The People VS. Evita, Criminal Case File

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This whole situation was lose-lose for Clinton.

She dodged a bullet right now, but now this episode is now Exhibit No. 1 for Trump's theme that the system is rigged. And I believe this exhibit and theme will play with the voters. Why? I think her very behavior will be part of the equation. If she shows the least tinge of arrogance (and, knowing her, I don't see how she can avoid it), the public resonance will be like "Let them eat cake." Ditto for her followers, who will not be able to help being arrogant, dismissive and condescending about this decision. And this will piss people off.

Michael

[Mikee]

No charges for the corrupt liar Clinton, but Martha Stewart goes to prison for...what?  Is this really the same FBI?  Martha Stewart takes advice from a stockbroker, saves $45,000 and goes to the federal pen for "obstruction of justice".  Our corrupt politicians are immune from these same insider trading laws, the Clinton's have enriched themselves many times over by taking advantage of this immunity.

" There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted. "

Evidently this immunity extends beyond insider trading.

[turkeyfoot]

Trump misses the point with me when he goes after these kinds of things. It is a uge disappointment. He doesnt convince me he has something better using her example. His is an emotional appeal having limited use. Theres is so much more that he could do. Instead he appeals to the masses in the same way that all politicians do using similar slogans and negative banter. There are enough facts to make a solid case for fence sitters. Unfortunately he doesnt have the philosophical framework necessary to understand how to impart the information to voters in a meaningful way. That he pinned his hopes on this shows me the very limited manner in which he comes at solving problems. The problem isnt HC its governments role in our lives. His kill shot is off the mark, shes already dead to me. Where is the builder from whom an unparralled eruption of beauty can emerge?

To borrow a phrase, Make America America again. No one really believes America is going to be great, theyve heard it a thousand times. So why not pose the question, what was America when it wasnt as corrupt and define it in terms that show others exactly what you have in mind.

[KorbenDallas]

While I respect the professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. pic.twitter.com/OqctxglquI

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) July 5, 2016

[SteveWolfer]

Comey is either a delusional boyscout who lying to himself - thinking he is doing right for the nation, or he is bought and paid for. 

With his own words he laid out the many violations Clinton was guilty of, and then, in the end, pretends that there is no case - as if he hadn't just made it.  It is clear she was intentionally hiding things, but he says no intent.  I mean, don't we all have our team of lawyers attend to cleaning out our old emails?  There were whole threads containing Top Secret and there were those actually marked confidential, but he ignores that as well, after saying that she, at her position, could not lay any claim to ignorance.  He shows that she willingly risked the security of all of the data passing her way to foreign hands, but there isn't even a misdemeanor?

I wonder if we will hear squawks of protest from some of the FBI who did the actual work - they were betrayed by Comey. 

Was Comey trying to have his cake and eat it too by letting Clinton off in the recommendation, but only after spelling out the details of her security crimes?  Is this some ego thing of his where he plays Solomon?

And why was there no mention, and perhaps no investigation of the Clinton Foundation and Pay-for-Play?  Paul Ryan is exactly right. 

Our system is infested with corrupt parasites who have destroyed all but that fading image of what we once were.

[merjet]

19 minutes ago, Mikee said:

No charges for the corrupt liar Clinton, but Martha Stewart goes to prison for...what?  Is this really the same FBI?  Martha Stewart takes advice from a stockbroker, saves $45,000 and goes to the federal pen for "obstruction of justice".  Our corrupt politicians are immune from these same insider trading laws, the Clinton's have enriched themselves many times over by taking advantage of this immunity.

" There is no limit to how much money you can earn on insider trading in the House or Senate. Lawmakers and their staffers are specifically exempted. "

Evidently this immunity extends beyond insider trading.

The Forbes article you linked is from 2011. The STOCK Act was enacted in 2012.

"The STOCK Act is an original bill to prohibit Members of Congress and employees of Congress from using private information derived from their official positions for personal benefit, and for other purposes. With this bill in place, Congressman will no longer be allowed to use information garnered through official business for personal reasons. The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act prohibits members and employees of Congress from using "any nonpublic information derived from the individual's position… or gained from performance of the individual's duties, for personal benefit.” The bill also applies to all employees in the Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government" (link).

