Democrat Caught Trying to Insert Diversion (Red Herring)

Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2016 by Post Scripts

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Democrat Caught Trying to Insert Diversion (Red Herring)

  1. Chris says:
    Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 11:00 am

    Chris Wallace is probably my favorite FOX News reporter. He asks tough questions of both Republicans and Democrats and I think he is a sensible, unbiased guy.

    As far as I understand, Powell did have a private e-mail but not a private server, making the comparisons between his practices and Clinton’s practices limited. I also will take Wallace’s word for it that rules have changed since Powell’s time.

    Do I think Clinton’s email usage was irresponsible, and possibly meant to conceal things she didn’t want the public to see? Yes. Has her handling of the issue been equally irresponsible and dishonest? Yes. Is this a disqualifying factor in my eyes? In a normal race, maybe. But this is not a normal race. I can believe that after this scandal, Clinton would never have a private email server again. I can’t say that Trump wouldn’t do exactly this, even after this scandal, because Trump has shown no ability to learn from mistakes made either by himself or by others. I also find him even more dishonest than Clinton; he still, as of yesterday, was claiming to be against the Iraq War before it began, even though this has been disproven a dozen times over at this point. He has lied about his past positions, his charitable donations, and his personal wealth, not to mention the lies he has told about others, including accusing another candidate’s father of helping kill JFK and accusing the president of supporting ISIS. I think he is a con artist who has scammed people out of their money, and I think this entire campaign is a marketing gimmick for whatever he has planned after the election. As many flaws as Clinton is, Trump has every one of those flaws as thensome.

    Reply
    • Libby says:
      Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 3:46 pm

      “Do I think Clinton’s email usage was irresponsible, and possibly meant to conceal things she didn’t want the public to see? Yes.”

      Did you really? I must be a more trusting soul. I thought is was just an arrogant and elitist disinclination to use the federal apparatus, which is archaic, frequently defective and a pain in the butt. But none of that traffic is public, and even on her private servers she can’t have thought to keep anything secret.

      Reply
  2. Pie Guevara says:
    Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 11:18 am

    I like Chris. Good man.

    Reply
  3. Tina says:
    Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 11:35 am

    This bunch is used to being able to make lame excuses and get away with it. The gall of this man to try to create a moral and legal equivalency to Colin Powell and his occasional use of a private email service. Powell is not under criminal investigation. Powell did not covertly set up a private server in his basement. Powell did not send secret information nor did he fail to establish a clean government record of his work. Powell didn’t show so much contempt for the process and for the people which they both served.

    Reply
  4. Libby says:
    Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 11:49 am

    Oh, it’s worse than that. I believe I read that for the first two months the account was up there was virtually no security at all. It boggles the mind. And five gets you ten that the IT people responsible are not sacked.

    In this respect I have to own our government is a perpetual disappointment.

    On the other hand, the fact that China and others hack our most secured systems with relative ease makes a person doubt the cosmic significance of the breach, except in that it suggests we abandon reliance on such technology for the really important stuff.

    We’re just going to have to wait to hear exactly what was compromised, exactly what rules, regs, or laws were violated, and exactly what can be charged against whom.

    Now, until then, can we have a little less of the conspiracy mongering? It’s not good for your mental health. It’s only mildly entertaining. There must be more constructive things we can talk about?

    Reply
    • Tina says:
      Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 3:15 pm

      Libby nothing here is conspiracy. Nothing!

      Everything that we charge against her is factual and derived from information gleaned from her emails and information that reflects the governments rules about keeping records and transparency. She even signed a document agreeing to meet those record keeping standards. her work is the people’s property, not hers.

      The fact that China has hacked our secured systems should make her irresponsible behavior seem all the more egregious.

      Why the ho hum attitude?

      I look back at the fit you guys had over John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act. He was spying on people!!!

