63 thoughts on “News/Politics 10-29-16

  1. Good question Michelle. She would have been better off trying the executive privilege route. The 5th won’t work for her.

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/attorney-general-lynch-pleads-fifth-secret-iran-ransom-payments/

    “Attorney General Loretta Lynch is declining to comply with an investigation by leading members of Congress about the Obama administration’s secret efforts to send Iran $1.7 billion in cash earlier this year, prompting accusations that Lynch has “pleaded the Fifth” Amendment to avoid incriminating herself over these payments, according to lawmakers and communications exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

    Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) initially presented Lynch in October with a series of questions about how the cash payment to Iran was approved and delivered.

    In an Oct. 24 response, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik responded on Lynch’s behalf, refusing to answer the questions and informing the lawmakers that they are barred from publicly disclosing any details about the cash payment, which was bound up in a ransom deal aimed at freeing several American hostages from Iran.

    The response from the attorney general’s office is “unacceptable” and provides evidence that Lynch has chosen to “essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries regarding [her] role in providing cash to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism,” Rubio and Pompeo wrote on Friday in a follow-up letter to Lynch, according to a copy obtained by the Free Beacon.”

    Liked by 2 people

  2. And speaking of Lynch….

    Her inappropriate “chance meeting” with Bill was bad enough, but now she’s gone to full blown cover-up mode. A delay tactic for sure. Can’t have this stuff effecting the election, right?

    Wrong, Comey disregarded her opinion..

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/james-comey-broke-with-loretta-lynch-and-justice-department-tradition

    “On Friday, James Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, acting independently of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, sent a letter to Congress saying that the F.B.I. had discovered e-mails that were potentially relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server. Coming less than two weeks before the Presidential election, Comey’s decision to make public new evidence that may raise additional legal questions about Clinton was contrary to the views of the Attorney General, according to a well-informed Administration official. Lynch expressed her preference that Comey follow the department’s longstanding practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations, and not taking any action that could influence the outcome of an election, but he said that he felt compelled to do otherwise.

    Comey’s decision is a striking break with the policies of the Department of Justice, according to current and former federal legal officials. Comey, who is a Republican appointee of President Obama, has a reputation for integrity and independence, but his latest action is stirring an extraordinary level of concern among legal authorities, who see it as potentially affecting the outcome of the Presidential and congressional elections.

    “You don’t do this,” one former senior Justice Department official exclaimed. “It’s aberrational. It violates decades of practice.” The reason, according to the former official, who asked not to be identified because of ongoing cases involving the department, “is because it impugns the integrity and reputation of the candidate, even though there’s no finding by a court, or in this instance even an indictment.”

    Traditionally, the Justice Department has advised prosecutors and law enforcement to avoid any appearance of meddling in the outcome of elections, even if it means holding off on pressing cases. One former senior official recalled that Janet Reno, the Attorney General under Bill Clinton, “completely shut down” the prosecution of a politically sensitive criminal target prior to an election. “She was adamant—anything that could influence the election had to go dark,” the former official said.”
    ———————-

    Politically appointed AG’s don’t like to embarrass their bosses before elections. That didn’t work this time. 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  3. And as expected, the news has Dems’ panties all in a bunch….

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/28/democratic-coalition-trump-files-hatch-act-complaint-fbi-director/

    “That was quick! A PAC called the Democratic Coalition Against Trump has filed a complaint with the Department of Justice against FBI Director Comey. The complaint accuses Comey of interfering in the election. Here’s the press release:

    The Democratic Coalition Against Trump filed a complaint with the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility on Friday against FBI Director James Comey for interfering in the Presidential election, following the FBI’s decision to open up an investigation into Secretary Clinton’s emails this close to Election Day. Federal employees are forbidden from participating in political activities under the Hatch Act.

