Do we still believe in it?
Democrats don’t seem to. At least not as applied to them.
Whatever you think of Donald Trump, the election of Hillary Clinton will be a moral and legal catastrophe unprecedented in the history of our country from which it may never recover. Sound excessive? Think what you wish, but the fact of the matter is the USA will have an unindicted criminal as president and no one knows what the consequences will be.
With each passing day it becomes clearer the investigation of the Hillary Clinton email scandal was such a sham that it did far more than merely tarnish the reputations of the FBI and the Department of Justice. It distorted our legal system beyond recognition.
The FBI and Justice Department have apparently been used by one political party to keep the other out of power by covert manipulation of our system. That means these institutions have been turned on their heads into instruments of state oppression extraordinarily close to those used by totalitarian regimes.
There will come a point, if this continues, that only the Second Amendment will preserve the Republic. At this point, the best outcome would be the election of Donald Trump, and then removal via Article 2, Section 4. Or perhaps the 22nd Amendment.
[Update a few minutes later]
Oopsie. Two “boxes” of Clinton emails unaccounted for. And why were they in boxes? Because for no explained reason, she printed them out, a format that can’t be easily searched, rather than simply handing over a thumb drive, which could. This is a massive cover up, in which the White House, the Department of State, and the Justice Department and the Clinton campaign all collaborated. It’s a much bigger deal than Watergate (particularly when combined with the continued IRS abuse and cover up). And the Democrats in the media can’t be bothered to care.
[Update a few minutes later]
The Left’s attempts to silence dissenters will not end well. And I agree with Glenn: “I’m increasingly concerned that the neutralization of the Tea Party movement — an effort by both major parties — may have convinced a lot of people that civics-book style polite political participation is for chumps.”
They are sowing the wind.
[Update a while later]
America’s governing “elite” thinks that Americans are morons. Well, if we continue to allow them to run our lives, in some sense, we are. This will not end well.
[Update at noon]
Sarah Hoyt: Breaking and buying.
My opinion for giving Trump a vote in the general hasn’t changed since prior to the primaries. President Trump would be sober reminder that the office of the President should be less powerful, not more. For that reason, he’ll get my vote in the general. I don’t care at all for the guy, but I felt the same about McCain, so it’s just another election.
The evidence for this seems to be: the FBI did not investigate Clinton the way Clinton’s political opponents would have. By this through-the-looking-glass logic, the FBI’s disinclination to subordinate itself to Republican political aims becomes proof of its corruption.
Or perhaps the 22nd Amendment.
Do you perhaps mean the 25th?
And why were they in boxes? Because for no explained reason, she printed them out, a format that can’t be easily searched, rather than simply handing over a thumb drive, which could.
The idea that Clinton had anything to do with the decision to print them out, and/or did so to inhibit searching, is silly. Turning electronic documents into paper is standard operating procedure for lawyers, even in 2016. That might be a scandal in itself (are lawyers all in the pocket of Big Scanner and Big OCR?), but it has nothing to do with Clinton in particular. And it did nothing to prevent the searching of her emails.
This is a massive cover up, in which the White House, the Department of State, and the Justice Department all collaborated.
This has become an unfalsifiable claim. Every time more evidence comes out that there was no crime or cover-up, that just becomes fodder for charges of an even bigger cover-up. Lather, rinse and repeat.
the FBI did not investigate Clinton the way Clinton’s political opponents would have.
No, the FBI did not investigate Clinton the way the FBI would have investigated anyone else.
And it did nothing to prevent the searching of her emails.
No, what did that was all the deliberate destruction of evidence.
Every time more evidence comes out that there was no crime or cover-up
How does that work, exactly?
the FBI did not investigate Clinton the way the FBI would have investigated anyone else.
And the Republican head of the FBI, along with what, dozens, of career FBI agents, decided to perpetuate this cover up because…?
what did that was all the deliberate destruction of evidence.
You’re certain that you could prove a crime if you had just one more email. And that, too, is an unfalsifiable belief, because no matter how many emails are provided, you can always posit that Hillary destroyed the one email that proves her guilt. For all we know she could have deleted it in 2009. Or maybe she even committed some serious crime without every writing an email about it!
FBI investigators have interviewed dozens of witnesses multiple times, read thousands of pages of emails, and even recovered many that were thought to be erased. They didn’t find a crime or a cover-up, just an amateurish IT operation that couldn’t have concealed a criminal conspiracy if its life depended on it. But instead of accepting that boring conclusion, you insist that the FBI must be in on an even bigger conspiracy. It’s textbook Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
They found both multiple crimes and a cover up, now involving the director himself. Comey clearly laid out the case for indictment, then said it wasn’t. And there is a lot of unhappiness about it at the bureau, but how many are going to be willing to sacrifice their careers, with this corrupt administration?
there is a lot of unhappiness about it at the bureau
And the evidence for this is what? Comey claims the decision to not file was unanimous. Are you claiming he’s lying?
You simply can’t accept that Clinton failed to make your political dreams come true by getting caught committing a crime, and there isn’t anything Comey or anyone else can do to fix that.
Yes, I actually do think, at this point, that Comey is lying. If he wasn’t, why did he compel everyone working for him to sign non-disclosure agreements?
Comey claims the decision to not file was unanimous. Are you claiming he’s lying?