      He was interviewed by PBS and his answers were straight forward. The Patriot Act, as used by the Bush administration was compiled from law already in use by our government:

      9/11’s on Tuesday, and by Saturday and Sunday we pretty much had the Patriot Act put together. This really wasn’t the creation from whole cloth of a new set of authorities; it was assembling a quilt, a patchwork of authorities that were already available in various other enforcement authorities. For example, the ability to follow [a] specific telephone had been the traditional wiretap authority. In what was called the roving wiretap authority, developed to fight drug deals and organized crime in the late ’80s of the last century, we had the ability to follow the caller, not the specific phone, and this gave us the capacity to do a much better job in those arenas. That ability had not ever been accorded in the terrorist community, in the fight against terror.

      So we stitched together a variety of provisions that had been available in the fight against other kinds of criminal activity and that were not yet available [to fight terrorism]. And that’s one of the reasons the constitutionality of the provisions was quite well-established and hasn’t ever been successfully challenged: … [T]hese things had already been understood and had been tested as they were parts of other law enforcement authorities, but had not been made available in the fight against terror.

      The act made it possible to connect the dots. (HO HUM…and it’s about time!)

      Your party created a conspiracy theory that the PA was written newly in some sinister plot to spy on citizens. I don’t recall a ho hum attitude about that.

      I do recall a ho hum attitude from you guys when the IRS targeted American citizens politically. Your party leadership used the power of government to prevent political participation and you didn’t stop there, you harassed a few of them with sudden visits by other agencies, audit, and coordination with the Justice Department:

      After filing for tax-exempt status, Catherine and her husband, Bryan, found themselves targeted by a myriad of government agencies, including law enforcement, for what Engelbrecht would later conclude was simply having a difference of political opinion from that of the Obama administration. Ultimately, the couple and the organizations endured 15 different instances of audit or inquiry into their affairs.

      This has got to stop. I don’t expect you to be gleeful but I hope you will not allow this imbalance to continue by supporting someone who should not be running for president.

      Reply
  5. J. Soden says:
    Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:10 pm

    It IS very telling. Wallace wins, hands down.
    Obvious that Schiff was parroting the talking points given to him by $hrilLIARy or the DNC.
    Perhaps we should ask Russia for copies of everything they got off of $hrilLIARy’s “secure” secret server . . . . . .

    Reply
  6. Pie Guevara says:
    Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    I highly recommend that Chris, Pete and others NOT read this — “Department of Justice officials filed a motion in federal court late Wednesday seeking a 27-month delay in producing correspondence between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s four top aides and officials with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a closely allied public relations firm that Bill Clinton helped launch.”

    Not even the universally reviled Richard Nixon had the balls to try and pull this off.

    State Department Won’t Release Clinton Foundation Emails for 27 Months

    Reply
  7. bob says:
    Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Adam Shiff is a Demonrat hack for Hillary. He is just doing as he is told by his masters which is to defend the indefensible. But this is the very nature of politics and the state.

    And this is where the state’s various platitudes about the people governing themselves, or taxation being voluntary, or government employees being the servants of the people, enter the picture.

    Think for a moment just about this last claim: that government employees are our servants. These people staff an institution that decides how much of our income and wealth to expropriate in order to fund itself. They will imprison us if we do not pay. And we are to believe that these people are our servants?

    For those not gullible enough to fall for such a transparent canard, the rationales become mildly more sophisticated. All right, all right, the state may say, it’s not quite right to say that the people govern themselves. But, they hasten to add, we can offer the next best thing: the people will be represented by individuals chosen from among them.

    As Gerard Casey has argued, though, the idea of political representation is not meaningful. When an agent represents a business owner in a negotiation, he ensures that the owner’s interests are pursued. If the owner’s interests are defended only weakly, ignored, or downright defied, the owner chooses different representation.

    None of this bears any resemblance to political representation. Here, a so-called representative is chosen by some people but actively opposed by others. Yet he is said to “represent” all of them. But how can this be, when he can’t possibly know them all, and even if he did, he’d discover they have mutually exclusive views and priorities?

    Even if we focus entirely on those people who did vote for the representative, is their vote supposed to imply consent to his every decision? Some of them may have voted for him not for his positions or merits, but simply because he was less bad than the alternative. Others may have chosen him for one or two of his stances, but may be indifferent or hostile on everything else. How can even these people — who actually voted for the representative — seriously be said to be “represented” by him?