    “It is absolutely absurd that FBI Director Comey would support Donald Trump like this with only 11 days to go before the election,” said Scott Dworkin, Senior Advisor to the Democratic Coalition Against Trump. “It is an obvious attack from a lifelong Republican who used to serve in the Bush White House, just to undermine her campaign. Comey needs to focus on stopping terrorists and protecting America, not investigating our soon to be President-Elect Hillary Clinton.”

    For this to be a violation of the Hatch Act it would be necessary to prove that Comey was not performing his duties as FBI Director but was raising this to impact the election. Obviously this coalition doesn’t have any proof that’s the case but by making the accusation they help the Clinton campaign controversialize the announcement as a partisan act.

    Coincidentally, this PR move dovetail with the official response from the Clinton campaign which opened with an accusation that Comey was bowing to political pressure from Republicans:

    Upon completing this investigation more than three months ago, FBI Director Comey declared no reasonable prosecutor would move forward with a case like this and added that it was not even a close call. In the months since, Donald Trump and his Republican allies have been baselessly second-guessing the FBI and, in both public and private, browbeating the career officials there to revisit their conclusion in a desperate attempt to harm Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.”

    Like

  4. Nixon survived Watergate during the election. He was President when he resigned.
    If Hillary is elected, she will get away with it.
    Someday, somebody will write a book. It will be long and complicated.
    The Clinton Foundation will buy all the copies.

    Liked by 6 people

  5. Ricky Weaver; I hope that you will find a better (more biblical) way to express your views. I get a little tired for being belittled for being a Yankee. I have read other things written by you that make fun of older, white men etc. There is much in scripture about how we address each other in the church and out. Memorizing and acting on 1 Cor. 13 is also a helpful reminder to anyone who calls her/himself a Christian.

    I am not saying to not give your opinion or to not be forceful about what you believe is true, but the way you do it is not helpful, IMO, and is often just plain sinful. It also stops some from wanting to even debate anything with you.

    Prayerfully consider this.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Will new FBI review dent Clinton’s lead in the polls? — Politico

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/5-political-numbers-to-watch/2016/10/hillary-clinton-fbi-polls-230481
    ________________________

    After revelations that federal investigators are examining additional evidence concerning Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, a presidential race that appeared largely in the bag for Clinton is suddenly looking more uncertain.

    It will be several days before the polls reliably reflect the political impact — if any — of FBI DIrector James Comey’s Friday letter to congressional leaders. But already there are some indications the news could hurt Clinton.

    The story reinforces existing perceptions of the former secretary of state: Despite her solid lead over Donald Trump on the ballot test, voters continue to harbor deep doubts about her trustworthiness.

    And previous stories about Clinton’s use of a private email account to conduct State Department business have led to an erosion in her poll numbers at earlier points in the campaign, including when Comey said in early July that the FBI would not recommend charges against Clinton and others despite what he called Clinton’s “extremely careless” email protocol.

    Here are five data points to watch in the final 10 days of the campaign to see if the latest revelations move the needle — and the race tightens.: …
    ____________________________

    Like

  7. What’s interesting about the anti-older white male themes that have become so predominant (especially here on the left coast) is that it carries with it the danger of whipping up a backlash.

    And that is never pretty.

    Frankly, it’s part of what’s driven the wild-card, in-your-face support we see for Trump, in my view.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. And the best part, once he’s released he will be deported for a 6th time and must start making restitution in the amount of $25 a month. He should be able to pay that 61 million back in no time at that rate.

    What a joke…..

    .http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/25/sanctuary-city-illegal-immigrant-sparks-61-million/

    “Angel Gilberto Garcia-Avalos had been deported five times in just the past four years, yet each time he has managed to sneak from Mexico back into the U.S., where he ended up in more mischief: driving without a license, attempted burglary and felony weapons charges.

    In August, he graduated to full-fledged mayhem, sparking a fire in the Sequoia National Forest that has already cost the government $61 million and left some of the country’s most beautiful landscape scarred for years to come.

