Huh? Perhaps you should clarify your thinking for us Ricky, because it doesn’t seem to make sense.
Leviticus 13:45
And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.
Lots of undecided voters still, according to this post that I read last night — in the neighborhood of 20%, which is a huge number this late in the election.
I think everyone recognizes that the presidential race has tightened considerably in the past two weeks. Hillary Clinton’s national lead is down to around 3 points and, as one would expect, the swing states are pretty consistent with the national margin.
But here’s something I think many people don’t realize or haven’t focused on. Around 20 percent of the electorate is either undecided or saying it will vote for someone other than Clinton or Donald Trump, according to Nate Silver.
How does this figure compare to the recent elections? Silver says it’s much higher. Four years ago, only 5 to 10 percent were undecided or prepared to vote for someone other than Obama and Romney at the corresponding stage of the campaign.
Given the poor quality of the two major party candidates, it’s not surprising that the number this year is considerably higher. Indeed, I’m part of that number — undecided between voting for Trump and not voting. As Silver says, though, most people (me included) are focused on on the margin between Clinton and Trump, not the large proportion of votes still potentially up for grabs.
If one focuses on the 20 percent, the outcome of the election becomes less certain than many suppose. Can Trump make big inroads with this group by staying on message, avoiding unnecessary fights, reaching out to minorities (as he’s been trying to do), and meeting fairly low expectations during the debates? Quite possibly.
Can Hillary hold her own (or better) with the 20 percent even in the face of what’s likely to be the drip-drip of email related news? Yes, I think, if Trump goes off the rails again or struggles during the debates. Otherwise, maybe not. …
_________________________________
Also in that 20% are the 3rd party supporters who may or may not wind up voting instead for one of the main contenders in the end. And some of that 20%, too, will simply skip voting for that top slot.
But there’s a lot of uncertainty in the electorate at a fairly late date, this will be a hard race (possibly) to call (unless Trump totally blows the first debate & Clinton continues to hold on to those decisive swing states with a significant margin).
I know one person at work who loves Hillary and is following the election closely. And my friend Carol likes Trump. But other than that, I just don’t know many who are that tuned in to this race. I had little interest in (and didn’t watch) the town hall with both candidates this week on CNN. But I will watch the debate on the 26th.
That is the verse. The US is the leper. Think about the US as an attractive nuisance. Think about what the rest of the world thinks of Trump. Think about Trump’s promises to reduce immigration and curtail trade.
“The FBI failed to pursue even the most basic lines of questioning. When Clinton pleaded ignorance about basic classification symbols, agents could’ve produced the State documents she signed acknowledging she was briefed about how to ID and handle classified information at the highest levels.
When Clinton claimed she couldn’t recall “ever contacting” the government computer specialist who set up her unsecured home email server, Comey could’ve produced the same evidence the State inspector general found showing Clinton had in fact paid the aide, Bryan Pagliano, “by check or wire transfer in varying amounts between 2009 and 2013.”
Pagliano was a critical witness. But instead of pressuring him to sing on Clinton and other higher-ups, Comey agreed to give him immunity from criminal prosecution.
Nor did Comey squeeze the Platte River Networks engineer who agents complained gave them “inconsistent statements over the course of three interviews regarding from where on the server he extracted Clinton’s emails.”
Comey also failed to push back against Mills’ claims of “attorney-client privilege” when she refused to divulge details about how she sifted through Clinton’s emails. Her name was on many of the emails containing classified information. At the time, she was Clinton’s chief of staff, not her lawyer. Agents agreed to drop the line of questioning when she threatened to walk out of the interview.
Ron Sievert, a former assistant director at the Justice Department and member of the DOJ’s National Security Working Group, said Comey easily could’ve gone to court to challenge Mills’ privilege claim. He didn’t.
There was also prima facie evidence of obstruction, yet Comey let that slide, too.
FBI investigators were denied two out of five Clinton iPads, 13 of her mobile devices (some of which were smashed with hammers) and even an Apple laptop and a thumb drive containing a 2013 archive of Clinton’s emails that aides claimed got “lost” in the mail. The FBI accepted the story without even determining if the laptop was sent by UPS or USPS.