Of course, enforcement is another topic.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

20 minutes ago, turkeyfoot said:

That he pinned his hopes on this...

Geoff,

Do you really think Trump's campaign skills are limited to a single fortuitous event where he pins all his hopes?

He's just taking advantage of the moment by bashing this FBI decision (and Clinton by extension).

Michael

[SteveWolfer]

1 minute ago, merjet said:

Of course, enforcement is another topic

How true.  As we see from today's news, even if it becomes politically necessary to have an investigation, or hearings, that has nothing to do with even a request for prosecution.  The trend is clear: It is becoming more and more unthinkable that a politician should go to jail.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Was Comey trying to have his cake and eat it too by letting Clinton off in the recommendation...

Steve,

I'm more and more adhering to the idea that there was dirty nasty dirty rotten dirt on a lot of relevant people sitting in sundry files and blackmail was a fundamental part of this decision.

There is a tradition of this in the FBI culture. After all, J. Edgar Hoover and all...

Michael

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, Mikee said:

Martha Stewart takes advice from a stockbroker [...]

I thought at the time that Martha Stewart connived in a particularly stupid kind of way. She wanted to benefit from bad not-yet-news. To her, it was smart to divest before a stock nose-dived. She meant to keep things secret and she knew the criminal charges were based on black letter law. But.

That lady got caught out and took her lumps. She resumed her career. I figure the prosecution was a shot-across-the-bow to others who would connive, intending to evade strict ethical walls.  Or Ms Stewart was sloppy instead of stupid. She learned.

For Mrs Clinton, political lumps only, it seems, a jig up or a jig down in the Is She Crooked? polls and a gust of hoopla.  Perhaps a lasting wind. Mr Trump will certainly turn up his wind-machines

Once he gets his campaign really started, after  Cleveland, the full effect of the Fix can be assessed in the mind of America.  The grandest of the Grand Hoopla is still to come. Surprises on the email server front? Maybe, maybe not.

I suspect, Red Hat firmly on, that  Clinton/Trump favourables will begin a slow tilt to his advantage.   This alone could deliver the Swingers to Mr Trump's Electoral Corral.

Mouth the words. Email. Server. Reckless. Intent. Damage. Hillary. Corruption. Fixed. Rigged. Crony. Feels good in the mouth. 

This is a golden six-pointed star for Mr Trump and those re-incarnated with his spirit.

 

-- for fun, OLers should check out the convulsions of sweat-flop in commie-side fourth estate large and small.  Hoo-oo-oo-pla. See Memeorandum for a sampler.  Good times for the sardonic.

I am, oddly, missing Adam Selene's OL voice most acutely right now. 

Red Hat still firmly pulled down past my ears, I want the Trump campaign to not distract itself or step in cowpies in its public actions.  The giant monster mainstream is fully-staffed to sift Trumpistry down for any error -- unforced or not. Keep the heat on the  targets,  don't leave droppings and fringe-y things that Hillary-is-mah-man dogs like to chew on.

Dilbert's creator and self-renowned expert has a sweet-spot equation for those engaged in Trumpistry. It reduces the forks to to Racist || Crook.  

Edited July 5, 2016 by william.scherk
Grrrammar, tone, pith. Wind-machine. Pith,.

[SteveWolfer]

8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

dirt on a lot of relevant people sitting in sundry files and blackmail was a fundamental part of this decision

That might be.  We may never know.  Clinton speaks to Lynch, then in days, Comey says no recommendation.  No wonder so many people will have nothing to do with anyone who has held office before and insist on an outsider.

[SteveWolfer]

7 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Martha Stewart connived in a particularly stupid kind of way. She wanted to benefit from bad not-yet-news unavailable to the public

I always thought that was a real travesty.  She heard information that would cause some stock she held to drop so she sold the stock.  When the FBI came around investigating, she became worried that she might have broken a law and lied to the FBI.  In the end they determined that she did NOT break any insider investing law (she wasn't even an insider by the definition of the law) but they got her for lying to a federal officer (she should have know that only the government employees are permitted to lie). 

I've always suspected that while it might have been a case of pure accident that her name came up in an investigation, it also might have been a case of someone putting her under investigation because she wouldn't make a campaign donation or something like that.  I mean, why with all the real criminal activity going on, even if her name popped up... why do you devote x number of FBI agents to pawing through Martha Stewart's pantry?