    Garcia, who pleaded guilty last month and faces 13 months in prison, had only recently been released from the Kern County Jail. He likely would have been deported again, but local authorities were unable to report him to immigration authorities because of California’s new sanctuary city law, which prohibited the sheriff from communicating with federal agents.

    Federal agents now say they will kick Garcia out of the country once he serves his latest sentence, but the damage has already been done.”
    ————————-

    Send the bill to the White House and California. After all their refusal to enforce the border and Cali’s sanctuary policies led to this in the first place. They are just as responsible for all of this as the criminal illegal they enabled.

    Like

  9. I read God’s description of sanctuary cities the other day and was struck by the fact they were designed to give a cooling off period and then bring the people to justice. Is that what’s happening in sanctuary cities in the US, including our own San Francisco? Doesn’t seem like it to me, but I could be wrong.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Remodeling the house.

    Clintons remodeled home without getting required permits

    http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/28/clintons-remodeled-home-without-getting-required-permits/

    ______________________________

    “During conversation I was told that the owners wanted to have all work done and finished by Thanksgiving and were quite adamant about it and what had started as a paint job turned into this,” Maskiell’s Oct. 17 inspection report said. …

    … Granted this news has been completely overshadowed today by the FBI announcement. It’s not a huge story, though the Clintons may be hit with a few thousand dollars in fines for failing to get the permits in the first place as required. Mostly, this story is just one more example of the Clintons acting as if the rules do not apply to them.
    ________________________________

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I have not read all of the recent political threads so I do not know if the Amish vote has been covered. They have a PAC and plan to vote in unity for Trump on the life issue. Their vote should tip the scale to Trump in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Probably this has already been discussed? Some people on Facebook said it is a false rumor, but a literary agent knows someone in the community who says it is true.

    Like

  12. Yes we have, someone posted it here the other day, Michelle I believe. And many of us follow Russell Moore so the ideas have been out there a while.

    I see some of my more liberal friends today are hating on the media. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  13. I did post that, CB, thanks for thinking of us. I thought he had some wise things to say–but then I’ve thought the “marriage” of Christianity to politics a crime. Spiritual lives have nothing to be gained by a group who are looking for power and money. I tell my Bible study ladies anyone who talks about Jesus + power + money needs to be avoided.

    Hope you are well.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. CB, Thanks for posting the article. I can see the truth of many of Moore’s points here in Dallas/Fort Worth.

    1. The fastest growing churches are churches that stay away from politics. Many have young pastors who were turned off by the Old Religious Right.

    2. Young Christians detest Trump and are concerned if their pastors or older relatives are enthusiastic about Trump. Some accept the “it’s a horrible choice and maybe he would appoint better judges” argument. However, when Robert Jeffress attacks Christians who aren’t voting for Trump, it is a real turnoff.

    3. The growing churches do not avoid from controversial subjects, but the pastors try to bring in experts to address those subjects and are careful to be very biblical in their approach.

    4. The strongest parts of Jeffress’ own church (FIrst Baptist Dallas) are its Hispanic and Asia sections.

    Whoever wins this election, the old Christian Right as a part of the Republican coalition is dead. The reason is that the pastors who came out strongly for Trump are going to pay a heavy price. Their young people and some others will depart.

    I didn’t realize it until this election, but social conservatives were really the glue that held the Republican Party together. They kept the Paul Ryan economic conservatives tied to the Pat Buchanan/Trump nationalists/protectionists. As Christians take a step back, that economic battle is going to be something to behold.

    Like

  15. dj, it’s easy to hate on the media, whether a person is conservative, liberal or center. my 2 cents – the media is messed up. On the right you have conspiracy theories abounding, on the left a pretty clear bias (not that I blame them, the majority of folks with foreign policy chops think Trump would be disastrous), The media all too often does not analyze with facts and in the 24 hour news cycle is always looking for the newest sexy, shiny story– fact-based analysis is too boring for our entertainment driven society, I guess.