It’s plain Comey never planned to recommend charges. He didn’t even impanel a federal grand jury to hear the evidence investigators had gathered. What’s more, Comey and his investigators came across emails that showed signs of a possible pay-for-play scheme between Clinton Foundation donors and the State Department. Yet Comey chose not to expand the email investigation into a probe of public corruption.”
———————–
His reputation is dirt among agents. Several media outlets have the same problem. They’ve sullied their already questionable reputations even further, all to defend Hillary.
“In that, Jim VandeHei is hardly alone. The co-founder of Politico will soon launch a new media start-up, and discussed the state of media with Hugh Hewitt this morning. Like many, VandeHei sees an increasing number of straight-news reporters publicly aligning with Hillary Clinton — or at least opposing Donald Trump — on social media and even in their reporting. VandeHei calls it “scary,” and wonders why the media hasn’t put in more effort to discuss the ramifications of classified-information handling with those most familiar with it:
HH: … And Jim, I want to read the beginning of an email I got from a former AUSA, assistant United States Attorney, who I’ve known for many, many years, absolutely legit guy, and have been tracking down bad guys for a long time. He’s married to an FBI agent. It reads, “Now that the contents of that first FBI summary have been released, my wife tells me that Comey has lost all credibility in the FBI. Remember he’s a DOJ veteran, not a Bureau veteran, and that makes a difference with the troops. My wife, a 25 year agent, tells me that since that document became public, and based on what’s in there Comey decided to not recommend prosecution, his name among the agents is dirt. The most practical reason for that feeling is that they all know stories about agents or other federal employees who have befallen similar circumstances, and some have been prosecuted while just about all others have been fired. And the issue with the missing Blackberrrys, IPad, AND the Apple Laptop and Thumbdrive that had ALL her archived emails on them, is just unbelievable to agents who work on matters involving classified information.” I, Jim Vandehei, have heard this complaint over and over again. I held all the clearances in the Reagan years. And I always said the short end was if I left anything in my desk, I’d be disciplined. If I took it home, I’d be fired. If I gave it to someone, I’d be prosecuted. Have you heard this refrain yourself?
JV: It’s interesting that you say that, and I think, yes, is the answer. And I think where the disconnect is, is are you in a military family? And do you know people in a military, or in your case, people who are in the Justice Department or the FBI? I have two brothers-in-law who are serving, and I was in a wedding this past weekend in Kerrville, Texas, where lots of Marines were there. And people who would be inclined, I think, several that I was talking to, to be inclined to support Hillary Clinton, and the only thing that they focus on, and the reason that they could never find themselves voting for her, is this very reason. They either themselves or know other people who have been sanctioned or had issues for doing far, far less than what they believe Hillary Clinton did with classified material. And I think if you’re not talking to people in the military, if you don’t have family members in the military, you don’t have deep enough appreciation for how much focus they put on this, and how much they tie it to your character and to your performance. And so I think what you’re pointing to is very, very legitimate, and that’s why you see the numbers that you do among a lot of the members of the military and who they’re supporting. They don’t, you talk to these members of the military, it’s not like they like Donald Trump, or they think Donald Trump is going to be a superior commander-in-chief. They just can never find themselves settling for Hillary Clinton.
So why haven’t media figures pressed that question with Hillary Clinton — or James Comey, for that matter? One excuse might be that Hillary has evaded the press by refusing to conduct open press conferences for nine months. As Hugh points out, though, they had the opportunity yesterday to ask … and no one bothered:
HH: So yesterday, she has her first presser in 270 days. She does not get one question on the emails, even though John Lester, the lieutenant, nailed her on this thing. And people conclude that the media is complicit. I also wonder, Jim, do you remember when George W. Bush was alleged to have worn a wi-fi backpack at the 2004 debate? It was nuts. It was a crazy conspiracy theory.” “I don’t know if Hillary had an earbud yesterday, but the media’s not investigating that, either. Is there, is the MSM all in for Hillary?