[Backlighting]

Now here's someone who doesn't mince words:

 

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, turkeyfoot said:

Trump misses the point with me when he goes after these kinds of things.

It is a perennial sucking wound for Mrs Clinton. This is America, where in politics sucking wounds are good things. Trump did nothing but put two syllables to her name. I expect the phrase to sing in his tweets from now until I Was Robbed.

45 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Martha Stewart connived in a particularly stupid kind of way. She wanted to benefit from bad not-yet-news unavailable to the public

I've always suspected that while it might have been a case of pure accident that her name came up in an investigation, it also might have been a case of someone putting her under investigation because she wouldn't make a campaign donation or something like that.  I mean, why with all the real criminal activity going on, even if her name popped up... why do you devote x number of FBI agents to pawing through Martha Stewart's pantry?

My recollection is faulty.  It tells me Ms Stewart had a tarmac encounter with a person who passed on the not-yet-news. And my recollection is so grey that it tells me there were FBI tools to detect possible instances of insider trading, from an 'inside the animal' monitoring view of markets, a watching brief for the Financial Crimes section. But I will go see how false is my memory.

On to your Randianesque take on the Not-News of Hillary Clinton's Not-Charges. This is meaty.

1 hour ago, SteveWolfer said:

Comey is either a delusional boyscout who lying to himself - thinking he is doing right for the nation, or he is bought and paid for. 

Reckless endangerment or first degree murder. Depraved indifference or modern parenting. Abstract art or Quent Cordair. There are no other alternatives. 

Quote

With his own words he laid out the many violations Clinton was guilty of, and then, in the end, pretends that there is no case - as if he hadn't just made it.

Yup. Although guilt is alleged until adjudicated.  Otherwise, I agree. But I have to point out that there is not much New Fact in the statement. There was no surprise in the listing of reckless actions -- this has been chewed on for quite some time. 

Quote

I wonder if we will hear squawks of protest from some of the FBI who did the actual work - they were betrayed by Comey. 

Of course. Unless there is a psychometric tool to detect and destroy Republicans in FBI clothing, there must be enough internal 'political' dissent to leak almost immediately.   But as I said above, the penalty for reckless endangerment will be assessed in the court of public opinion.  It is a non-judicial matter now, no matter how much that strikes us as unjust.

Quote

Was Comey trying to have his cake and eat it too by letting Clinton off in the recommendation, but only after spelling out the details of her security crimes?  Is this some ego thing of his where he plays Solomon?

You have the psychological chops to assess this, probably. I don't know anything about the dude.  What do you know about him, and by 'security crimes,' which do you mean?

Quote

And why was there no mention, and perhaps no investigation of the Clinton Foundation and Pay-for-Play?  Paul Ryan is exactly right. 

I don't think you mean that the FBI director should have pivoted to comment on an investigation that is not underway. The Clinton Foundation is a fine scandalous structure ripe for the Trump wind machine. It will be as frank and as persuasive as Trump himself.  It will not make a criminal case but a moral and ethical case.  This is where Mrs Clinton has already lost half the US jury, to my reckoning.

Quote

Our system is infested with corrupt parasites who have destroyed all but that fading image of what we once were.

That would make a good Objectivish Opera.

Insert smiley.

Let the Red Hats among us deploy fully and add strength to a multi-faceted job of taking Mrs Clinton down by electoral means. Victory is not forestalled by this non-news today, and not by current soundings of opinion.  Red Hats must do their part to help the slide to Trump, to make victory a triumph and a mandate for sweeping reform.

So the former Secretary is not going on trial, not going to the hoosegow before the election. So what?  Does it change the perception of her character in the least for partisans?  I figure she can still pay the price and be  relegated to political hell November 8.  

If there is no political after-life beyond history, she will at least be thwarted and denied the power she lusts for. Utter political death at least.  Then a less-partisan FBI can go after her under a new clean administration.

 

And a thousand new suns of prosperity will shine from the Trump sky.  Winning like you wouldn't believe. Jobs flowing like honey. And safe? My goodness you will be safe. Safe and sound, sweet and optimistic, without Fentanyl.  Bird song, rainbows, cruise missiles, Old Glory. Reagan. 