    Michelle – we agree I believe that politics/government corrupts the church and vice versa. When tax policy becomes an issue of faith, something has gone terribly awry.

    AJ, lol, what I’ve read of wiki so far is not all that flattering but not all that outside normal. I do think Assange has an axe to grind and vehemently object to his style of release. Hannity and others claim wikileaks have not led to harm to any individuals — but I know that it has. Assange is a narcissitic, self righteous man and does what he does as much or more for his own ego than any thing else. He’s also a useful idiot for Moscow.

    Like

  16. Rick, I agree with everything you wrote. I also think we are seeing the parties realign on economic policy with the Clinton/Kaine dems going corporate/centrist. The Trump reps going populist, the Warren/Sanders dem going further left and the conservatives in a bit of a desert phase. I think the dems will also face a party split. It’s an interesting, if discomforting time, to be a part of.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. CB, David Brooks wrote this on realignment.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/opinion/the-coming-political-realignment.html?_r=0

    I agree that you that economic realignment is coming. Trump’s ignorance and vulgarity partially disguised the fact that a huge group of Republicans agree with his Sanders-like protectionism. I am very much afraid that Peggy Noonan’s “sane Donald Trump” will emerge in the next couple of election cycles and drive me, Paul Ryan and all who love Milton Fiedman into that “desert”.

    Like

  18. Not. Gonna. Happen.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-kass-1030-20161028-column.html

    “If ruling Democrats hold themselves to the high moral standards they impose on the people they govern, they would follow a simple process:

    They would demand that Mrs. Clinton step down, immediately, and let her vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, stand in her place.

    Democrats should say, honestly, that with a new criminal investigation going on into events around her home-brew email server from the time she was secretary of state, having Clinton anywhere near the White House is just not a good idea.”

    Like

  19. Organized crime.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441573/hillary-clinton-corruption-foundation

    “One thing, however, is already clear. Whatever the relevance of the new e-mails to the probe of Clinton’s classified-information transgressions and attempt to destroy thousands of emails, these offenses may pale in comparison with Hillary Clinton’s most audacious violations of law: Crimes that should still be under investigation; crimes that will, in fitting Watergate parlance, be a cancer on the presidency if she manages to win on November 8.

    Mrs. Clinton appears to have converted the office of secretary of state into a racketeering enterprise. This would be a violation of the RICO law — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971 (codified in the U.S. penal code at sections 1961 et seq.).

    Hillary and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, operated the Clinton Foundation. Ostensibly a charity, the foundation was a de facto fraud scheme to monetize Hillary’s power as secretary of state (among other aspects of the Clintons’ political influence). The scheme involved (a) the exchange of political favors, access, and influence for millions of dollars in donations; (b) the circumvention of campaign-finance laws that prohibit political donations by foreign sources; (c) a vehicle for Mrs. Clinton to shield her State Department e-mail communications from public and congressional scrutiny while she and her husband exploited the fundraising potential of her position; and (d) a means for Clinton insiders to receive private-sector compensation and explore lucrative employment opportunities while drawing taxpayer-funded government salaries.

    While the foundation did perform some charitable work, this camouflaged the fact that contributions were substantially diverted to pay lavish salaries and underwrite luxury travel for Clinton insiders. Contributions skyrocketed to $126 million in 2009, the year Mrs. Clinton arrived at Foggy Bottom. Breathtaking sums were “donated” by high-rollers and foreign governments that had crucial business before the State Department. Along with those staggering donations came a spike in speaking opportunities and fees for Bill Clinton. Of course, disproportionate payments and gifts to a spouse are common ways of bribing public officials — which is why, for example, high-ranking government officeholders must reveal their spouses’ income and other asset information on their financial-disclosure forms.”

    Like

  20. AJ, I was pleased to read the Kass article, but you are right: Just as Trump refused to step aside after the sexual assault confession tape, Hillary is not going away either.

