The Clinton Contamination

anatta

100% recycled karma
IT says a lot about our relationship with Hillary Clinton that she seems well on her way to becoming Madam President because she’s not getting indicted.

If she were still at the State Department, she could be getting fired for being, as the F.B.I. director told Congress, “extremely careless” with top-secret information. Instead, she’s on a glide path to a big promotion.

And that’s the corkscrew way things go with the Clintons, who are staying true to their reputation as the Tom and Daisy Buchanan of American politics. Their vast carelessness drags down everyone around them, but they persevere, and even thrive.

In a mere 11 days, arrogant, selfish actions by the Clintons contaminated three of the purest brands in Washington — Barack Obama, James Comey and Loretta Lynch — and jeopardized the futures of Hillary’s most loyal aides.


It’s quaint, looking back at her appointment as secretary of state, how Obama tried to get Hillary without the shadiness. (Which is what we all want, of course.)

The president and his aides attempted to keep a rein on Clinton’s State Department — refusing to let her bring in her hit man, Sidney Blumenthal.

But in the end, Hillary’s goo got on Obama anyhow. On Tuesday, after Comey managed to make both Democrats and Republicans angry by indicting Clinton politically but not legally, Barry and Hillary flew to Charlotte, N.C., for their first joint campaign appearance.

Obama was left in the awkward position of vouching for Hillary’s “steady judgment” to run an angry, violent, jittery nation on the very day that his F.B.I. director lambasted her errant judgment on circumventing the State Department email system, making it clear that she had been lying to the American public for the last 16 months.

Comey, who was then yanked up to Capitol Hill for a hearing on Thursday, revealed that instead of no emails with classified information, as Hillary had insisted, there were 110, of those turned over to the State Department.
Instead of Clinton’s assurances that the server in the basement in Chappaqua had never been breached, Comey said it was possible that hostile actors had hacked Clinton’s email account. Among the emails not given to State, he said at least three contained classified information.

Hillary had already compromised the president, who feels he needs her to cement his legacy. Obama angered F.B.I. agents when he was interviewed on CBS’s “60 Minutes” last fall and undermined the bureau’s investigation by exonerating Hillary before the F.B.I. was done with its work, saying pre-emptively, “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Hillary willfully put herself above the rules — again — and a president, campaign and party are all left twisting themselves into pretzels defending her.

Obama aimed to have no shadows, but the Clintons operate in shadows.

After Bill Clinton crossed the tarmac in Phoenix to have a long chat with Lynch, the attorney general confessed that the ill-advised meeting had “cast a shadow” over her department’s investigation into his wife and that she would feel constrained to follow the recommendation of the F.B.I.


“I certainly wouldn’t do it again,” Lynch said, admitting it hit her “painfully” that she had made a mistake
dancing with the Arkansas devil in the pale moonlight.


The meeting seemed even more suspect a week later, when The Times reported that Hillary might let Lynch stay on in a new Clinton administration.

The fallout from the email scandal has clouded the futures of longtime Hillary aides Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, who were also deemed extremely careless by Comey for their handling of classified information. The Times reported that they could face tough questions as they seek security clearances for diplomatic or national security posts. (Not to mention remiss in not pushing back on Clinton about the private server.)

“You’ve got a situation here where the woman who would be in charge of setting national security policy as president has been deemed by the F.B.I. unsuitable to safeguard and handle classified information,” Bill Savarino, a Washington lawyer specializing in security clearances, told the Times.

So many lawyers in this column, so little law.

President Obama is not upset about being pulled into the Clinton Under Toad, to use an old John Irving expression. He thinks Washington is so broken that the next president will need a specific skill set to function, and he thinks Hillary has that.

But what should disturb Obama, who bypassed his own vice president to lay out the red carpet for Hillary, is that the email transgression is not a one off. It’s part of a long pattern of ethical slipping and sliding, obsessive secrecy and paranoia, and collateral damage.