    But the idea of political representation, while meaningless, is not without its usefulness to the modern state. It helps to conceal the brute fact that, despite all the talk about “popular rule” and “governing ourselves,” even the “free societies” of the West amount to some people ruling, and others being ruled.

    Must read article which will make the heads explode of the liberals who infest this blog and who demand an ever more powerful state.

    https://mises.org/library/truth-about-politics

    Reply
    • Tina says:
      Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 3:50 pm

      Thanks Bob….very important. Our Founders were wise but they were not magicians. They warned that our system would only work IF we maintained a moral body of citizens from which to choose our representatives. We were given a document to guide us.

      Corruption isn’t owned by any political organization. We’ve seen corrupt leadership in both parties. However, only the progressive left has operated from an agenda designed to corrupt and destroy that document in reality. they have worked diligently since at least the 1930’s to destroy institutions of morality (selectively-the church) and to corrupt the most important idea of the founding…limited government! The United States Constitution places explicit limits on our government. See enumerated powers.

      Big government offers many avenues for corruption and greed. Add the gradual decline in morality, the erosion of checks and balances, the corruption in journalism, the decline in our public schools and you can see how we got to this state.

      There is no better form of government than that devised for us. Returning this nation to it’s founding principles will require horrendous work on many fronts and at least a couple of generations if not more. That we also must try to penetrate the addled PC brain to accomplish this task makes it seem a daunting task…yet it’s our kids we’re talking about. How can we not at least give it our all?

      Reply
      • bob says:
        Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 5:10 pm

        The problem is that government never remains limited.

        The western nations have had quite a run but with hundreds of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities and debt that run is coming to an end.

        And there will be hell to pay thanks to those who sought salvation through government such as the liberals who lecture us in this blog.

        Reply
  8. J. Soden says:
    Friday, July 1, 2016 at 11:51 am

    Happy 4th of July, $hrilLIARy!

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/01/exclusive-hillary-clinton-scheduled-to-meet-with-fbi-on-saturday/

    Perhaps we all will be able to celebrate this year with your indictment!

    Reply
    • Libby says:
      Friday, July 1, 2016 at 3:47 pm

      Ah, J., don’t get your hopes up. It’s a shame you don’t listen to news that actually informs you. We who listen to NPR got a crash course on the legal requirements for a charge in this situation, and there’s little chance.

      With regard to the “private” server aspect, that was probably a violation of department regs, policy, but the most that gets you is a sacking, and she’s already quit. No luck there.

      With regard to the “classified docs” aspect of the thing, “intent” is a element of the crime … and there wasn’t none. Any revelation of classified information was inadvertent … this is their position, anyway … and without hard evidence to prove otherwise … no luck here either.

      So, just brace up. This is probably how it’s going to shake out … some years from now. Sigh.

      Reply
  9. Tina says:
    Friday, July 1, 2016 at 10:23 pm

    “We who listen to NPR got a crash course on the legal requirements for a charge in this situation, and there’s little chance.”

    I beg your pardon lady but NPR doesn’t know anything other than what every other outlet knows. What you heard was opinion expressed by Hillary loving promoters based on wha we know not what the FBI has found.

    We hear a lot of the same on radio and on FOX from both sides, including Juan Williams, formerly of NPR and Mara Liason, national political correspondent for National Public Radio. Lord you are smug!

    The most likely reason there is “little chance” is the corruption that exists at the highest levels and in the Hillary circle. Bill and Loretta’s “chance meeting” was completely orchestrated and golf had nothing to do with it. Both of these people know what this would look like so something stinks to high heaven there.

    “that was probably a violation of department regs, policy, but the most that gets you is a sacking”

    Libby but the “regs” exist under legal statutes”

    Hillary Rodham Clinton has committed a felony. That is apparent from the facts and in the plain-language of the federal statute that prohibits “Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information”, 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.

    It’s called a prima facie case: clear on the basis of known facts.