I am dying for a meme  that depicts a blue trucker hat on Clinton's head, finely embroidered with I Am A Crook.  

Edited July 5, 2016 by william.scherk
Meaty, big and bouncy. Spelking.

[Mikee]

" Although guilt is alleged until adjudicated. "

Convenient to believe this.  All that is needed is avoid adjudication then Presto!...Innocent!  Precious.  Angels singing.

[SteveWolfer]

37 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Ms Stewart had a tarmac encounter with a person who passed on the not-yet-news

If my memory serves me, it was her broker, or his assistant, who sat next to her on a flight and he said that the CEO of the company whose stock is in question was going to sell all of his shares and that was not public knowledge.  Stewart had no part as a professional in Wall Street, and was not employed by or taking money from the company, and was just a stockholder, and just used the information to sell her own shares. 

If I remember right, she was once a broker, many decades before, back before she started her businesses.  And that was what scared her... remembering that at that time she had to be very careful to discriminate between which bits of information were "insider" and which weren't.

They failed to get a conviction on insider trading, and instead got convictions on making false statements, Obstruction of Justice, and on Conspiracy (to do what?  Sell a stock that was about to tank?). 

[SteveWolfer]

52 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

...not much New Fact in [Comey's] statement.

Given that his intent was to let her off the hook, I see why he wouldn't want to mention anything new might be negative for her.  The stunning part of that long statement was the existing, and very damning facts, that were coming out of the mouth of the head of the FBI.  That was new in itself.

[SteveWolfer]

55 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

You have the psychological chops to assess this, probably. I don't know anything about the dude.  What do you know about him, and by 'security crimes,' which do you mean?

I don't know anything about him at all... just watching him, and hearing a little on the news about his record.

I've heard a couple of different lawyers rattle of quite a few federal statutes (by number) that they were positive Hillary had violated.  Some of them were felony, some of them were misdemeanor - they all related to the handling of confidential data - that is what I meant by security crimes.

[SteveWolfer]

59 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I don't think you mean that the FBI director should have pivoted to comment on an investigation that is not underway.

True.  But, if we are talking "should" the FBI director should have recommended an indictment be drawn.  And I've always thought that the Clinton foundation should have been approached like a RICO investigation - Bill was the bag man, there had to be go-betweens, and Hillary used her many flight miles to go close the deal with a wink and nod.  But if they are letting Hillary off on the email security violations, that says they are probably not even investigating the foundation shenanigans.

[SteveWolfer]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Then a less-partisan FBI can go after her under a new clean administration.

I don't think Trump stands a chance of winning (just my opinion).  And if the GOP holds the Senate (I don't think they will), then the House should start planning an immediate impeachment, but that will depend upon who Hillary chooses as her running mate.  She may choose Senator Warren because that would be an impeachment poison-pill.  The House probably doesn't have the balls for that anyway, and even a GOP senate doesn't either.  And if they did try that, they'd probably botch it.  I'm not feeling terribly optimistic for the Republic at this moment.

[BaalChatzaf]

6 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

I don't think Trump stands a chance of winning (just my opinion).  And if the GOP holds the Senate (I don't think they will), then the House should start planning an immediate impeachment, but that will depend upon who Hillary chooses as her running mate.  She may choose Senator Warren because that would be an impeachment poison-pill.  The House probably doesn't have the balls for that anyway, and even a GOP senate doesn't either.  And if they did try that, they'd probably botch it.  I'm not feeling terribly optimistic for the Republic at this moment.

There is no point  in bring a bill of impeachment before Hillary does anything.  The Senate will never convict her and remove her from office.

[SteveWolfer]

2 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

There is no point  in bring a bill of impeachment before Hillary does anything.  The Senate will never convict her and remove her from office.

She has already done plenty.... more than enough to be impeached on.  The moral case for impeachment is simple; she shouldn't be president because of the many crimes she has committed and lies she has made. 

Impeachment is like an indictment if successful.  Whether it is successful or not, it is a public investigation that has more teeth than an oversight committee hearing can exercise.  If they get the impeachment, then the Senate take that indictment and tries to convict.  I agree that the Senate never would.   Too bad.  Bill and Hillary could have matching Tee-shirts: "I went to Washington and all got was impeached".  She could be the first woman impeached.  Maybe the house could play dirty politics and give her a backroom agreement not to start any impeachment hearings her on past crimes if she only nominates Supreme Court justices from that list of Trumps.

