Comey Admitted It - What's to Investigate?

So it has come out that what James Comey leaked to his buddy about President Trump to give to the NYT was classified. That is a felony! I heard a Republican Senator or Congressman say that needs to be investigated! WTF? He admitted it under oath in testimony to Congress! It is a crime. What's to investigate? Send it to a grand jury! Prosecute him and let a jury decide! Same with Hillary. Comey spelled out the violations of the law committed by then Secretary of State Clinton. Does anyone believe that the average citizen would escape prosecution? Public officials need to be held to a higher not lower standard than the average citizen and it's about damn time that starts happening. Comey and Clinton should be the examples!

Why Putin Would Prefer Trump

I'm not saying I believe the Russians affected the outcome of the 2016 election but if they did, why would they prefer Trump over Hillary Clinton? I can think of several reasons right off the top of my head. First, Trump would mean a strong America. One might be tempted to think a strong America is not in Russia's best interest but that would be a mistake. A weak America is actually a more dangerous America and a Clinton presidency would have certainly guaranteed a weaker America. A weak America invites challenges from provocateurs like Iran, North Korea, and ISIS. Additionally, perceived weakness on the part of the United States reduces our negotiating power which further increases the likelihood of conflict. Moreover, as an extension of the Obama Administration, a Clinton Administrative would have continued to fail to provide leadership on the world stage which would make it necessary for Russia to step in as it has had to do in Syria. Putin and the Russians know that a strong America makes everyone safer. There are other reasons why the Russians would prefer Trump over Hillary.

The second reason the Russians would have tried to influence our election in addition to insuring a stronger America providing real leadership in the world again is that Trump will be better for the economy. A strong American economy is essential to a healthy global economy. Obama and the Democrats have more than doubled our national debt, imposed anti-business regulations and legislation, and embarked on a wealth redistribution scheme that will sooner rather than later cripple our economy. Their zero sum game economic view sees America as the world robber baron rather than as a powerful economic engine driving a healthy global economy. Trump understands that America is the solution not the problem and unlike Hillary, he plans to work to fix the American economy rather than "manage its decline". A more healthy and vibrant US economy will lead to a better world economy by creating a "bigger pie" from which Russia stands to benefit. In addition to a stronger America with a stronger economy, there is one other reason Putin might have wanted Trump to win: it's better to deal with a pragmatist rather than an ideological zealot.

Hillary Clinton is a far left ideolog who, even when faced with mountains of evidence contrary to that ideology, is unable to adjust her positions to comport with a dynamic world. This leads to bad decisions like prematurely pulling out of Iraq, overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi and the Iranian Nuclear Deal. Trump on the other hand appears to be pragmatic and willing to adjust his positions and courses of action in order to take advantage of changing situations. That is the mark of a successful businessman who makes good decisions. Bad American decisions are bad for Russia too.

It now seems pretty clear that the Russians did do some hacking during the 2016 election. What isn't clear is if those hacks affected the results in Trump's favor. Apparently what they did do was leak inside information from the DNC and the Clinton campaign that exposed their dirty tricks and their real opinion of the American voters. If that had an effect on the election, it was because it exposed the truth. What is also clear is the truth benefits everyone including both America and Russia. How can that be a bad thing?

Democrat Lack of Personal Situational Awareness

I find the lack of personal situational awareness of Democrats astonishing. It really makes one wonder when the POTUS and now Huma Abedin find out about stuff first from the news. How disconnected to their own lives and responsibilities! What a lack of situational awareness! In comparison, these people make Howard Hughes in his final days, living in a darkened hotel suite in Vegas seem downright plugged in!

Hillary's Victory Dance A Bit Premature?

