Jumbo Alert, As An Integrity And Corruption Check For Pundits, Journalists, And All Your Hillary Clinton-Defending Friends Looms

Jumbo film

The real test of when someone will lie to your face is when they will insist that their former, perhaps bias-supported but still sincerely-held position is still valid after all justifications for it have vanished. This is Jumbo territory, the point where Jimmy Durante, giant elephant in tow, shrugged to the accusing sheriff in front of him and said, “Elephant? What elephant?” That, however, was a joke. This is tragic.

Many of us knew we would reach this point long ago, of course. As many, including me, have documented since the New York Times first broke the story of how Hillary Clinton had defied policy, best practices, competent national security management, technology common sense and perhaps the law by receiving and sending her official State Department e-mail on a home-brewed server. First she said there was nothing improper about doing this, then she said she had received no classified information, then she said she had received no material marked classified. She trotted out rationalizations: “everybody did it,” “other Secretaries of State did it,” “don’t sweat the small stuff,” ultimately adding a rationalization to the list, “It wasn’t the best choice.”

Those of us who have followed the pattern of Clinton scandals over the years knew that her camp was running out of smoke when it defaulted to the old “vast right wing conspiracy” diversion that worked so well—for a while—during the Monica Mess. The facts have been pretty clear for a while now, to anyone with the honesty and fairness to acknowledge them. Hillary Clinton, for her own convenience (as she has said) and to keep her communications out of the view of Congress, the public, political adversaries and law enforcement as she mixed personal business, politics and influence peddling with her official duties, willfully endangered US security and even the lives of intelligence personnel by handling official communications in an insecure manner.

The FBI has been investigating all of this—not her, her campaign keeps reminding us, just the e-mails!—and the State Department, which has been acting as a partisan ally when it’s duty is to the American people, finally was forced by a judge to review and turn over the e-mails involved, other than the ones Clinton had destroyed by her lawyer (nothing suspicious or irregular about that). With each new batch revealed, more e-mails that contained classified information have been found. Former Defense Secretary and CIA director William Gates said this week that Russia, China and Iran, among other foreign nations, probably hacked Clinton’s e-mails, “given the fact that the Pentagon acknowledges that they get attacked about 100,000 times a day.” Meanwhile, State has identified over 1,200 emails that it deems classified were sent over Hillary’s private server, making her first denials ridiculous, and her ultimate denials an admission of gross negligence and stupidity, even if they were true. The Secretary of State didn’t discern that any of 1200 e-mails contained information requiring care and confidentiality? This is the “I’m not corrupt, I’m stupid” defense, which is one no Presidential candidate ought to be allowed to get away with, especially one being extolled by the current President for her alleged competence and experience.

Now the walls, and the facts, are closing in. Yesterday, the Obama administration confirmed for the first time that Hillary Clinton’s home server contained closely guarded government secrets, and announced that 22 emails that containing material requiring one of the highest levels of classification were so sensitive that they could not be released.  Is that clear? These are communications that were on an insecure server, vulnerable to hacking, that Clinton saw, and either didn’t recognize as such—she’s not that stupid—or didn’t care enough to start being responsible. With such e-mails, it doesn’t matter if they are marked: they are self-marking: big, loud, throbbing documents that any Secretary of State, even Secretary Gump, must know are classified because of their content.

The State Department revelation came three days before  the Iowa presidential caucuses, and, incredibly, the Clinton campaign complained about the timing! Yes, it is certainly outrageous to let voters know about the duplicity and incompetence of a candidate for President before they vote for her. This is how Clinton thinks. If that doesn’t bother you, get help.

Federal law makes it a felony for any government employee to mishandle classified information, and here comes the integrity check. With this new information, Clinton has no defense. By definition, allowing top secret information to be received and perhaps forwarded on an insecure, private server is mishandling, and illegal.  Clinton’s campaign, of course, is lying and spinning: the current tactic is to dismiss this as an inter-agency dispute over what is classified. (The Clinton-enabling Vox made bolstering this deflection the centerpiece of its “explainer”) However, when the current State Department is so sure of 22 e-mails’ top secret character that it feels it must withhold them from the public and the media, it is obvious that this was no close call, especially since State has been covering and spinning for Hillary to a disgraceful degree already.

So the facts speak: Yes, she lied. Yes, she endangered U.S. security. Yes, she willfully exposed classified documents to hacking by our enemies. Yes, she did this for her own personal and political benefit.

Yes, she broke the law, and this law ain’t jaywalking.

