it. It is why she is unfit to be President.

        2. Heh, she used something like 13 different devices. Some of these were lost and had to be replaced. When the Secretary of State uses her private server and an unsecure device and that device goes missing, possibly while she is on business trips, that is a huge security breach.

          Then when these devices were required under law to be turned over, Hillary had her staff bust some with hammers while others were turned over missing SIM and SD cards.

          Jim will say there was no intent to break the phones with a hammer. Hillary’s staff regularly just walks around swinging hammers and one accidently hit a phone.

      2. There was speculation six months ago that if no indictment was forthcoming, the FBI would leak like a sieve to portray that DOJ decision as a political whitewash.

        Everything the FBI released after their “investigation” shows that this was a political whitewash. There was clear demonstration of intent (even criminal), clear demonstration of destruction of evidence, and clear demonstration of perjury.

        Everything Hillary has said about this was shown to be a lie.

        Other people engaging in similar behavior go to jail and Comey even said this himself.

        We know this was a political whitewash because the evidence clearly contradicts the conclusion of Obama’s handpicked “investigators” but it allows Democrats to use this lie, The FBI looked at the facts they gathered and concluded that there was no evidence of intentional criminal behavior.

        The evidence is there in abundance. The Obama administration chose not to adhere to the rule of law and this is hardly the only example of this happening under Obama.

      3. other people in the government consider classified

        Didja all miss Jim’s fudge?

        Either the information is classified or it is not. It’s not subject to personal whims. The fact that they took pains to remove any indication that it was classified is conscientiousness of guilt.

  2. That was amazing.

    Atkisson will become an enemy of the state if Hillary is elected and persona non grata in polite society. However if Trump is elected, she will rise to be one of America’s most influential and trusted journalists. Books will be written about her, movies made, and she will be invited to every Hollywood party.

      1. I think that I was unclear. She will continue reporting like this if Trump wins and that will make her a celebrated figure.

  3. Ya know, I’m waiting for the Hildebeest’s campaign to bring up FDR, who governed in spite of being handicapped by Polio.

    1. On the one hand, being confined to a wheelchair would have less impact on carrying out the duties of President than what Hillary appears to have. On the other, FDR wasn’t a very good president, Democrat propaganda to the contrary.

  4. Mind you, Mr. Blumenthal kinda, sorta, hinted to at least one reporter regarding “asking questions” regarding Mr. Obama and Kenya.

    That is as much an admission that this Birther Business started with him in connection with Clinton ’08. You are never going to get this stated in more plain terms.

    “Hail, hail, fire and snow
    Call the angel we will go
    Far away, for to see
    Friendly Angel, come to me”

  5. October, 2015: Previously withheld Hillary emails reveal she told daughter Chelsea almost immediately that terrorists were behind the Benghazi attacks, yet told the public they were prompted by a protest over a YouTube video.

    Clinton never told the public that the Benghazi attacks were prompted by a video. “No spin” seems to mean “made up.”

      2. She lied about it to the faces of the people to whom it was most important.

        You agree that she did not say so to the public, and that Atkisson is mistaken and/or making that up?

          1. They belong to the public, but they aren’t the public. I belong to the public, but telling me something in private is not the same thing as telling the public. Atkisson spun herself 180º from the truth.

        2. Jim are you saying Susan Rice, employee of the State Department reporting to Hillary Clinton, went rogue on Hillary, and Hillary was impotent to control her. This is the Hillary that is supposedly competent to be President, but can’t control her people and get them to tell the truth to American people and Congress. Sounds to me Jim that you are making the case that Hillary is unfit to be President of the United States.

      1. Even “letting the lie stand” (assuming she did that) would not be the same thing as telling the public, which is what Atkisson wrote in her “no spin” summary.

        1. She made her comment to members of the public and they were not under oaths of secrecy or anything.

          Also, the Obama administration’s position was that the planned terrorist attack was really a protest in response to Islamophobia.

          Hmmm, that is pretty much what the Obama administration and Hillary are saying is to blame for ISIS and their recent terrorist attacks too. Its almost like that have a narrative.

          When Obama and Hillary are explicitly saying they are using narratives to shape perception, are we supposed to ignore what that narrative is and the perception they are trying to create?

    3. Don’t forget that CBS edited a video of Obama speaking about the event where he said it wasn’t terrorism. CBS edited that part out just like the media is intentionally editing things now like the Daily Show does.

    5. “Clinton never told the public that the Benghazi attacks were prompted by a video. “No spin” seems to mean “made up.””

      You clearly need to take a course in rhetoric. You either do not understand or (more likely) will not admit the existence of insinuation or the implicit connection. So let me help you out:

      Let’s say there was a bank robbery in a small town just an hour ago. Then let’s suppose that the town’s police chief, get on camera and say:

      “The Podunk Bank was robbed an hour ago. Three Asian Americans walked into the bank 2 minutes before the robbery. One bystander in the bank was shot and killed We will keep you informed.”

      The chief has just made an implicit connection between those three asian americans and the robbery/robbers. Note that the chief did not say:

      “I think the 3 asian americans did it”.

      But the chief doesn’t have to. Chief has insinuated it. Chief made the connection in a lot of people’s minds and at the same time am able to cover his ass: If someone accuses the chief of racism in that he’s accused the three asians of the crime he can say “Oh no I haven’t – nowhere did I actually say that.”