I have to admit I was despondent about the FBI Director's decision not to recommend prosecuting the case against Secretary Clinton for her private email server and mishandling of classified information. When I heard that Director Comey was being called to testify before Congress, I thought, "Why  bother? You (and the People) lost; it's over." What made matters worse was the long list of lies laid out by Comey and his description of Hillary and her staffers' extremely careless handling of classified material and yet neither she nor anyone else would not be held accountable. After Comey's public announcement, Hillary's smug and gloating "victory dance" at a campaign event in North Carolina with President Obama by her side made the decision all the more galling. Then something surprising happened and my spirits began to lift.

Little by little, portions of Comey's testimony made their way to the media and the questions by the members of the House committee began to reveal that there were serious flaws in the FBI's investigation; most notably, investigators never compared their findings against Clinton's sworn statements to Congress. Any inconsistencies would show she either lied to Congress or the FBI. Either way, each one would be a felony and the result would be very big trouble for Ms. Clinton. Just ask Scooter Libby. By the close of business today, the State Department announced it was reopening the probe into Clinton's email scandal.

Perhaps Hillary's celebration was just a bit premature.

Loretta Lynch: Recuse, Resign or Be Impeached

I had planned on writing about why so many Americans are completely fed up with our government (and still do) when Attorney General Loretta Lynch provided yet another example to the long list of reasons.

Lynch has a long personal history with the Clintons dating back to the late 1990s. In 1999, she was nominated by President Bill Clinton to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.[Woodrow, Stephanie (February 12, 2010). "Meet Loretta E. Lynch". Main Justice. Retrieved March 13, 2011.]  Based on this relationship to the Clintons, she should have recused herself from any involvement in the Justice Department's investigation of Hillary's email scandal. She hasn't  despite government regulations and legal ethics which dictate that it is improper. Specifically, the Code of Federal Regulations (28 CFR 45.2) states:
     § 45.2 Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.

      (a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or  
            prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:

      (1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or 
            prosecution; or

      (2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by 
           the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.

Additionally, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Ethics Handbook for On and Off Duty Behavior states:      
     Appearance of Impropriety: An employee shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that the 
     employee is violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. 5 CFR 2635.101(b)(14)

Lynch hasn't recused herself because the there was a presumption that she could be impartial. That presumption proved to be a bad one when she met privately, unannounced and uncovered by the press with former President Clinton in her government plane at the Phoenix airport thus violating both federal regulations and legal ethics.

 

Once again, the Clintons and those they associate with show they can't be trusted and lack any ethics.
As a minimum, Lynch should recuse herself from any further involvement with the Hillary email investigation. Better yet, she should resign as Attorney General for behavior that even a layman would recognized as unethical, unprofessional and inappropriate. If she doesn't, she should be impeached.

Enough of political-types feeling like they are above the law!!!

Hillary - Woman of the People

Back in April, Democrat Presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton made a campaign appearance and talked about income inequality while wearing a $12,495 Giorgio Armani jacket. Well I guess you can do that when you received $250,000 per speech to Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs. I'm sure if she becomes president she will ensure all the rest of us are able to afford fancy duds like that,  one $15 minimum wage hour at a time. What a woman of the people; what a hypocrite! "Let them eat cake" anyone?

Scapegoat Bernie

As polls show a dead heat in a potential match up between Trump and Hillary and as Bernie and Hillary continue to split the primary contests, Democrats are attacking Bernie Sanders and telling him he needs to get out of the race. They are realizing the coronation of Hillary is not a given.

Could Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) be searching for a face saving explanation in the event they suffer a humiliating defeat in November? After all, it couldn't possibly be the people rejecting their severely flawed and weak candidate now could it? If that doesn't work, we can always count on their other "go to" tactic: blaming it on the stupidity of the American people.