JV: You know, you and I have talked about this in the past, and I tend to be a defender of the media. And I tend to think that it’s overblown, what people think just lots of bias. I have a much different view this year, like having been starting a company and taking a little bit of a step back from looking at the politics moment by moment, particularly if you pay attention to Twitter. The number of mainstream media reporters who are out there expressing their explicit opinions, that tend to be decisively pro-Hillary and anti-Trump, to me is scary. I don’t, listen, Donald Trump gives you a lot things to fear and a lot of things to dislike. But you cannot, cannot, cannot as a reporter be taking sides in a public forum whether it’s on Twitter or whether it’s on email or whether it’s on TV.
The media’s not investigating it because the media isn’t interested in exploring Hillary Clinton’s corruption and criminal acts. The Washington Post’s editorial board made that clear today in a fact-deficient editorial proclaiming that everyone’s paying too much attention to the e-mail scandal rather than how awful Donald Trump is — even though their own pages have that latter beat covered 24/7:”
Our toxic culture (the perversion, the greed, the hedonism, the Green Cult) has spread to immigrants and, through trade, has been exported all over the world. To elect Trump, is to cry, “Unclean!” His immigration policies and the recession/depression that will be caused by his trade policies will essentially end legal or illegal immigration to the US. There won’t be jobs here.
Trump is hated around the world. He just gloated that the Mexican Minister who set up his trip to Mexico got fired for his efforts. Leaders of other countries are not going to want to associate with Trump, particularly when he tries to break trade deals. The US will become a pariah state, and will stop infecting other nations.
That type of isolation to protect others is what Leviticus 13:45 is all about. Hillary may do many bad things to the US, but only Trump will produce that isolation. The leper was instructed to cry, “Unclean” to protect others. It could be argued that American Christians have a duty to vote for Trump to send that same message to the rest of the world.
“Don’t grants of immunity usually signal a serious intent to prosecute if crimes are uncovered? If so, then the Department of Justice appears to have wasted its time with both Bryan Pagliano and now Paul Combetta, the man who wiped the e-mail files off of Hillary Clinton’s secret server. The New York Times reveals this arrangement for the first time — and how it might keep Congress from delving further into the DoJ’s curious lack of action:
A computer specialist who deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them was given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account, according to a law enforcement official and others briefed on the investigation.
Republicans have called for the department to investigate the deletions, but the immunity deal with the specialist, Paul Combetta, makes it unlikely that the request will go far. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the top Republican on the House oversight committee, asked the Justice Department on Tuesday to investigate whether Mrs. Clinton, her lawyers or the specialist obstructed justice when the emails were deleted in March 2015.
In February, Combetta told the FBI that he had no recollection of deleting the files. By May, with an immunity grant in hand, Combetta changed his tune. Not only did he recall deleting the files, Combetta knew that Congress had issued a preservation order to prevent just that outcome:
In Mr. Combetta’s first interview with the F.B.I. in February, he said he did not recall seeing the preservation order from the Benghazi committee, which Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, Cheryl D. Mills, had sent to Platte River. But in his May interview, he said that at the time he made the deletions “he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s email data” on the Platte River server.”
——————————
I hear on the radio that Obama has told the North Koreans that if they continue their belligerent ways, “there will be consequences.”.
We elected a war monger?
… when making a case for spiritual credibility, both candidates seem confused about the qualifications.
On Thursday, Clinton addressed a mostly black audience at the National Baptist Convention in Kansas City, Mo., where she told the crowd she was “grateful for the great gift of personal salvation and for the great obligation of the social gospel.”
But for Clinton, personal salvation and the social gospel seem to be one and the same.
I recently wrote about the candidates’ religious backgrounds for WORLD Magazine, and how a young youth pastor in the 1960s heavily influenced a teenage Hillary Clinton growing up in a United Methodist Church.
That youth pastor, Don Jones, introduced his impressionable flock to existentialist philosophy and radical thinkers like Saul Alinsky. Saving the world became a project more for men aiming to relieve social ills and less the accomplishment of Christ’s atoning work for sinners….
… Meanwhile, Trump on Saturday visited Great Faith Ministries International, a predominantly black church in Detroit. The Republican nominee read from prepared remarks, calling on Americans to “turn again to our Christian heritage to lift up the soul of our nation.”
