Clintonerdammerung

Just too good to pass up:

Now, before you get too excited, Hillary won’t be indicted. She won’t be beaten because she’s corrupt. She should be, but she won’t be. It’ll take a great candidate running a good campaign to win…but, really, it is astonishing that we’ll actually have to beat her in a political campaign.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Clintonerdammerung

  1. Vanessa Sizemore August 12, 2015 / 2:34 pm

    What is it about the Clintons that they are never prosecuted or held accountable for breaking the law?

    • Retired Spook August 12, 2015 / 2:46 pm

      Vanessa, pretty simple — they have FBI files or dossiers on all their adversaries and critics.

      • rustybrown2014 August 12, 2015 / 2:54 pm

        Yeah, and they’re in collusion with out intergalactic overlords. Nobody wants to mess with them.

        I’M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT “WITH OUT INTERGALACTIC OVERLORDS” MEANS, BUT I’M ACTUALLY GOING TO LEAVE THIS POST UP BECAUSE IT REFLECTS JUST WHAT AN UNSERIOUS PERSON YOU ARE.//MODERATOR

      • Bob Eisenhower August 12, 2015 / 3:27 pm

        Rusty

        I’m not saying I think the Clintons control their enemies with dirt (possible, but I’m unconvinced) but that thought isn’t farfetched in any way. It has happened before, I believe Watergate is the go-to example.

        You can’t just dismiss something as tinfoil hat material when history shows otherwise.

      • Cluster August 12, 2015 / 5:05 pm

        Had Dick Cheney used a private server for all his communication and then erased many emails before finally relenting to a court order to hand over other emails – would you be concerned?

      • M. Noonan August 12, 2015 / 7:24 pm

        Read today that someone unearthed a Hillary quote about Pfc Manning – she was all “we have to protect our information”. And the Obama Administration has been relentless in prosecuting people who let anything slip…including people who appear to have just made honest mistakes in handling classified information. That Hillary isn’t already facing a host of charges (each document mishandled, I understand, carries a 10 year sentence in federal prison, by the way) shows that if you’re the right person, you can get away with things. What I find fascinating is that Obama’s FBI is pursuing the matter, at all. I have two guesses about it:

        1. Eyewash to make it look like something is being done, the whole matter to be dropped the day after Election Day.

        2. Obama is holding it over Hillary’s head to make sure she toes the Obama line through 2016.

      • Bob Eisenhower August 12, 2015 / 10:24 pm

        Well, now, let’s keep this honest. It was specifically because Dick Cheney and others used outside email accounts the laws were changed to make what Hillary did illegal.

        Frankly, I don’t really have a problem with WHAT Hillary did with email. Politicians are all crooks and crooks will always cover their butts.

        What bothers me is how insanely stupidly Clinton was in covering her tracks. I mean, really, the overriding (cynical) lesson of Watergate is that the crime isn’t as bad as the cover up. Obviously, Clinton knew she was subverting the law and the best excuse she had ready was “My dog ate my homework?”

        This is the quick-thinker who is up to being Commander in Chief? Puh-leeze!

      • M. Noonan August 12, 2015 / 11:31 pm

        The terrible aspect of it all is the aggressive way the Obama Administration has prosecuted people for doing precisely what Hillary was doing. The corrupt double-standard here is what is most notable.

      • Amazona August 12, 2015 / 5:37 pm

        Spook’s suggestion might be formed to some extent by what we have learned about the longevity of J.Edgar Hoover’s reign in the F.B.I He had so much dirt on so many people, including presidents, that everyone was afraid to go up against him.

        What might seem like tinfoil hat territory when talking about most people takes on an air of reason and believability when you realize that Bill Clinton, as President of the United States, had access to precisely the kind of information that could be used to intimidate opponents.

        I know this has gotten buried in the PC fervor for legitimizing homosexuality and demonizing those who think it is aberrant behavior, but the reason homosexuals were not supposed to be in high positions in the military, or government, was not because people HATED homosexuals, or (to be accurate in using the favored term, AFRAID of them) but because this made them more vulnerable to blackmail and therefore bad security risks.

        It’s not a new concept.

      • M. Noonan August 12, 2015 / 7:21 pm

        Remember Hillary and the FBI files – at the end of the day, Hillary was let off, but the bottom line is that one of Clinton’s people requested and received quite a lot of information from the FBI about people who had been prominent in the Reagan and Elder Bush Administrations. No evidence was found that Hillary had requested the data or read the files but, then again, she didn’t really have to, now did she? In fact, that would be a lot of tedious reading for the most part…something better done by someone who could also spend the time putting two and two together and working out the weak points of opponents (the files were background check files – the very sort of thing which has now been compromised in the OPM hack…in other words, information of a highly personal and sensitive nature which a blackmailer would love to have). Our Progressives, their memories jarred by this, would be all, “she was cleared! Its all nothing!”…but there is only one reason anyone in the Clinton Administration could possibly want that information: blackmail. You simply wouldn’t need the info for anything else – it all related to people who used to work for previous Administrations of a different party.

        Now, we know of nothing particularly like this during Obama’s Administration, but does anyone out there want to assert, “Obama and his people are simply too moral and honorable to do such a thing!”?

      • Retired Spook August 12, 2015 / 8:06 pm

        Spook’s suggestion might be formed to some extent by what we have learned about the longevity of J.Edgar Hoover’s reign in the F.B.I

        Actually I was referring to the 700 FBI files the Clintons were found to have had in in their possession in the White House in 1996, IIRC. They claimed it was an innocent mistake to which most people rolled their eyes and said, “yeah, right!”