      And you would defend him against racism because he never EXPLICITLY made the connection. But he did make it implicitly. And that was his intention.

      That’s the concept in principle. Now let’s make the situation a little more like Benghazi:

      The chief happens to know that 1 minute after the asians walked in, 3 of his fellow KKK members walked in and the cameras in the bank clearly show that the asians didn’t do it and the KKK members did. The chief does not want you to know that. That’s why he insinuated the asians.

      After the chief made his statement, hephones his daughter and says three KKK members hit the bank and killed someone.

      Then at the funeral of the bystander, the chief tells the bereaved family members that he will see to it that those asians are brought to justice. And then in fact arrests them.

      This is what happened with Hillary and Benghazi. The CNN time line that MfK pointed you towards clearly shows that:

      Sept 11, 10:32pm Hillary issues a statement:

      confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.

      Clinton: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

      11:12 p.m.: Clinton sends an email to her daughter, Chelsea, that reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.” (The email was discovered in 2015 by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. It is written to “Diane Reynolds,” which was Chelsea Clinton’s alias.)

      Sept 12:
      Clinton issued a statement, which made no mention of the anti-Muslim video, and she delivered a speech, which did. Neither referred to a terrorist attack.

      Privately, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff wrote an email that said “we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos,’” and Clinton told the Egyptian prime minister that the video had nothing to do with the Benghazi attacks.

      Clinton issues a statement confirming that four U.S. officials, not one, had been killed. She calls the incident a “violent attack.”

      Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.”

      But Clinton NEVER said that to you and me Jim. All she said was:

      There was an attack.

      And then she mentioned the video.

      Implicit connection made.

      And then of course she and Obama sends Rice out to do the exact same thing the following Sunday – 5 times in a row.

      Implicit connection multiply reinforced.

      So yes Jim she never made an explicit connection between the video and the attack. She didn’t have to. Implicit connections were good enough and – as Obama and both Clintons done innumerable times – they left themselves an out which only the either incredibly ignorant or willfully monumentally obtuse would latch on to.

      It’s a ploy only a grade school kid would fall for – and you fall for it like an egg from a tall chicken – because you are ignorant.

      Or, you know what they are doing, but are so in the bag for Hillary that you use it to try to attempt to defend her.

      1. Let’s see if I get this right… Jim is either ignorant or not. Wait, he can’t be ignorant since it has just been explained to him in the simplest of factual terms. So Jim is either stupid or not. Noooo. That can’t be it. His intelligence is really not in question. Then what could it be?

        What could it be? (If only I could get a multiple choice list from a vast right wing conspiracy!) …or some bitter clinging deplorables like the typical racist white woman that raised Obama?

        1. Yes that’s right..Jim is either ignorant of the technique, or he knows what’s being done and chooses to overlook it.

      2. So yes Jim she never made an explicit connection between the video and the attack.

        My point exactly. Clinton made an explicit connection between the video and the anti-video protests at U.S. diplomatic facilities around the Muslim world that week, not to the Benghazi violence. To use your analogy, she linked the suspects to a half-dozen other incidents that week, but did not mention them with regard to the Podunk Bank Robbery. And yet Atkisson writes, in her “no spin” summary, that Clinton “told the public they [the Benghazi attacks] were prompted by a protest over a YouTube video.” That is the opposite of the truth; the truth is that Clinton never told the public that the Benghazi attacks were prompted by a protest over a YouTube video. What does that tell you about Atkisson’s competence or integrity as a journalist?

        1. Me: So yes Jim she never made an explicit connection between the video and the attack.

          Jim: My point exactly.

          Clearly you don’t realize how flaccid your point is.

        2. No, she was clearly talking about Benghazi. Being Clintonian doesn’t change that. That a protest was to blame was also the Obama administration’s official position.

          They even scapegoated an innocent religious and ethnic minority over it and ruined not only his life but the lives of many people in Egypt. This was straight up racism and it lead to racist and religious persecution of people in Egypt, almost ethnic cleansing.

          Hillary even stuck to her story in the hearings with her famous statement, “At this point, what difference does it make…” She never said a video wasn’t to blame to the public, she constantly implied it did and even as late a date as her hearing.

  7. And we watch, amused, as Baghdad Jim takes the last shreds of his self-respect (whatever was left over after his slavish defense of Obamacare), and flushes them down the commode in service to Queen Cacklepants . . .

    1. He is using the same old talking points without bothering to update them after new information has come out reiterating those old talking points are lies.

      It’s a bit like those people who still talk about how much debt Bush ran up, war crimes under Bush, or the progress of the wars under Bush. The chronically uninformed never know Obama spent twice as much, used Iranian death squads, squandered victory in Iraq, botched Afghanistan, and got us in more undeclared wars in places like Yemen and Syria.

  8. Hillary knew immediately the video had nothing to do with the attack and told several people.

    After the official administration talking points started to appear she could have said publicaly , at any point:

    “I know for a fact the video had nothing to do with the attack and that it was premeditated, planned and executed regardless of the existence of the video.”

    But of course she didn’t do that. Not after Susan Rice lied 5 times on national tv, not to the parents of the dead, not ever.

    And then most callouslly said, in effect, “They’re dead – at this point what difference does it make?”

    It makes a LOT of difference you lying hag.

Comments are closed.