Misinterpreting Trump's Numbers

A lot has been made by the so called experts about Trump's numbers. They say that, despite having received the most votes in US primary history, still more people voted for someone else than voted for him. While that may be true, the pundits have drawn erroneous conclusions. They somehow equate that to a vote against Trump rather than simply an indication of another preference. They make the assumption that, for all those other voters, Trump couldn't possibly be their 2nd or 3rd choice. Their own biases made them interpret this to mean that if he wasn't their first choice, he was automatically their last choice. This is very poor analysis indeed. Further, these same experts told us after each Trump primary or caucus win that based on his rate of picking up delegates, he would never reach the 1237 needed to secure the nomination. Again, poor analysis. As the number of choices decreased, the rate at which "The Donald" picked up delegates increased. To make matters worse,  the pundits' faulty logic is being used to try to convince Republican voters that Trump will never be able to beat Hillary Clinton in the general election. Funny how the vigorous challenge mounted against Hillary by Bernie Sanders is never seen as an indication of her unpopularity or that she may have trouble in November.

The Trump and Sanders insurgent candidacies reflect or perhaps have even caused a "Sea Change" in American politics. The establishment types in both the Republican and Democrat parties either fail to recognize this shift or are choosing to ignore it. Keeping all this in mind, it seems highly unlikely that Republican voters who didn't get their first choice in their party's nominee would not only cast their ballot for the other party's candidate but also vote for someone who is ideologically 180 degrees out of phase with them. Likewise, I don't see disappointed Bernie supporters voting for his antithesis, Hillary Clinton. In this election, I predict the anti-establishment fervor will "Trump" all. Pun intended.

Points to Ponder

Capuchin monkeys understand unequal pay. See the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
So does this mean they are smarter than the staffers that Hillary pays less than their male counterparts  or the executives of the Clinton Foundation who earn less?

Is it the job of a primary candidate to win the nomination or prevent another candidate from winning the nomination? They aren't necessarily the same thing.

The North Carolina law that requires one to use the bathroom corresponding to their biological gender is causing many celebs to boycott the state. Could NC be getting exactly what it wants?

On a related note, Since when does one's attire determine one's gender?

So former Speaker of the House, John Boehner, called Ted Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh." So what? Does anyone really care what that has been has to say?

So You're Considering Socialism? Consider Venezuela First!

Bernie Sanders is a self-professed socialist. Hillary Clinton is a far-left progressive who knows nothing about economics which essentially means she too is a socialist. Before deciding to vote for either of these two candidates based on their promises of free stuff, spreading the wealth, and making "the rich" pay their fair share, one should consider a case study of the most recent experiment with socialism - Venezuela.

When Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999, Venezuela was the richest country in Latin America. Then Chavez set about implementing his program of "Socialism of the 21th Century" which consisted of massive spending on the poor and nationalizing most of the country's industry including its number one source of wealth - the petroleum industry. For a time, Venezuela's economy managed to continue to lumber along mainly due to the inertia of its great oil wealth. Eventually, the effects of the huge increases in social spending and the adverse consequences of the socialist economic policies combined and compounded causing government revenues to plummet. The Chavez government continued to spend (promise everyone everything) even as the ability to pay for it became increasingly impossible. It borrowed and continued to spend in an economic death spiral feedback loop that today has Venezuela on the verge of economic collapse. It has dropped from the number one economy in Latin America to number 6; even below Cuba - this despite still having tremendous oil reserves. As a result of the implementation of socialist policies, the country's petroleum production capability has fallen dramatically as management was taken out of private, profit driven hands and placed under government, crony control.  The government is unable to negotiate deals to get raw materials or conduct international trade so there are chronic shortages of food and consumer goods including that bourgeois commodity - toilet paper. Inflation is running around 720% a year. Does socialism still sound good to you?

To be fair, "Socialism of the 21th Century", did keep one promise. It did redistribute wealth. Today,  Chavez's daughter is a multi-billionaire!

Now there's change you can believe in!

More Hillary Accomplisments

I can't take credit for the following post however,  I think the information provided is very good to get back out there the the voters as they consider the next presidential nominees. I believe the original author is someone Kent Larson.

If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you’re over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50. Amazing to me how much I had forgotten!

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the #$%$ eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

         She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they
         settled with Ms. Jones.

         She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as
         Special Prosecutor.