Comey’s verdict that Hillary was “negligent” was met with sighs rather than shock. We know who Hillary and Bill are now. We’ve been held hostage to their predilections and braided intrigues for a long time. (On the Hill, Comey refused to confirm or deny that he’s investigating the Clinton Foundation, with its unseemly tangle of donors and people doing business with State.)

We’re resigned to the Clintons focusing on their viability and disregarding the consequences of their heedless actions on others. They’re always offering a Faustian deal. This year’s election bargain: Put up with our iniquities or get Trump’s short fingers on the nuclear button.

The Clintons work hard but don’t play by the rules. Imagine them in the White House with the benefit of low expectations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/o...version=Full&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article
 
I have the rage furby on ignore so have no idea what this post is about (or care), but I think the title is so funny. Why not just post "Girls Have Cooties".

I see through you.
 
I have the rage furby on ignore so have no idea what this post is about (or care), but I think the title is so funny. Why not just post "Girls Have Cooties".

I see through you.
what an idiot.
it's a straight c/p from Wa-Po guest writer. I guess even WaPo has to deal with the contagion in this case to maintain a shred of credibility.
The Clintonistas are forever in denial *neener neener we can't hear you* :)
 
its most prominent opinion slot, on its Sunday edition op-ed page, the New York Times today features Maureen Dowd absolutely ripping Hillary Clinton and her husband as moral lepers, and sympathizing with:


a president, campaign and party are all left twisting themselves into pretzels defending her.

The opening of the piece sets the tone:


IT says a lot about our relationship with Hillary Clinton that she seems well on her way to becoming Madam President because she’s not getting indicted.

If she were still at the State Department, she could be getting fired for being, as the F.B.I. director told Congress, “extremely careless” with top-secret information. Instead, she’s on a glide path to a big promotion.

And that’s the corkscrew way things go with the Clintons, who are staying true to their reputation as the Tom and Daisy Buchanan of American politics. Their vast carelessness drags down everyone around them, but they persevere, and even thrive.

Dowd then zeroes in on the specifics of today:


In a mere 11 days, arrogant, selfish actions by the Clintons contaminated three of the purest brands in Washington — Barack Obama, James Comey and Loretta Lynch — and jeopardized the futures of Hillary’s most loyal aides.

Note that Dowd’s readers, predominantly liberal upscale Democrats, are cast, along with Obama and Lynch, as victims here of Hillary’s base nature.

The Times is signaling its readers – including the editors of most other news outlets – that they will have to grit their teeth and vote for Hillary. It’s OK to laugh at her level of corruption and self-dealing. But at least she isn’t Donald Trump.
 
what an idiot.
it's a straight c/p from Wa-Po guest writer. I guess even WaPo has to deal with the contagion in this case to maintain a shred of credibility.
The Clintonistas are forever in denial *neener neener we can't hear you* :)

Can't argue that....its the reason idiots stay idiots.....some stick their heads in the sand, some up their asses, but the result is exactly the same....

They actually work at and take pride in staying a ignorant as possible.....

Excellent article from the Wash. Post.....

Here is another....

Over the course of 16 hours, prosecutors and FBI agents agonized over whether to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime. In the end, after weighing every ounce of evidence, examining piles of documents and gaming out whether a jury would ever convict her, the group made its wrenching decision: no charges.
Nearly 20 years before FBI Director James B. Comey declared that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a criminal case against Clinton over her use of a private email server while secretary of state, Clinton narrowly escaped a similar legal peril amid the Whitewater investigation that engulfed much of her husband’s time as president.
While history remembers the 1990s probe led by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr for its pursuit of President Bill Clinton over the possibility he had lied under oath about his relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky, internal documents from the inquiry show how close prosecutors came to filing charges at that time against Hillary Clinton. They even drew up a draft indictment for Clinton, which has never been made public.
[Office of Independent Counsel memos on Hillary Clinton]
As in the email controversy of today, Clinton’s honesty was a central question facing investigators in 1998 as they weighed whether what they saw as shifting stories from Clinton amounted to an attempt to cover up misconduct. Like the events of today, Clinton was interviewed for hours by authorities. Unlike the email inquiry, in which Comey said Clinton’s status as a presidential candidate had no effect on the decision not to charge her, documents from the 1990s show how prosecutors weighed whether Clinton’s political popularity would make her more difficult to convict.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...beb7c8-4498-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html
 