Now Hillary’s obfuscation and denial team is out in force, because her best chance of slipping these knots of her own making is convincing the public that because the information in the email wasn’t marked classified when she was sending it all over the place and letting it sit in a server metaphorically begging “hack me!”, she had no legal obligation to treat it as such. Hillary laid the groundwork for this lie when she changed her denial of wrongdoing from “I didn’t send or receive classified information” to “I didn’t send or receive information marked as classified.” Now, there is still a very good chance that she did the latter, but never mind. The Non-Disclosure Agreement Hillary signed the day after she took the Secretary of State position  clearly states that classified material does NOT have to be identified or marked as such to still be considered classified:

Clinton-NDA

The NDA says, plain as day,

“As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under Executive Order 12958 … “

Hillary Clinton signed this agreement, and by so doing pledged that she “received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed …” She also agrees that she has “been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation of United States criminal law …”

It is time for commentators, blogger, reporters, politicians, Democrats and honest citizens to face facts. I know it hurts that Republicans and conservatives have been right about Clinton’s character all along. Yes, I’m quite certain that would have been making many of the same accusations if she were an uncorruptable  as Elliot Ness, but that is unimportant now. She’s guilty…of lying, of endangering national security for personal gain, of enrolling and corrupting staff and allies to enable and support her lies (this is a Clinton family specialty, and one of the worst things about them), and of breaking the law, willingly, knowingly.

Those who you hear using the defense that the e-mails were unmarked are doing us the favor of marking themselves as partisan hacks, and unworthy of trust or attention evermore. One such hack is Clinton surrogate and former Michigan governor  Jennifer Granholm, who tweeted,

“Rs are frothing at nothing, as usual. The emails were NOT marked classified when she sent or received them. She did NOT create them.”

This is doubly unethical: lying about the law, and simultaneously denigrating Republicans for being right, for once. On the journalism side, we have Mediaite’s house leftist tool, Tommie Christopher, who not only spouts the Clinton campaign talking point but has the gall to be snotty about it:

Not so fast, there. I know that since the email “scandal” began, it has become a mainstream media pastime not to ever mention this, but these 22 emails, and every other email that journalists mainstream and conservative have gotten all sweaty over, were not marked classified when they were sent or received. If only some sort of talk-guy from the government thingy that Hillary worked for would just come out and say that, so people could prominently report that highly relevant fact that means Hillary won’t be going anywhere near a courtroom.

Wrong. Willfully ignorant. Deceptive. In direct contradiction of law and fact. So many lawyers and former State Department employees have weighed in on the absurdity of Clinton’s “unmarked” defense that it isn’t even a matter of contention: it exists solely to confuse the public.

That’s some journalism you are practicing there, Tommie.

He may be right about the Justice Department not indicting Clinton, and if he is, it will mean that the Obama Administration is publicly declaring that the rule of law is a sham, and laws are for the little people.  I’m not going to bet against it; this would be just the next step in a seven year trend. We will see.

We will also see which journalists, politicians, family members and friends have the courage and integrity to do their duty as citizens and members of society. Denying the elephant is only funny in movies. In a democracy, it is proof of corruption and contempt.

_____________________

Sources: Vox, The Federalist, Federalist papers, Washington Post

 

57 thoughts on “Jumbo Alert, As An Integrity And Corruption Check For Pundits, Journalists, And All Your Hillary Clinton-Defending Friends Looms

  1. I’m particularly intrigued by the Clinton campaign’s loudly trumpeted proclamation that President Obama has virtually endorsed her candidacy, coupled with the complaint that the Obama State Department, HRC’s former colleagues, would undermine her imminent coronation with a suspiciously-timed announcement. Either of these statements might conceivably be true. I have troubled reconciling them, however.

  2. “By definition, allowing top secret information to be received and perhaps forwarded on an insecure, private server is mishandling, and illegal. ”

    Given the public nature of the internet, and the means by which packets are passed between machines, is it possible to obey this law?

    (I know it’s technically possible by using a closed infrastructure. I’m asking if the federal email systems are set up to use a closed infrastructure.)

    • VPN – Virtual Private Network. To use a car analogy, it is an armored car for transporting your interoffice memos over the public roadway, as opposed to pasting them to the sides of city buses.

    • Basically, yes. The federal government has closed networks for handling classified information. SIPRnet is the mostly widely known and used, followed by JWICS, and I assume there are others. These use pretty much the same technology as the public internet — with strict security settings and perhaps a few tweaks — but they are completely isolated from it (although I assume there are carefully controlled mechanisms for marshaling information between the networks when needed).

      However, the State Department also has a lot of non-classified email for handling requests from people and organizations needing assistance, for working with its thousands of suppliers and contractors, and for all the routine communications of any large organization — hiring, payroll and benefits, travel, meetings, expense reimbursements, office parties, management discussions, reports, inspirational messages from leadership, and so on.

