James Comey

Wow.  Just wow.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

Let me see if I can help.

Intent?

She tells you the intent.  Her argument, “convenience”.  She didn’t want to have a separate phone.  That’s who wants to be President of the United States of America.  Someone who doesn’t want to be bothered with carrying a separate phone and is more than willing to disregard federal law in order to do it.

Some would argue that a lawyer, having got her break prosecuting Richard M. Nixon:

Would have a greater appreciation for obstructing federal law regarding personal communications.

Or, one could assume she’s not that stupid, as I do.  And, recognized that is she used a single device for communications, and it was on a federal server, ALL of her communications would have been subject to Freedom of Information Act laws.  However, if they were on her own private server, they in theory, would not.  I don’t think she was the least bit concerned with her communications regarding her official business being accessed.  But, her private emails might have presented a real problem.

Listening tour: Hillary Clinton and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saudi al-Faisal in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in March 2012

In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom’s troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Timesinvestigation released Tuesday.

That’s the kind of stuff Hillary definitely would not want subjected to FoIA if she was peddling influence in her official capacity for her own personal gain.

James Comey doesn’t even want to think about that.  Actually, I’m sure he did.  He answers directly to Loretta Lynch, who got her big break in 1999, being appointed as a US Attorney, by, you guessed it I’m sure, Bill Clinton.

No conflict there.

So, Comey did all he could do.  He said she’s guilty as hell, but he can’t prosecute her.  Loretta Lynch has already said she will only do what Comey tells her to do.

The fix was already in.

Later the same day, Hillary and Obama were more than happy to violate even more federal campaign laws:

Who pays for Obama and Air Force One to campaign for Hillary?

I’m guessing you did, whether you want to or not.

Taking bids now on whether Comey pursues this or not:

 

Create your own user feedback survey

Merrick Garland

The very fact that Merrick Garland allowed himself to be nominated to replace Justice Scalia makes him unfit for the position.

There is no chance in hell the Republicans will allow him to be confirmed in the US Senate, per Joe Biden and Barack Obama’s previous instructions.  Even Loretta Lynch was smart enough to dodge that bus.

This is nothing more than election year politics and petty grandstanding.  Garland has no political chance.

Obama and Scalia and Trump

I don’t trust Obama.  I think he’s morally bankrupt.  Just thought I’d get that out of the way to avoid any confusion from this point on.

That being said, the death of Antonin Scalia has thrown a major wrench in the 2016 presidential election.  The ramifications I expect, and do understand I’m not a paid commentator or live in north Virginia for the most part.

  1. Obama will use this to push his agenda, not in an effort to show respect to the Founding Fathers.  I expect Eric Holder will be a major consideration, if not the out-and-out expected nominee.  He’s wildly liberal, he’s from Chicago, he’s black, and his religion is questionable at best.  And, he has an open contempt of the US Constitution, at one point arguing that international law trumps Constitutional Law, a point Obama has often cited in his support of global warming mandates.
  2. There will be a bloodbath in the confirmation process unlike anything we’ve ever seen.  The problem being that since 1997, the sitting Democrats still in office argued that they had no  Constitutional expectation to confirm any Presidential nomination to the Supreme Court.  And, as recently as 2007, Chuck Schumer spoke at length that the Democrats should not support any Bush nominee because it was an election year.  Which at the time, it wasn’t.  Being as this one is, that makes Schumer and the rest look remarkably hypocritical, which I doubt they really care.  They know their voters will support them anyway.
  3. This will change the course of the Republican primary.  Donald Trump has enjoyed a political free ride this election cycle.  No matter how crazy he acts, people have laughed and voted for him.  NOW, it’s serious.  NOW, a moderate Supreme Court judge could tilt the balance to the liberals for a while on some issues.  NOW, gun control becomes realistic.  NOW, those whacky liberal tendencies Trump has mean something.  Advantage Cruz and Rubio.
  4. Trump’s sudden scorched-Earth attacks on Jeb’s brother could NOT come at a worse time.  Iraq was litmus for conservative and liberal extremes.  There is no in-between.  There was no N0-Fly zones for a decade.  There was no Bill Clinton shooting million dollar missiles at camels in a desert.  There was no Iran/Iraq chemical warfare the United Nations sanctioned both Iran and Iraq over.  None of that exists with those two groups.  It ALL started when George W. Bush invaded Iraq for no real reason.  Either you supported it, or you were lied to.  The Republicans for the most part supported it.  The Democrats, Hollywood, and left media all were suddenly “lied to”.  Nancy Pelosi, who supported it before, suddenly had no clue what she was voting for and had been lied to once the two took sides.  Trump has suddenly taken up with the liberals in a huge way in his attacks on George.  He’s 100% in the liberal camp on this issue.  I don’t think most Republicans want to take the chance that his judicial nominee would have that philosophy.  People who take things like this seriously have to be walking away from Trump right now.  I know I have.  He has no chance with me in the primary now.  South Carolina, in five days, will tell us for sure what’s going on.  One week before South Carolina, Trump has a 20 point lead.  I bet it shrinks.
  5. Lastly, although the Constitution is clear how this works, look for MOST people to completely disregard the Constitution when arguing how the other guy is ignoring the Constitution.  I hope my readers here read a little more than that.  The President nominates, which Obama can do at any time he wishes.  The Senate confirms, which any Senator can, or can not do, at any time.  There is no time limit and just because the President nominates does not guarantee the nominee HAS to be confirmed.  Just ask Harriet Miers, Robert Bork, or Douglas Ginsburg.

Quickie update, change that to Loretta Lynch.  She’s perfect for Obama.  Wildly liberal, openly shows preference to Muslims ( promising to prosecute anyone who disparages Muslims ), female, and socialist Democrat ).  Loretta openly opposes MOST of the Constitutional Amendment.  Notably gun control, obviously freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  As Attorney General, her credentials are impeccable.  Perfect.  Expect her nomination the first day the Senate convenes in order to maximize conflict in an election year and further polarize this country.