[william.scherk]

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

for fun, OLers should check out the convulsions of sweat-flop in commie-side fourth estate large and small.  

Here is where a leftist flying monkey breaks ranks, from the so-blue-they-are-pink flying monkeys of Clinton-love at the New Republic. Meat sandwich and sharp  perceptions. 

Quote

 

The FBI director’s pronouncements about Hillary Clinton were extremely unusual—and she has herself to blame. By his own admission, Jim Comey’s public tongue-lashing of Clinton was extraordinary; the kind of statement you’d expect from a prosecutor in the wake of an indictment, rather than from an investigator recommending against prosecution. “In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence that the FBI helps collect,” Comey said. “Although we don’t normally make public our recommendation to the prosecutors...in this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.”
By all outward appearances, Comey’s statement was inspired less by a deep commitment to the public’s right-to-know than by a territorial instinct for bureaucratic turf protection: giving voice, perhaps, to FBI officials who feel the State Department ran roughshod over them; insulating the Bureau from inevitable allegations that its investigation and attendant recommendation were fixed. 

The result is a public relations disaster for Clinton: Republicans will air footage of Barack Obama’s FBI director (a Republican, but an Obama appointee nonetheless) calling Clinton reckless on camera thousands and thousands of times between now and November. Surely some Clinton supporters, and people in Clinton’s orbit, believe this is extraordinarily unfair.

Former Democratic DOJ aide Matthew Miller put thus:  

 Matthew Miller @matthewamiller
Absolutely outrageous presser by Comey. DOJ/FBI is supposed to speak in court. If it won't make statements in court, it shouldn't make them.
8:18 AM - 5 Jul 2016
  
And to this I say... sort of? As a rule, bureaucrats probably shouldn’t make potentially history altering pronouncements as salvos in their turf wars or to insulate themselves from criticism. But from Comey’s perspective, it’s hard to see what other choice he had. This may have been the least damaging way to contain the fallout of the email investigation—for everyone involved. And the mess only exists because Hillary Clinton and her team put their near-term interests ahead of basically every other consideration. This is the risk you take when your lodestar for official conduct is whether the thing you want to do is plausibly legal. 

 

Steve, I appreciate your comments. I was indulging in a little light opera myself today.  You express outrage at the clearly outrageous implications of Fix, and that is a good thing, as MSK would say.

I have a sardonic take on American scandals. Besides China, perhaps, you have the biggest government riding the biggest economy we have ever seen, still an essential engine of the world. It sometimes seems to be like a vessel that must sail itself by multiple mechanical overrides and failsafes and contingency programs, since the crews are almost always venal, self-serving, crusted in place like oysters and just as hungry. The ship she is so big. How  you turn a thing that big?

_________________________-

Mrs Clinton should feel shame today, but my psychometric apparatus detects nothing. How did this cold-blooded creature get to Survivor Island, again?

Insert plug for the 'really gets in corners'  Westminster system.  Insert smiley.

[KorbenDallas]

WSS,

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Yup. Although guilt is alleged until adjudicated.  Otherwise, I agree. But I have to point out that there is not much New Fact in the statement. There was no surprise in the listing of reckless actions -- this has been chewed on for quite some time.

The new fact was the FBI director created a concise, logical context for the American public to chew on.  (Well, logical minus the non-indictment part.)

5 hours ago, william.scherk said:

So -- the sword of official justice is put back on its wall-mounts, so to speak. The court of public opinion is now in session.

I tuned to talk radio today, and Rush and Hannity are sharing your sentiment.

Here's a 1m clip from Fox, on the subject:

Trump is still beating the #RiggedSystem drum on Twitter, but it's unclear how many people he can round up to vote for him.  And reversing the corruption in the DOJ that Obama and Holder created?

Good luck with that.

Edited July 5, 2016 by KorbenDallas
//malovent_universe

[SteveWolfer]

I'd love to see the Inspector General's office publically declare that based up the report given by the Director of the FBI that Hillary Clinton's security clearance had been revoked.  Then let her campaign staff try to explain how she could be president without a security clearance.