      All of this goes on an ordinary business-class email system that is connected to the public internet. It’s protected by the usual array of firewalls, malware scanners, and administrative tools, but it’s not totally isolated, and it’s subject to hacking attempts like any other system on the Internet. The State Department mail servers are known to have been hacked in the past, and they likely will be again in the future.

      It was this latter system that Clinton’s email was hooked into. The more secure systems, being isolated, would have been unreachable. So, in theory, there shouldn’t have been anything classified on it, and this has been the basis of Clinton’s defense all along. She’s essentially saying, “I’m not on the classified net, so no one should be sending me classified information!”

      Except of course, people did. Because when you give classified information to thousands of people, some of them will do dumb things. They’ll attend a classified meeting and then type up meeting notes and send them to the office, because they forgot that the meeting was classified. Or they’ll copy information from classified sources that they believe is now out in the open, but they’ll reveal more than they should. Or they’ll send something over the unclassified network because it’s easier and “just this once” won’t really make a difference. However unfortunate this is, it’s a normal and therefore expected occurrence. Stuff will slowly leak out over time.

      And that’s why having an external mail server is a security problem. Because even if Clinton violated no laws, her system becomes another point of attack against State Department communications. It increase the attack surface and makes the leaks happen faster. She should have known this, or someone should have explained it to her.

      • Great job.

        But of course, for the SOS to make it impossible to communicate with her except on an insecure server, it’s self-evidently absurd for her to argue “I’m not on the classified net, so no one should be sending me classified information!” In fact, it’s self-indicting, and begs the response, “Then get on the right system, you idiot!”

      • As I have mentioned in other posts, I am an I.T. professional and I have worked on federal computer systems of various types–and various classifications–for almost 20 years. I am an expert here.

        Windypundit has it exactly right, every last detail.

        I was going to write up a detailed answer about the closed infrastructure question, but I don’t need to. From a different perspective, let me also say “Thanks for the very informative reply.”

        –Dwayne

        • Thanks! I used to work with people who worked on secure systems, and I based my reply on what I remember them telling me and on a little research to fill in some blanks. I’m glad I wasn’t inadvertently making people stupider.

        • The only way you could e-mail Clinton directly was over a personal, non-secure server. She didn’t have a government account or the government issued blackberry. Her defense is beyond ridiculous.

  3. From the NYTimes.com,
    Voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.
    By THE EDITORIAL BOARD JAN. 30, 2016

    The NYTimes still supports Hillary Clinton with a glowing editorial recommendation.

    • It really is an embarrassing editorial, even to the point of saying that noting Bill’s sexual assault history in context of Hillary’s claim that all accusers have a right to be believed is unfair.

  4. In 1974, Senate Leader Hugh Scott, House Leader John Rhodes, and party war horse Barry Goldwater went to Ruchard Nixon and told him that his support was gone and that he should make his exit. I often wonder who could make that sort of visit to Clinton? I just don’t see anyone who could.

  5. Hillary went beyond whatever safeguards and leaks the system deals with and is designed to deal with. She did it knowing she wasn’t supposed to do it. She did it knowing what can happen to people who do it. She did it knowing it is illegal. She did it knowing that people’s lives could be at stake.

    She is a particularly bold faced criminal. Just the kind of criminal who gets away with it all the while other people don’t get away with it, and while everyone knows how criminal she is. And, also knowing she will never be held accountable. I can’t think of any more despicable behavior. I can think of behavior that’s just as despicable, and she’s done that as well. If she’s elected the country will be in the hands of a criminal of huge proportions.

    She makes every other candidate look like a gift of decency and rectitude. Including Bernie. This in a field of the worst prepared and least stable candidates we’ve ever been forced to choose from. In the middle of some of the most difficult problems we’ve ever faced as a nation.

    No wonder people are taking refuge in coloring books and Netflix. Even bread and circuses are too risky.

  6. I would still make book that she will NOT be prosecuted and has a 50-50 chance of being elected President. Have I mentioned lately that we are doomed?

  7. Despite all the evidence piling up, I still don’t think Hillary will be indited and I really don’t think she will drop out of the Presidential campaign. I think we are likely to witness a Presidential action that will make the legality of this issue completely disappear.

  8. “We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and deliver them to the State Department,” she said. “At the end, I chose not to keep my private, personal emails. Emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements. Condolence notes to friends, as well as yoga routines, family vacations: the other things you typically find in inboxes.”

    The above are the words of HRC explaining why she had 30,000 private emails deleted by her own people. Of course, If she had used only an approved State Department email system, she would not have had the problem of needing to delete anything. The DOS personnel would have done it for her and there would be no questions and no FBI investigation.

    But since she used the private email server, and co-mingled State Department business with her “personal” business, she now has a problem.