    Newstalk 1130:

    she was legally bound to preserve all records of her agency’s official activities. As 44 U.S. Code § 3101 explicitly provides:

    The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

    That law, commonly known as the “Federal Records Act,” clearly requires the head of every federal agency (i.e. a Cabinet Secretary like Clinton) preserve all of her records—not simply the ones that she deems are important enough to preserve. …

    a direct violation of both the Federal Records Act and of 2 U.S. Code § 192, which governs the “refusal of [a] witness to testify or produce papers” that are under subpoena:

    Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

    Clinton not only refused to “produce papers upon” a “matter of inquiry before” the House of Representatives (which in itself is a federal offense punishable by up to a year in jail), she actively destroyed those papers by permanently deleting them from her server.

    destruction of evidence in a federal investigation is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1519, which holds:

    Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

    A House Select Committee investigation is, of course, governed by Title 11 and since Clinton knowingly destroyed federal records and documents related to that investigation in an obvious attempt to impede or obstruct it, she could potentially face a sentence of 20 years in federal prison.

    Making matters legally worse for Clinton is the fact that a number of those emails contained classified information.

    Clinton retained this classified information long after she was legally required to relinquish it, she violated 18 U.S. Code § 1924, which governs the “unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material:”

    Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

    Since Clinton maintained her own server and therefore reasonably could be assumed to know the contents of her own emails, she knowingly possessed classified information “at an unauthorized location” (i.e. her home in Chappaqua, New York) and therefore faces a potential sentence of one year in federal prison.

    Petraeus was charged with violating 18 U.S. Code § 798, which provides:

    Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information….Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    Had Clinton provided any classified information to either the aide or aides who maintained her server or to an informal aide such as Sidney Blumenthal who did not have an authorized security clearance, then she too would be in violation of this law and subject to a ten-year federal prison sentence.

    In fact, Clinton appears to have violated five different federal laws and, if charged and convicted on all potential counts, could conceivably be sentenced to upwards of 32 years in prison.

    It’s not a “security” investigation nor is it a regulation investigation. It is a criminal investigation. Since some of her emails reveal possible quid pro quo contributions to her foundation she and Bill may (or should) be facing still more charges and that makes Bills little visit to Loretta even more contemptuous not to mention, legally improper.

    And that’s not all…The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust filed an ethics complaint against her:

    The non-profit government watchdog group filed the complaint with the Office of Government Ethics, asking it to conduct a “full investigation” into Clinton’s “apparent breach of ethics rules.” A copy of the complaint was exclusively obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

    The organization charged Clinton gave “preferential treatment to individuals with which she had financial ties” and “regularly granted access” to rich donors, celebrities, and even powerful foreign nationals.

    The FACT complaint follows the State Department’s latest release of thousands of Clinton emails that she turned over to the government more than two years after leaving the office in 2013.

    Above the Law:

    take only the first two subjects of FBI investigation – misuse of classified information and lying to agents – and consider the following narrative:

    “As alleged, this defendant used a secret, non-government e-mail account to transmit classified and unclassified information that he was not authorized to possess or disclose. As if those allegations are not serious enough, he also allegedly later shredded documents and lied about his conduct to federal agents in order to obstruct their investigation.”

    Although this account could largely describe Clinton’s illegal email activity, this excerpt from the Department of Justice involves not the prosecution of Clinton but the 2010 prosecution of Thomas Drake, an NSA employee whose actions were uncannily similar to those of Clinton’s.

    As a result of Drake’s actions, Obama’s Justice Department, under the direction of Eric Holder, slapped Drake with a 10-count indictment alleging violations of the Espionage Act (prescribing felony violations), obstruction of justice laws, and false statement laws, all statutes that Clinton too could find herself on the wrong end of.

    Is Hillary above the law?

    Brace up? I’m totally prepared for this corrupt government to let her off. I’m also prepared for people who feel as ho hum about it as you seem to be electing her in November. I’m not inclined to setting myself up for unexpected disappointment.

    Reply
    • Libby says:
      Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 8:27 am

      This is what the sigh was about. I knew we were in for years of conspiracy mongering, the facts notwithstanding.

      Yes, Petraeus was “willful” with actual documents he deliberately provided to another person. Can’t say that about Hils.