Trump’s own spiritual heritage has flowed largely from the teachings of Norman Vincent Peale, a minister at a New York City church for decades, and the first self-help guru of the 20th century. Trump has said he loved Peale’s message of the power of positive thinking and how it applied to business.
As I’ve noted in my magazine article, Peale’s imperatives to avoid negative thinking about oneself may have influenced Trump’s reluctance to recognize he’s a sinner in need of salvation, not just a businessman in need of success.
I’ve often thought about this too, and wondered what would have happened if a biblically orthodox minister had filled Peale’s pulpit when Trump was building his personal empire and bragging about his sometimes-sinful conquests without being challenged?
One takeaway for biblically faithful pastors working on sermons for this Sunday: Preach the full Christian gospel with joy and boldness to a congregation where everyone needs to hear it. …
… It’s notable that The New York Times reported a leaked version of a script of questions and answers the Trump campaign reportedly considered using at the Detroit event.
The first question according to the Times: “Are you a Christian and do you believe the Bible is an inspired word of God?”
The answer Trump’s scriptwriters suggested: “As I went through my life, things got busy with business, but my family kept me grounded to the truth and the word of God. I treasure my relationship with my family, and through them, I have a strong faith enriched by an ever-wonderful God.”
The Trump campaign reportedly ditched the script after it was leaked, but the scripted answer is telling. It would have Trump claim a strong faith in God through his family. Here’s hoping one of the spiritual leaders—including several evangelicals— who have signed on to advise Trump will explain to him that the only mediator between man and God is Jesus Christ. …
______________________________________
Wandering Views 
Leviticus 13: 45 has changed my thinking about this election, and presents an argument for Christians to vote for Trump.
LikeLike
Huh? Perhaps you should clarify your thinking for us Ricky, because it doesn’t seem to make sense.
Leviticus 13:45
And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.
LikeLike
Lots of undecided voters still, according to this post that I read last night — in the neighborhood of 20%, which is a huge number this late in the election.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/09/our-undecided-electorate.php
_________________________
I think everyone recognizes that the presidential race has tightened considerably in the past two weeks. Hillary Clinton’s national lead is down to around 3 points and, as one would expect, the swing states are pretty consistent with the national margin.
But here’s something I think many people don’t realize or haven’t focused on. Around 20 percent of the electorate is either undecided or saying it will vote for someone other than Clinton or Donald Trump, according to Nate Silver.
How does this figure compare to the recent elections? Silver says it’s much higher. Four years ago, only 5 to 10 percent were undecided or prepared to vote for someone other than Obama and Romney at the corresponding stage of the campaign.
Given the poor quality of the two major party candidates, it’s not surprising that the number this year is considerably higher. Indeed, I’m part of that number — undecided between voting for Trump and not voting. As Silver says, though, most people (me included) are focused on on the margin between Clinton and Trump, not the large proportion of votes still potentially up for grabs.
If one focuses on the 20 percent, the outcome of the election becomes less certain than many suppose. Can Trump make big inroads with this group by staying on message, avoiding unnecessary fights, reaching out to minorities (as he’s been trying to do), and meeting fairly low expectations during the debates? Quite possibly.
Can Hillary hold her own (or better) with the 20 percent even in the face of what’s likely to be the drip-drip of email related news? Yes, I think, if Trump goes off the rails again or struggles during the debates. Otherwise, maybe not. …
_________________________________
LikeLike
Also in that 20% are the 3rd party supporters who may or may not wind up voting instead for one of the main contenders in the end. And some of that 20%, too, will simply skip voting for that top slot.
But there’s a lot of uncertainty in the electorate at a fairly late date, this will be a hard race (possibly) to call (unless Trump totally blows the first debate & Clinton continues to hold on to those decisive swing states with a significant margin).
I know one person at work who loves Hillary and is following the election closely. And my friend Carol likes Trump. But other than that, I just don’t know many who are that tuned in to this race. I had little interest in (and didn’t watch) the town hall with both candidates this week on CNN. But I will watch the debate on the 26th.
LikeLike
That is the verse. The US is the leper. Think about the US as an attractive nuisance. Think about what the rest of the world thinks of Trump. Think about Trump’s promises to reduce immigration and curtail trade.