      • M. Noonan August 12, 2015 / 11:30 pm

        I said liberals would do what if reminded of file-gate? They’d say, “she was cleared! Its all nothing!”. What does Rusty say? “a couple of thorough Republican led investigations COMPLETELY exonerated them”. Do I know our liberals like the back of my hand?

        No mention among our Progs as to just why anyone in the Clinton White House would even request those documents…because to ask that question is to lead you down a dark, dangerous alley which might even lead to Crimethink! Double-plus-ungood!

      • M. Noonan August 12, 2015 / 11:57 pm

        Answer this: why were the documents requested? Give us a plausible, innocent reason the Clinton Administration would want the background check files on Reagan and Bush Administration officials.

      • M. Noonan August 13, 2015 / 1:18 am

        So, Administration staffers just go off on their own and request highly sensitive documents for no particular reason. Got it.

      • Cluster August 13, 2015 / 7:27 am

        Reading Rusty’s defense of the Clinton’s is interesting and sad. Rusty is a pure progressive apparatchik and so are his fellow travelers. Regardless of the lies and incompetence of Obama and Clinton, their defense is unwavering. Regardless of the wealth amassed by the 1% under progressive economic policies, their support of leadership is steadfast. Regardless of the failures of a Central planning, their allegiance is strong. It’s sad that there are Americans like this, but it is an interesting study in psychology.

        I mentioned the other day that sometimes I wonder if their allegiance is out of a true belief in central planning control, or if it comes from their opposition to all things conservative. The leadership of Pelosi, Reid, Obama and Clinton, the results of their policies and the strength (or lack thereof) of their character would, and should lead even the most ardent supporter to think that their must be another path.

    • M. Noonan August 12, 2015 / 3:13 pm

      The Clintons are egregious examples of it, but it is general to Democrats or, if you like, Progressives. Matt and I wrote a book about the phenomena back in 2007. Caucus of Corruption: the Truth About the New Democratic Majority. We were focused on Congressional Democrats, of course, but it runs that way for everyone on the left – you can get away with most anything, as long as you subscribe to the Progressive world view. Be in favor of abortion-on-demand, socialized medicine, political-correctness on campus and, presto!, you’ve got a pass. It has to be something really, really bad for a Democrat to get into trouble. Think about it – Ted Kennedy got hammered one night and as he was driving his “girl of the night” to wherever it was they were going to do the deed, he drove off a bridge and then left the girl to die…and he was honored to the day he died, and beyond. He checked off the needed Progressive boxes. He got a pass. Same thing with the Clintons – and especially Hillary, as she’s also female which gives her great advantages (any attack on her can be cast as sexism, you see?). But it goes on an on like that – Republican Mark Foley was forced to resign from the House because he sent inappropriate messages to an under-age House pages…Democrat Gerry Studds had actual sex with an under-age House page and was re-elected 6 more times!

      Here is what I think is the cure for this – for a GOP Administration to rake all this over and send a bunch of people to jail. We don’t do that. When we win, we take over, let bygones be bygones and move on…but until a couple hundred senior Progressives go to jail, we won’t fix the corruption endemic on the left. They won’t hold their own to account, the MSM won’t hold them to account…and because no one is holding them to account, they are corrupt to the bone (not all of them, of course – but a very high number; much higher, I believe, than on the right, simply because people on the right are called on it). Hold them to account, and they’ll start getting more moral.

      Republicans don’t get a pass because the MSM won’t let them – unless, I guess, they are willing pawns (and, even then, they’ll be tossed to the wolves if there’s a Democrat advantage to be gained electorally.

      • Cluster August 12, 2015 / 4:38 pm

        Speaking of bygones being bygones. How about the EPA and their recent disaster. Remember how BP was raked over the coals by Obama, the media and every other progressive on the planet? They sure are quiet on this one. In fact CO Governor Hickenlooper said the other day on MSNBC that “it does no good to point fingers, what we need to do now is figure out how to fix it”. How convenient.

      • Amazona August 12, 2015 / 5:41 pm

        Yeah, Hick is really a piece of work. He reminds me of the period when the Left, after so many revelations about the Clintons, started whining “But that is all ancient HISTORY!!! We need to MOVE ON !!!”

        On the other hand, the D.A.’s office under Hick had no problem “pointing a finger” at James Holmes. Holding people/agencies accountable is wholly dependent on which people or agencies have done something wrong and who is in charge.

    • Cluster August 12, 2015 / 4:06 pm

      The political class has FAILED America and Americans and the Clintons are the epitome of the political class. Hillary is as corrupt as it gets and would destroy this country. Fortunately, she may be in prison when November 2016 comes around.

    • Cluster August 12, 2015 / 4:10 pm

      And the answer to your question Vanessa is the media. They provide cover for the Clinton’s

  2. dbschmidt August 13, 2015 / 9:02 pm

    Two options are with consideration that Hillary stated repeatedly “No sensitive or classified documents were sent or received on her server.” With consideration she handled multiple levels of classified information on a daily basis–either she conducted all State department business face-to-face, by courier, secure land-line or carrier pigeon for that matter. Where are those documents then? Other option is she did use her server and that we may find out. If she is as inept at “destroying” her server as covering her tracks–we should know shortly.

    As a bonus, we could get lucky and have Lois Lerner as her new cell mate. I doubt it will go criminal but I cannot forget how they treated Gen. Petraeus for far less.But then again–he was part of the greatly hated “military” class.

Comments are closed.