    The different attitudes toward Pence as discussed in the Politico article are partially generational. During golf this morning, I told my son that I thought Pence could, in the future, make a fine national leader. I saw him as a solid conservative who did a good job under very difficult circumstances as Trump’s #2. Travis thought that Pence’s association with Trump was a disqualifying act, that he gave up his integrity when he stayed on after Trump’s confession tape. Who knew that young people could be so judgmental?

    Like

  21. The latest email investigation will be simply the same as last time — nothing there. Clinton isn’t perfect but she’s not any more corrupt than the average Washington politician. And thus this latest revelation won’t tip the election (that and the electoral college favours her). However, the timing is extremely suspect.

    The choice is between a run-of-the-mill slightly corrupt Washington politician or a self confessed sex offender, bigot and bankrupt businessman. I’m not sure why its even a discussion. They could find a million Clinton emails and if I were American I’d still vote for Clinton.

    The Clinton Foundation is not organized crime. Its a five star or an A+ charity rated by two different charity watchdogs. Approximately 90% of its funds go directly to charitable work. Yes, Chelsea has a cushy job and why not its a family foundation — if I had a foundation, I’d give my daughter a cushy job too. And yes, extremely wealthy and powerful people from around the world contributed to the foundation — its the circle that the Clintons operate within, essentially they hit on friends and associates for contributions. And the problem?? Meanwhile the Trump foundation is under investigation. Again, the comparison — do you vote for a wealthy powerful couple who actually use their charity for good purposes or do you vote for bankrupt businessman who used his charity to buy two life sized portraits of himself…..the choice is obvious.

    Like

  22. HRW, You know I’m with you on Trump. I also agree that most Washington politicians sell influence to some extent. However, the Clintons took influence peddling to a new level. They were selling themselves to every country in the world as well as to all businesses.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Lynch didn’t take the fifth — that’s bad reporting. She “essentially took the fifth” i.e. she’s not talking but she hasn’t actually been in a legal setting to answer questions. If she was I’m sure she will claim executive privilege as she should — investigating foreign policy decisions and actions on the basis of domestic political gain is a dangerous road to travel and one the Republicans might do well to avoid. Its they that will be compromising national security for political reasons.

    The Amish story has been debunked (go to Snopes). Pennsylvania is a firm Clinton state and thus Trump has no chance — the rust belt will hold for the Democrats except Ohio but since Virginia and Colorado have emerged as safe Democrat states they no longer need Ohio (or Florida and North Carolina) Hence the electoral college favours Clinton — However, the lower populated states (mostly Republican) actually have a more powerful vote since they automatically receive three electoral votes. Thus small town Republican voters are actually favoured by the electoral college.

    I think most people understand evangelical political influence has taken a beating and the old guard is done. And it also faves a generational challenge — younger evangelicals are not interested in the culture wars and if they are, their point of view conflicts with Trump, and also Pence, who won’t recover his political career.

    Like

  24. Getting away from Trump for a minute. I haven’t seen any postings here on the Standing Rock protests in South Dakota as well as the Bundy decision. The contrast couldn’t have been more plain. On the same day non-violent mostly native protestors are beaten, shot at, arrested and thrown into a dog kennel, an armed group of white men are found not guilty. An obvious example of white privilege. One day, and probably soon, other Americans (Hispanic, BLM, natives, etc) will assert second amendment solutions. I suspect the right will quickly have a change of heart on gun control and the second amendment much like Reagan did in California when the Black Panthers started to open carry.

    Like

  25. Ricky — I don’t see it. Most of the correlations the right have seized on to claim pay for play or influence peddling have with further research turned out to be false. Sure there are a few grey areas but US foreign policy and national interests were always maintained. Meanwhile, Trump donated to the Florida’s AG campaign and suddenly investigations in Trump U stopped — there’s a direct pay for play.

    Like

  26. Snopes says this is false. It made sense at first glance, but they may be in worse trouble than we are.
    If That’s possible.