LikeLike
Comey is a political stooge who goes whichever way he’s told by the party currently using his services. That’s why R and D politicians both love him.
http://nypost.com/2016/09/08/how-the-fbi-went-easy-on-hillary-clinton/
“The FBI failed to pursue even the most basic lines of questioning. When Clinton pleaded ignorance about basic classification symbols, agents could’ve produced the State documents she signed acknowledging she was briefed about how to ID and handle classified information at the highest levels.
When Clinton claimed she couldn’t recall “ever contacting” the government computer specialist who set up her unsecured home email server, Comey could’ve produced the same evidence the State inspector general found showing Clinton had in fact paid the aide, Bryan Pagliano, “by check or wire transfer in varying amounts between 2009 and 2013.”
Pagliano was a critical witness. But instead of pressuring him to sing on Clinton and other higher-ups, Comey agreed to give him immunity from criminal prosecution.
Nor did Comey squeeze the Platte River Networks engineer who agents complained gave them “inconsistent statements over the course of three interviews regarding from where on the server he extracted Clinton’s emails.”
Comey also failed to push back against Mills’ claims of “attorney-client privilege” when she refused to divulge details about how she sifted through Clinton’s emails. Her name was on many of the emails containing classified information. At the time, she was Clinton’s chief of staff, not her lawyer. Agents agreed to drop the line of questioning when she threatened to walk out of the interview.
Ron Sievert, a former assistant director at the Justice Department and member of the DOJ’s National Security Working Group, said Comey easily could’ve gone to court to challenge Mills’ privilege claim. He didn’t.
There was also prima facie evidence of obstruction, yet Comey let that slide, too.
FBI investigators were denied two out of five Clinton iPads, 13 of her mobile devices (some of which were smashed with hammers) and even an Apple laptop and a thumb drive containing a 2013 archive of Clinton’s emails that aides claimed got “lost” in the mail. The FBI accepted the story without even determining if the laptop was sent by UPS or USPS.
It’s plain Comey never planned to recommend charges. He didn’t even impanel a federal grand jury to hear the evidence investigators had gathered. What’s more, Comey and his investigators came across emails that showed signs of a possible pay-for-play scheme between Clinton Foundation donors and the State Department. Yet Comey chose not to expand the email investigation into a probe of public corruption.”
———————–
His reputation is dirt among agents. Several media outlets have the same problem. They’ve sullied their already questionable reputations even further, all to defend Hillary.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/09/politico-co-founder-pro-hillary-media-bias-cycle-scary/
“In that, Jim VandeHei is hardly alone. The co-founder of Politico will soon launch a new media start-up, and discussed the state of media with Hugh Hewitt this morning. Like many, VandeHei sees an increasing number of straight-news reporters publicly aligning with Hillary Clinton — or at least opposing Donald Trump — on social media and even in their reporting. VandeHei calls it “scary,” and wonders why the media hasn’t put in more effort to discuss the ramifications of classified-information handling with those most familiar with it:
HH: … And Jim, I want to read the beginning of an email I got from a former AUSA, assistant United States Attorney, who I’ve known for many, many years, absolutely legit guy, and have been tracking down bad guys for a long time. He’s married to an FBI agent. It reads, “Now that the contents of that first FBI summary have been released, my wife tells me that Comey has lost all credibility in the FBI. Remember he’s a DOJ veteran, not a Bureau veteran, and that makes a difference with the troops. My wife, a 25 year agent, tells me that since that document became public, and based on what’s in there Comey decided to not recommend prosecution, his name among the agents is dirt. The most practical reason for that feeling is that they all know stories about agents or other federal employees who have befallen similar circumstances, and some have been prosecuted while just about all others have been fired. And the issue with the missing Blackberrrys, IPad, AND the Apple Laptop and Thumbdrive that had ALL her archived emails on them, is just unbelievable to agents who work on matters involving classified information.” I, Jim Vandehei, have heard this complaint over and over again. I held all the clearances in the Reagan years. And I always said the short end was if I left anything in my desk, I’d be disciplined. If I took it home, I’d be fired. If I gave it to someone, I’d be prosecuted. Have you heard this refrain yourself?