         After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica
         Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

        Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under
        oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

        Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation
        by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times
        while under oath.

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type of low-life mess?

Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.

But to her loyal fans (supporters) - I guess in her own words “what difference does it make?”

Republicans in Danger of Letting Losing Become Habit

Americans appreciate the ability to lose with grace but when losing becomes a habit, their feelings turn from respect to disgust. Republicans need to keep this and the following in mind as they consider their options for the future.

 "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." 
          
         - Vince Lombardi

Pundits Left and Right Continue to Misinterpret Anti-Establishment Movement

One should not take what I am about to suggest as an endorsement of Donald Trump. I think the pundits are failing to correctly interpret the anti-establishment movement we are witnessing and the continuing primary success of Trump, so I'd like to pose a different take on what is happening. Here goes.

When the presidential primary process failed in 2008 as the political "eHarmony" Conservatives had hoped it would be and gave them a candidate who was not a perfect ideological match, they stayed home on election day. The result was Obama. The scenario repeated itself again in 2012 and President Obama was re-elected for a second term.

In the off-year elections, Conservatives tried to remedy the situation by electing senators and representatives who promised them 100% of what they wanted. Unfortunately, those they sent to Washington delivered 0% of what Conservatives were hoping for. They didn't oppose the progressive agenda at all. [Incidentally, when President Obama succeeds in closing the prison at GITMO (notice I say when not if), he will have secured his legacy as one of the most successful presidents in US history for implementing his agenda. Ultimately, history will show that these policies were terribly damaging to America and the rest of the world but this is a topic for another time.]

Conservatives learned a tough lesson from the 2008-2012 election cycles. If you need a 100% ideological match in order to support a candidate or stay home, you get an "Obama". They elected people in the off-year elections who promised 100% and delivered 0%. The result was they got 100% of what they didn't like and nothing they did. They should keep this in mind this November or they may get another Obama term in the form of Hillary Clinton.

Trump is obnoxious. He is abrasive. Trump speaks in generalities but Trump loves to win. Even if Conservatives, and even many Independents, only agree with 50% of what he says, they will get 50% of what they like and maybe only 50% of what they don't. That puts them miles ahead of where they are now. One must also keep in mind that nearly 40% of Americans self-identify as conservative as opposed to 20% who call themselves liberal or progressive.

The pundits from all points on the political spectrum can continue to explain away Trump's primary performance based on their hopes, biases, and faulty polling data but if they do not start factoring in the root cause of the anti-establishment ire I have suggested, they will continue to be wrong.

Gen Hayden Confirms My Assertion Regarding Unclassified Emails

This morning on WMAL's "Mornings on the Mall" radio program, former Director of the NSA, retired Air Force 4-star General Michael Hayden was being interviewed by hosts Brian Wilson and Larry O'Connor about the current conflict between Apple and the FBI with regard to unlocking the cell phone used of one of the San Bernardino shooters.

At the end of the interview, O'Connor asked the former director a thinly veiled question referring to Hillary Clinton that went something like this: When you were director, if a foreign official had classified information on an unsecured server, is that something you would have been all over? Hayden replied: Not just classified. If an official from a hostile foreign country had information on an unsecured server - even unclassified information - I would have moved heaven and earth to get at it because of the valuable intelligence it would contain.

I'd have to say, Gen Hayden verifies my assertions in my 14 Feb post, wouldn't you?

Even UNCLAS Emails Can Be Harmful

 OK, so 81 of the recently released emails from Hillary Clinton's server have turned out to be classified. The media is saying "most were at the lowest level". The problem - and most don't understand this - is that even pieces of unclassified information, collected from an authoritative source such as the US Secretary of State can be combined to reveal highly sensitive information. Hillary's email server didn't even have the most basic common sense protections. Regardless of whether or not it was classified, everything a US Secretary of State discusses via email should be protected. Despite what her supporters would have you believe, this is a problem and demonstrates a clear lack of judgment.