    In an unexpected televised address, Queen Elizabeth II offered to restore British rule over the United States of America.

    Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”

    “This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. If you voted for Nixon or could see yourself voting for Nixon if you were able to in 1972 then you should be able to vote for Clinton. Nixon would occupy the political centre with Clinton today — he founded the EPA, maintained the welfare state, left morality out of the gov’t, and overseas is/was a war hawk. In fact, Clinton is probably more neoliberal in economics than Nixon — free trade, welfare reform, less regulations, etc. The political spectrum has moved that far to the right.

    The only reason a leftist such as myself would vote for Clinton is the alternative is far worse — an inept versions of Mussolini-Huey Long. And the leftist can hope that Clinton is pulled by the leftward drift of her own party — Sanders and Warren. Both of whom would not look out of place in FDR’s cabinet. Again illustrating how far the political spectrum has shifted.

    Like

  28. HRW, I understand that since you are a Canadian this is all theoretical, but let me lure you back to idealism. Hillary has literally been on the payroll of the very financial institutions you hate so much. She has supported all of the wars you thought were foolish. If I can vote for a dog in order to preserve a clear conscience, I would hope you can support Jill Stein.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Chas, my husband keeps asking that question about the Clintons and their money. After so many years of people saying that government should be run more like a business, maybe the Clintons decided they could get away with being “entrepreneurial” with their public positions.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. “If I can vote for a dog in order to preserve a clear conscience, I would hope you can support Jill Stein.”

    Voting your conscience is important regardless of the outcome. But I don’t think I’ve ever voted without being aware that I was voting for what I thought of as the lesser evil. And that being the case, I probably would have preferred Jill Stein to the other candidates presented on the Republican ticket— except maybe Huckabee or Carson.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. I haven’t been head-over-heels for a *politician* (cough-cough) since I was very, very young and naive. The choice is usually what Debra says, it’s life in the real (and fallen) world. I don’t “get” the point of 3rd parties, but I’ve said that before. 🙂

    Trump was my 17th choice among the Republicans who ran, alas. 😦

    Chas, looks like Clinton is running comfortably ahead in NC, going red to blue this time? What’s up with that? They don’t say, but I guess these surveys of early voters are based on exit polling (which can be notoriously unreliable).

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Debra, You and I are the perfect examples of the realignment CB and I were talking about last night. As long as abortion was an important issue, you and I would probably generally vote for the same candidate. However, if elections are primarily about economic matters, you and I may never vote for the same candidate.

    The future Republican battles will be between the free enterprise/free trade/entitlement reformers and the protectionists/defenders of the status quo on entitlements.

    This year was so strange, I am not really sure what we can learn from it. However, if I had to bet, I would bet on your side winning most future Republican primary battles. If that happens, many people like me will leave the Republican Party. Then the Rs might become a majority party by incorporating Jill Stein/Bernie Sanders types.

    I don’t plan on ever becoming a Democrat. However, if much of the Sanders wing of the Democrat Party joined a Trumpian Republican Party, many economic conservatives might reach a different conclusion.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. At dinner today, my wife, my son, my daughter-in-law and I had a serious discussion about who we were going to vote for. The two ladies both consider Trump to be the absolute scum of the earth, with Hillary falling in a similar category. My wife said she would vote for a randomly selected prisoner at the Wise County Jail over Trump or Hillary.

    Texans don’t even consider Greenies or potheads so Stein and Johnson are out. This brought us to a semi-serious discussion of McMullin and Arnold Weaver. All agreed that McMullin is the best human candidate. However, it really bothered my son that McMullin followed a religion founded by 19th Century Trumps (sexual predators).

    The other three were absolutely committed to Arnold. If I lived in Utah (where a vote for McMullin might matter) I would vote for McMullin. However, since I am a Texan, I am also voting for the dog.