JV: It’s interesting that you say that, and I think, yes, is the answer. And I think where the disconnect is, is are you in a military family? And do you know people in a military, or in your case, people who are in the Justice Department or the FBI? I have two brothers-in-law who are serving, and I was in a wedding this past weekend in Kerrville, Texas, where lots of Marines were there. And people who would be inclined, I think, several that I was talking to, to be inclined to support Hillary Clinton, and the only thing that they focus on, and the reason that they could never find themselves voting for her, is this very reason. They either themselves or know other people who have been sanctioned or had issues for doing far, far less than what they believe Hillary Clinton did with classified material. And I think if you’re not talking to people in the military, if you don’t have family members in the military, you don’t have deep enough appreciation for how much focus they put on this, and how much they tie it to your character and to your performance. And so I think what you’re pointing to is very, very legitimate, and that’s why you see the numbers that you do among a lot of the members of the military and who they’re supporting. They don’t, you talk to these members of the military, it’s not like they like Donald Trump, or they think Donald Trump is going to be a superior commander-in-chief. They just can never find themselves settling for Hillary Clinton.
So why haven’t media figures pressed that question with Hillary Clinton — or James Comey, for that matter? One excuse might be that Hillary has evaded the press by refusing to conduct open press conferences for nine months. As Hugh points out, though, they had the opportunity yesterday to ask … and no one bothered:
HH: So yesterday, she has her first presser in 270 days. She does not get one question on the emails, even though John Lester, the lieutenant, nailed her on this thing. And people conclude that the media is complicit. I also wonder, Jim, do you remember when George W. Bush was alleged to have worn a wi-fi backpack at the 2004 debate? It was nuts. It was a crazy conspiracy theory.” “I don’t know if Hillary had an earbud yesterday, but the media’s not investigating that, either. Is there, is the MSM all in for Hillary?
JV: You know, you and I have talked about this in the past, and I tend to be a defender of the media. And I tend to think that it’s overblown, what people think just lots of bias. I have a much different view this year, like having been starting a company and taking a little bit of a step back from looking at the politics moment by moment, particularly if you pay attention to Twitter. The number of mainstream media reporters who are out there expressing their explicit opinions, that tend to be decisively pro-Hillary and anti-Trump, to me is scary. I don’t, listen, Donald Trump gives you a lot things to fear and a lot of things to dislike. But you cannot, cannot, cannot as a reporter be taking sides in a public forum whether it’s on Twitter or whether it’s on email or whether it’s on TV.
The media’s not investigating it because the media isn’t interested in exploring Hillary Clinton’s corruption and criminal acts. The Washington Post’s editorial board made that clear today in a fact-deficient editorial proclaiming that everyone’s paying too much attention to the e-mail scandal rather than how awful Donald Trump is — even though their own pages have that latter beat covered 24/7:”
LikeLike
Our toxic culture (the perversion, the greed, the hedonism, the Green Cult) has spread to immigrants and, through trade, has been exported all over the world. To elect Trump, is to cry, “Unclean!” His immigration policies and the recession/depression that will be caused by his trade policies will essentially end legal or illegal immigration to the US. There won’t be jobs here.
Trump is hated around the world. He just gloated that the Mexican Minister who set up his trip to Mexico got fired for his efforts. Leaders of other countries are not going to want to associate with Trump, particularly when he tries to break trade deals. The US will become a pariah state, and will stop infecting other nations.
That type of isolation to protect others is what Leviticus 13:45 is all about. Hillary may do many bad things to the US, but only Trump will produce that isolation. The leper was instructed to cry, “Unclean” to protect others. It could be argued that American Christians have a duty to vote for Trump to send that same message to the rest of the world.
LikeLike
This is all part of the fix.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/09/new-hillary-e-mail-scandal-mystery-doj-granted-immunity-tech-wiped-server/
“Don’t grants of immunity usually signal a serious intent to prosecute if crimes are uncovered? If so, then the Department of Justice appears to have wasted its time with both Bryan Pagliano and now Paul Combetta, the man who wiped the e-mail files off of Hillary Clinton’s secret server. The New York Times reveals this arrangement for the first time — and how it might keep Congress from delving further into the DoJ’s curious lack of action:
A computer specialist who deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails despite orders from Congress to preserve them was given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account, according to a law enforcement official and others briefed on the investigation.