      Reply
      • Dewster says:
        Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:56 am

        Libby

        Unfortunately as Secretary of State you are receiving “classified docs” You are briefed by the FBI upon taking the job. You know exactly what the laws are. Also I need to vet but it is possible once you mix personal and gov emails the servers ect become the property of the GOV.

        Also get past that media narrative…. it is now a question of how the selection of emails were made for transferring to the State Department, and what might not have been transferred,”

        It remains to be seen whether Clinton could be found to have violated the Espionage Act, a law that the Obama administration has used repeatedly against whistleblowers.

        Read it. She is guilty of that in the least. I personally hope the FBI is above board and does a through job.

        Any corrupt Elite Politician needs to be prosecuted.

        We watched GW steal an election and look at the Harm he did. GW was never prosecuted for his proven crimes. We have to start somewhere and stop this madness!

        I am not going to cover for a Democrat Stealing an election.

        look at her arrogance. Look at facts not your heart strings and when the findings come out be unbiased.

        Reply
        • Libby says:
          Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 1:28 pm

          Sorry, Dews, I’m sticking with the over-blown horsepucky scenario. Was the decision to go with a private server ill-advised? Yes. Was it criminal? Unlikely.

          Reply
          • dewster says:
            Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 3:07 pm

            That’s Ok we still have to wait for the findings. What I am saying is they can Indict her on the Espionage act. They used it unfairly against Drake. He won. She actually did transfer the docs. It was not as an act of espionage but it is covered in that law.

            Thanks for the conversation

          • Libby says:
            Monday, July 4, 2016 at 6:04 pm

            Again, a charge under the Espionage Act requires proof of intent, and there ain’t none. Negligence, ignorance, arrogance, is not intent.

    • Dewster says:
      Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 11:21 am

      Tina

      Thomas Drake and William Binney more or less beat the Gov at their game. They are NSA whistleblowers and should be given a medal of honor.

      You need to listen to them. It was not until Snowden actually produced evidence of their warnings that we can be assured they are Heroes.

      NSA Whistleblower William Binney: The Future of FREEDOM
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3owk7vEEOvs

      Thomas Drake
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjwW1JlGG4o

      Hillary is guilty of breaking laws in the espionage act as far as most can see. Those 2 admirable whistleblowers had the law thrown at them.

      Hillary willfully broke the law in a cover up protecting the foundation and her foreign fund raising activities. We are not stupid. This needs to be addressed. If she is innocent then they must prove it at this point.

      Reply
      • Libby says:
        Monday, July 4, 2016 at 6:12 pm

        Dews, you are still missing the legal point. Your whistleblowers intended. Hillary didn’t. Or, there is no proof she did. But, let’s be real … she didn’t.

        Reply
  10. Dewster says:
    Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Bottom Line Powell did it with a known purpose. That was to encourage the use of email. That is completely different and irrelevant to the Clinton Case.

    We have moved way past that with the info available. This is not about just the fact she used it, it is why she did so.

    Bottom Line I hope they come out soon with findings. Hillary even used her own Blackberry which was not gov issued. Her phone would not work on the 7th floor where her office was located because it was not Gov issued. That makes absolutely no sense as “Convenience” Also using a Private server is not “Convenient” It is more trouble. That was Bills old server.

    So in the speculation camp I am in the crowd she did it to avoid FOIA. Keep public from seeing The connection to foreign donations, arms deals, and the foundation are very suspect.

    This is Not OK and These stupid party Democrats towing the party line will find themselves on the outside by the time we are done.

    Look why did Billy boy wait to see Lynch land and run over to her plane and Board it? At this point I believe her that he just showed up and talked about grandkids ect. Bill is a calculating Politician. He did it so the press would see and it would cause a ripple.

    Do the Clinton’s have friends in the FBI and want her to be in a position to go with their findings even if wrong?

    or?????? Did he want lynch to be forced to recuse herself? WHAT?

    Personally I say Guilty and want her to get out of the race……… We will see what happens.

    The amount of election fraud the DNC took part in and HRC has just assumed the nomination? Bullied others using their media friends?

    The arrogance and corruption is in plain view.

    Trump as well with his letters to foreign officials begging for money.

    This election is a sham and harms every single citizen in the USA with either of them.

    My 2 Cents

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.