    Like

  34. Sanders is the sane Trump which is why Sanders would’ve had an easier time than Clinton. He would generate far more enthusiasm and the rust belt states would be an easy win.

    Stein sometimes impresses me and sometime doesn’t. Her comments on vaccines were troubling. Depending on where I live, I might vote for Clinton, Stein or just leave it blank. Thus if in Ohio, North Carolina, etc I would still vote for Clinton. I don’t find her any more corrupt than the typical politician. Trump bribed an attorney general. John Boehner handed out cheques from tobacco lobbyists on the Senate floor just before a vote on tobacco subsidies. Compared to those two, I’d say she was okay. For thirty years, the Republican party has tried to find some dirt on Hilary Clinton and has found nothing.

    The outrage over Comey’s email statement seems to have become bipartisan — a lawyer for Bush has filed a suit, FOX commenter Pirino has weighed against it. The WSJ reports Comey felt internal pressure from FBI agents who were resigning over the issue and was worried a Republican house may investigate him. Basically he wants to save his job. Interesting motivation to throw a wrench in the election.

    Like

  35. I can’t believe I am saying this, but I agree with HRW that Sanders would have been a better candidate than Hillary.

    My great-nephew is giving Arnold Weaver some exposure:

    Liked by 1 person

  36. As for the Arnold Weaver outsider candidate, my home security guard, Samster, would have voted for him; but alas, his voting rights are revoked. A minor felony in his youth landed him in the pokey. It was a matter of egg theft. Of course he insisted it was just a misunderstanding. He thought “free-range eggs” were free for the taking. But witnesses say he carefully cased the joint, took 3 eggs, and ate most of the shells trying to hide the evidence, so we knew there was intent.

    …of course if left up to the FBI, he would have gotten off scot-free.

    We got pictures of the act, but I can’t seem to get them on here. :–)

    Liked by 4 people

  37. And then this:

    Democrats should ask Clinton to step aside

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-kass-1030-20161028-column.html

    _______________________________

    Has America become so numb by the decades of lies and cynicism oozing from Clinton Inc. that it could elect Hillary Clinton as president, even after Friday’s FBI announcement that it had reopened an investigation of her emails while secretary of state?

    We’ll find out soon enough.

    It’s obvious the American political system is breaking down. It’s been crumbling for some time now, and the establishment elite know it and they’re properly frightened. Donald Trump, the vulgarian at their gates, is a symptom, not a cause. Hillary Clinton and husband Bill are both cause and effect.

    FBI director James Comey’s announcement about the renewed Clinton email investigation is the bombshell in the presidential campaign. That he announced this so close to Election Day should tell every thinking person that what the FBI is looking at is extremely serious. …

    … So what should the Democrats do now?

    If ruling Democrats hold themselves to the high moral standards they impose on the people they govern, they would follow a simple process:

    They would demand that Mrs. Clinton step down, immediately, and let her vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, stand in her place.

    Democrats should say, honestly, that with a new criminal investigation going on into events around her home-brew email server from the time she was secretary of state, having Clinton anywhere near the White House is just not a good idea. …

    … What if she is elected? Think of a nation suffering a bad economy and continuing chaos in the Middle East, and now also facing a criminal investigation of a president. Add to that congressional investigations and a public vision of Clinton as a Nixonian figure wandering the halls, wringing her hands. …

    _______________________________

    Like

  38. HRW : “The outrage over Comey’s email statement seems to have become bipartisan — a lawyer for Bush has filed a suit, FOX commenter Pirino has weighed against it”

    There are a number of Republicans rooting for a Clinton victory. The Bush family is supporting Clinton (or no one) and Dana Pirino was Bush’s press secretary. To me that doesn’t really qualify as ‘bipartisan’ in the usual sense.

    Like

  39. Donna @7:32. We don’t have outrage until we hear from Nancy Pelosi.
    Nobody can do it like she can.

    Has she already spoken? I haven’t heard it.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s