What do you mean by “decision to not file”? What do you think that means? Do you think the FBI makes the decision to prosecute?
If he wasn’t, why did he compel everyone working for him to sign non-disclosure agreements?
So whenever someone has to sign an NDA, it proves that someone is lying? There are no other possible explanations? That’s a pretty thin reed to lean on, with not even a hint of a motive on Comey’s part.
No, but there isn’t really a better explanation. Comey was tamping dissent.
there isn’t really a better explanation
It doesn’t have to be a better explanation, it just has to be some explanation. The fact that you can’t think of it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
In light of all the other evidence that the investigation was never serious, why should I waste time seeking one?
Every time more evidence comes out that there was no crime or cover-up
You got evidence proving that classified information wasn’t illegally on Hillary’s private server? Let’s see it.
Yes, also awaiting his evidence that there was no coordination between WH, State and Clinton campaign.
Huh? The White House isn’t allowed to coordinate with the State Department? There was a Clinton campaign between 2009 and 2013? What universe are we talking about?
The White House isn’t allowed to coordinate with the State Department?
Sure, and Nixon was free to erase tapes.
There was a Clinton campaign between 2009 and 2013?
There was a Clinton campaign during the supposed FBI investigation, but I guess you are too dumb to know that, eh Jim?
This has become an unfalsifiable claim. Every time more evidence comes out that there was no crime or cover-up, that just becomes fodder for charges of an even bigger cover-up. Lather, rinse and repeat.
Maybe you should wash your mouth out with soap with these lies.
The damage control, which included close contact with State Department in early 2015, was revealed in e-mails obtained by the Republic National Committee as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, according to The Wall Street Journal.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-coordinated-on-clinton-email-issues-new-documents-show-1475798310
Every time more evidence comes out that there was no crime or cover-up
No such evidence exists and everything that has become public since the faux investigation was completed has confirmed that the entire thing was rigged like the Democrat primary.
No such evidence exists
Multiple congressional investigations without a smoking gun, followed by an FBI investigation that concluded there was nothing a reasonable prosecutor would ever pursue, is powerful evidence that there was no crime.
The crime is not at issue. The inability to prosecute is (see discussion of adult vs. child.)
They destroyed evidence proving their criminal intent. Law requires that evidence.
Comey, by not recommending prosecution in a slam dunk case (because the law does not require intent) and Lynch saying she would follow any Comey recommendation is proof enough to any adult that the fix was in.
You can claim no evidence ’til you’re blue. We know the truth. Bill Clinton and Lynch should both be in jail for obstruction.
the law does not require intent
The law in question has been on the books for a century, and in that time no one has ever been tried or pled guilty to violating it without a showing of intent.
That’s insane. People have served time for it, and lost jobs.
No one has served time for “gross negligence” in their handling of classified information. Only one person has ever been charged with it, an FBI agent who left classified information around while having an affair with a Chinese agent. The charge — one of several filed against him — was later dropped.
“No one has served time for “gross negligence” in their handling of classified information.”
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for it.
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for it.
The Rosenbergs were not charged under the “gross negligence” clause of the statute. They were charged and convicted of intentionally spying for the Soviet Union.
“The idea that Clinton had anything to do with the decision to print them out, and/or did so to inhibit searching, is silly. Turning electronic documents into paper is standard operating procedure for lawyers, even in 2016.”
As I responded the first time you wrote this idiotic statement, destroying the emails’ header information turns them into so much interesting, but inadmissible, junk. They are no longer useful as evidence, since their authenticity or authorship can’t be proven.
The act of printing them and destroying the electronic source was an overt, blatant act of obstruction of justice. But it was just shy of the blatant overtness to penetrate the averted eyes of a willing dupe (pronounced: “dope”) who can look at the totality of this, and think it’s all above-board.
The two unaccounted boxes are safe under Baghdad Jim’s bed. He’ll do anything for his masters. “Here you go, boy! Hide the boxes! Hide the boxes! There’s a good boy!”
Jim, how much does Hillary pay you to act?
Because for no explained reason, she printed them out, a format that can’t be easily searched, rather than simply handing over a thumb drive, which could.
They can also be edited without anyone being able to tell. If you edit emails while they are still on a server, people could tell.
We already know that the IT guy hired by Hillary to destroy evidence was inquiring about how to alter emails while still on the server. Several Redditers pointed out that this was probably impossible but certainly was illegal.
Printing out the emails allowed the Clinton campaign to alter those emails if they wanted to. Since everything that wasn’t destroyed by Hillary was destroyed by the FBI, we will never know.
We already know that the IT guy hired by Hillary to destroy evidence was inquiring about how to alter emails while still on the server.
Yes, and we even know why. Hint: it wasn’t to destroy evidence.
we even know why.
Yeah, the guy actually said he was trying to hide evidence that could hurt his “very important” client. We do know it.
Nope, try again. He was trying to hide something, but it wasn’t evidence.
“Break and buy”. It’s a strategy not an unintended consequence.
A cousin of mine recently suggested what increasingly seems to me to be the only solution to this problem: an amicable divorce. The Left and Right sit down calmly and rationally, and geographically divide the United States into two separate countries. Roughly half of us want a small, constitutionally limited government and individual freedom (maybe less than half). The other half is salivating over the prospects for an ever more banana republic. Let each have what they want. Some compromise may have to occur over the geography, but by large people will get to live where they already do.