Over the course of 16 hours, prosecutors and FBI agents agonized over whether to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime. In the end, after weighing every ounce of evidence, examining piles of documents and gaming out whether a jury would ever convict her, the group made its wrenching decision: no charges.
they didn't want to take political responsibility. But if it was that close..they are they gaming out a jury?
she should have been charged by all rights
 
they didn't want to take political responsibility. But if it was that close..they are they gaming out a jury?
she should have been charged by all rights

bush and cheney should have been impeached for war crimes over Iraq. When Pelosi said it wasn't going to happen I just had to swallow my anger and move on.
 
bush and cheney should have been impeached for war crimes over Iraq. When Pelosi said it wasn't going to happen I just had to swallow my anger and move on.
impeachment is a different animal -it's political as much as it's legal. POTUS has wide latitudes as CiC.
With Clinton she really did violate "gross negligence". I'm thinking though Comey didn't want to move on that.
It would have been a tremendous political interruption. * just my opinion, but a "cold read" of the statute does show intent is not needed*
 
what an idiot.
it's a straight c/p from Wa-Po guest writer. I guess even WaPo has to deal with the contagion in this case to maintain a shred of credibility.
The Clintonistas are forever in denial *neener neener we can't hear you* :)

Rule 3 violation.

Get over it faggot.
 
too bad you can't grasp even the cruder points of the Espionage Act; much less "intent" as a precursor. ( it's not)
18 U.S. Code § 793 (f)(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
It's a Maureen Dowd column.

Too bad you can't grasp the fact that both Comey and his boss are very experienced federal prosecutors.

How many years do you have before the bench?

If arrogance were a crime you would be looking at capital punishment.

You fucking idiot.

FYI Dowd hates Clinton you freak.
 
impeachment is a different animal -it's political as much as it's legal. POTUS has wide latitudes as CiC.
With Clinton she really did violate "gross negligence". I'm thinking though Comey didn't want to move on that.
It would have been a tremendous political interruption. * just my opinion, but a "cold read" of the statute does show intent is not needed*

Idiot: impeachment can never be political, the Constitution demands criminal activity as cause.

Just shut your fucking ignorant mouth.
 
Too bad you can't grasp the fact that both Comey and his boss are very experienced federal prosecutors.

How many years do you have before the bench?

If arrogance were a crime you would be looking at capital punishment.

You fucking idiot.

FYI Dowd hates Clinton you freak.
Comey's case for "intent" doesn't hold water as a "cold read" of the statute -
or saying there is no precedent for prosecution without intent.
That is not a unique analysis by myself - or driven solely by RW nut cases.

If you bothered to THINK instead of REACT and DID RESEARCH before you RAN YOUR MOUTH -that would be evident -
but you don't - so it isn't.
I'm aware of Dowd's history of calling out the Clinton's for their shady ways- good for her, and she did a fine job here as well
 
Comey's case for "intent" doesn't hold water as a "cold read" of the statute -
or saying there is no precedent for prosecution without intent.
That is not a unique analysis by myself - or driven solely by RW nut cases.

If you bothered to THINK instead of REACT and DID RESEARCH before you RAN YOUR MOUTH -that would be evident -
but you don't - so it isn't.
I'm aware of Dowd's history of calling out the Clinton's for their shady ways- good for her, and she did a fine job here as well

LMFAO@Twatana.
You are not a lawyer, not an experienced prosecutor, your opinion is meaningless.

You are not qualified to decide legal matters, you are just a random idiot.

What is this now, thread number 8 about the same topic?
Read rule 3 you fucking twat.
 
...connect the dots

No dots to connect dufus.
The process is designed to exclude partisanship.
You said something very stupid.
I do plenty of research zipperhead.
I hardly ever make a post without research.
Go ahead retard, capitalize think again.
You are closer in intellect to Text Driver than inititial appearrances.o
 
Back
Top