Republicans have called for the department to investigate the deletions, but the immunity deal with the specialist, Paul Combetta, makes it unlikely that the request will go far. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the top Republican on the House oversight committee, asked the Justice Department on Tuesday to investigate whether Mrs. Clinton, her lawyers or the specialist obstructed justice when the emails were deleted in March 2015.
In February, Combetta told the FBI that he had no recollection of deleting the files. By May, with an immunity grant in hand, Combetta changed his tune. Not only did he recall deleting the files, Combetta knew that Congress had issued a preservation order to prevent just that outcome:
In Mr. Combetta’s first interview with the F.B.I. in February, he said he did not recall seeing the preservation order from the Benghazi committee, which Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer, Cheryl D. Mills, had sent to Platte River. But in his May interview, he said that at the time he made the deletions “he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s email data” on the Platte River server.”
——————————
LikeLike
I hear on the radio that Obama has told the North Koreans that if they continue their belligerent ways, “there will be consequences.”.
We elected a war monger?
I’m sure they are disassembling everything now.
LikeLiked by 4 people
From World Magazine:
https://world.wng.org/2016/09/ballot_boxing_the_race_for_faith
_____________________________
… when making a case for spiritual credibility, both candidates seem confused about the qualifications.
On Thursday, Clinton addressed a mostly black audience at the National Baptist Convention in Kansas City, Mo., where she told the crowd she was “grateful for the great gift of personal salvation and for the great obligation of the social gospel.”
But for Clinton, personal salvation and the social gospel seem to be one and the same.
I recently wrote about the candidates’ religious backgrounds for WORLD Magazine, and how a young youth pastor in the 1960s heavily influenced a teenage Hillary Clinton growing up in a United Methodist Church.
That youth pastor, Don Jones, introduced his impressionable flock to existentialist philosophy and radical thinkers like Saul Alinsky. Saving the world became a project more for men aiming to relieve social ills and less the accomplishment of Christ’s atoning work for sinners….
… Meanwhile, Trump on Saturday visited Great Faith Ministries International, a predominantly black church in Detroit. The Republican nominee read from prepared remarks, calling on Americans to “turn again to our Christian heritage to lift up the soul of our nation.”
Trump’s own spiritual heritage has flowed largely from the teachings of Norman Vincent Peale, a minister at a New York City church for decades, and the first self-help guru of the 20th century. Trump has said he loved Peale’s message of the power of positive thinking and how it applied to business.
As I’ve noted in my magazine article, Peale’s imperatives to avoid negative thinking about oneself may have influenced Trump’s reluctance to recognize he’s a sinner in need of salvation, not just a businessman in need of success.
I’ve often thought about this too, and wondered what would have happened if a biblically orthodox minister had filled Peale’s pulpit when Trump was building his personal empire and bragging about his sometimes-sinful conquests without being challenged?
One takeaway for biblically faithful pastors working on sermons for this Sunday: Preach the full Christian gospel with joy and boldness to a congregation where everyone needs to hear it. …
… It’s notable that The New York Times reported a leaked version of a script of questions and answers the Trump campaign reportedly considered using at the Detroit event.
The first question according to the Times: “Are you a Christian and do you believe the Bible is an inspired word of God?”
The answer Trump’s scriptwriters suggested: “As I went through my life, things got busy with business, but my family kept me grounded to the truth and the word of God. I treasure my relationship with my family, and through them, I have a strong faith enriched by an ever-wonderful God.”
The Trump campaign reportedly ditched the script after it was leaked, but the scripted answer is telling. It would have Trump claim a strong faith in God through his family. Here’s hoping one of the spiritual leaders—including several evangelicals— who have signed on to advise Trump will explain to him that the only mediator between man and God is Jesus Christ. …
______________________________________
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mona Charen (one of my favorites) is for McMullin.
I am certain that after I bring Leviticus 13:45 to her attention, she will switch to Trump.
LikeLike
It is always a good time to encourage your pastors. Right now is a good time to encourage your conservative columnists.
LikeLike