Recommended Reading for Insight Into Today's Political Climate

I'm currently listening to another book on audio CD, The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek during my daily commute and I'm finding it fascinating and surprisingly relevant to today's political environment. Not an easy read or listen but well worth the effort. I think both conservatives and liberals (progressives) will find things of interest contained in the words of Hayek.

I have been aware of this book for years but just recently decided to find and read (listen) to it. I had to wait 6 weeks for it to be available for download from the library but it was well worth the wait.

Even though the book was published in 1944 and was a political analysis of socialism from a "final days of WWII" perspective, the author provided new prefaces in 1976 to help make it more contemporary and if a reader keeps these updates in mind, the book provides some amazing insight into the current political scene. If one allows oneself to not focus on the specifics but rather the broader analysis, this book has much to say to the modern political observer.

History doesn't really repeat itself as the old cliche suggests but the ebb and flow of ideological themes, trends and ideas do seem to have their cycles. I hesitate to call this book prophetic because I think this term is over used and tends to sound a bit too dramatic and ominous. However, if you are up for a challenging read (listen), The Road to Serfdom is worth the effort.

Hillary Fighting for the Middle Class: One $225,000 Goldman Sachs Speech at a Time

When asked about her speaking fees where Goldman Sachs paid her $675,000 for 3 speeches, Hillary said, "Well that's what they offered."

So is she really the champion of the middle class?

Is she really the candidate who will stand up to Wall St and hedge fund managers? Aren't the fees earned by hedge fund managers "What they [clients] offered [agreed to pay]?" I suppose she could ask her son-in-law the Wall St hedge fund manager.

Are 3 speeches all Goldman expects from a future President Hillary Clinton?

Would anyone accept an answer like this from a Republican candidate?

Freedom to Choose: The Invalid Argument for NOT Indicting Hillary

The argument goes something like this. When FBI Director, James Comey, delivers the results of the investigation into then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's handling of classified emails, the recommendation will be to refer the case to a grand jury to consider indictment. However, because an indictment of Hillary would so disrupt the Democrat primary process, essentially taking away the Democrat's front-runner and denying them of their first choice for their presidential candidate, Attorney General Loretta Lynch will refuse to pursue the case. I call this the "Freedom to Choose" rationale. Politically, Lynch thinks President Hillary is more important than equal justice for all.

From its website (http://www.justice.gov/about): this is the mission of the Department of Justice:

Our Mission Statement

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

I don't see where it is the job of the Department of Justice or Attorney General Loretta Lynch to ensure "choice" for Democrat voters. She needs to enforce the law - Period.

Lynch needs to focus her attention on the last line of her department's mission statement:

"...to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans." which includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Do the right thing!

More Wisdom from Will Rogers...and Bernie Sanders

Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

          - Will Rogers

Apparently, when it comes to Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders agrees. He recently said something to the effect that Hillary's great experience doesn't mean she has good judgement. I've been pointing this out for years. 

When one starts out, gaining experience as a results of bad judgement dominates the process. As time goes on however, experience should come from learning from one's mistakes, by applying good judgement and seeing the benefit of making good decisions. 

After years in the public eye and on the political stage, Hillary should fall into the latter phase of experience but unfortunately, we saw from her tenure as Secretary of State that wasn't the case.

We can't afford more On-the-Job judgement training and experience gathering in the White House. That is what Hillary will bring if elected president.

Different Justice: Petraeus vs Clinton?

It has been reported in the media that the DoD is considering demoting General David Petraeus for providing secret information to his biographer and mistress, Paula Broadwell. Meanwhile, an IG report revealed Hillary Clinton's unsecured email server contained 1000s of email classified as Special Access Programs - far more sensitive than secret. The information leaked by Petraeus was never released to the public. We have no way of knowing who may have gained access to the unprotected classified material on Hillary's server.

It is very likely that even if the FBI recommends indicting Clinton, the Obama Justice Department won't prosecute her. Equal justice? Well time will tell but the prospects don't look good.