    Of course, by the express terms of the Classified Information NDA, there are obvious questions and potential legal consequences.

    Who combed through the original 60 thousand emails including about 1,100 emails that are now known to contain classified information? Did these people have any kind of security clearances?

    Did Bryan Pagliano, the IT guy who plead the 5th, have any kind of security clearances? Being the IT guy, one would presume he had access to everything, personal, official State Department business, and classified information.

    And too, HRC’s attorney David Kendall, who had a flash drive with some or all of the server traffic: What kind of security clearance did he have when he first had access to the traffic? (Later on, Kendall did receive some kind of security clearance from DOS but that clearance was, I believe, limited to only certain information relating to Benghazi. This was a disputed issue last I heard.)

    Who else had access to that private server and what kind of security clearances did they have?

    HRC as the Secretary of State who chose to set up the private server, is inescapably responsible for making sure that those having access to this private server traffic have proper security clearances. Nobody else is responsible for setting up the private server.

    None of these questions even begin to consider the broader questions concerning how secure the private server was against the potential hacking attacks by the Chinese, Russians, Iranians or N. Koreans. This obviously brings up many concerns about “negligent handling” of classified information.

    So, if HRC gave access to this private server to anyone who did not have the required security clearance at the time they received the classified information, that was a NDA violation and potentially a crime.

    Possibly making matters worse, if it is discovered that any of the 30 thousand deleted “personal business” emails are found be evidence of “pay for play” through the Clinton Foundation on Department of State business, then HRC will be in serious legal jeopardy not to mention politically dead.

    • “Who combed through the original 60 thousand emails including about 1,100 emails that are now known to contain classified information?”

      The answer to this has shifted a bit: originally, the campaign put out (they had a talking points memo on the campaign website) that computer searches were done to identify possible government records. It was pointed out by people who do this professionally that such searches are certain to include some documents that are irrelevant and omit others that are relevant. The story then changed to the 60,000 being reviewed by one of attorney Kendall’s associates. The interesting point there is that such a review at the rate of 200 per hour (literally just glancing at the documents) would take 300 hours, which is a very good billing month even for young DC lawyers. If this was actually the procedure used, then there should be a non-privileged billing record unequivocally evidencing it.

  9. From:

    http://nypost.com/2016/01/31/this-was-all-planned-former-ig-says-hillary-state-dept-are-lying/

    “Added [Howard J.] Krongard [State Department I.G. from 2005 to 2008]: “She’s trying to distance herself from the conversion from SIPRNet to [the nonsecure] NIPRNet and to her server, but she’s throwing her staffers under the bus.”

    For one, he says, any criminal referral to the Justice Department from the FBI “will have to go through four loyal Democrat women” — Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, who heads the department’s criminal division; Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; and top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

    Even if they accept the referral, he says, the case quickly and quietly will be plea-bargained down to misdemeanors punishable by fines in a deal similar to the one Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, secured for Gen. David Petraeus. In other words, a big slap on the wrist.

    “He knows the drill,” Krongard said of Kendall..
    Still, “It will never get to an indictment,” Krongard said.”

    A very depressing analysis and hypothesis. I remember the Petraeus plea bargain was roundly criticized here. It may not take long for that blunder to come home to roost. I for one am not at all sure even if the FBI and Justice Department and Intelligence Services people stage a revolt, with the Democrats and the media behind HRC, I doubt another Watergate will eventuate. Say what you will about the merits of the respective cases (Watergate and HRC’s emails) the Democrats and the media drove Watergate. They will be MIA in the HRC email felonies. I think President Obama and Valerie Jarrett may just “go for it” and let HRC proceed to the nomination. After all, “the bear is loose.” They will say it’s just “prosecutorial discretion.” After all, the DOJ is an executive branch and President Obama is the chief executive, blah, blah, blah. It will be the perfect screw you to everyone they perceive as their tormentors and will be like throwing raw meat to their leonine supporters. Can you imagine the unbridled joy on the sets at MSNBC when the DOJ announces it will not proceed to prosecuting the case?

    • It might even be followed up by an announcement by the Huffington Post that they will no longer cover the story since it’s now a closed issue.

  10. I’m a little late to the table, but I was dumb enough to go into the comments section on one of the Yahoo articles this weekend. The biggest mistake that most internet providers made was to allow anyone to say anything about anything. However, the twenty or so minutes I won’t get back provided a true if depressing insight into people’s true nature. These insights should tell us all we need to know about Hilary supporters and supporters of all the other wacky candidates.

    1. People are hateful – they still hate those different than them, on both sides of every spectrum of color, faith, whatever, and if they can get away with making that known, they will.
    2. People are biased. For the most part they have already made up their minds before they post, and nothing is going to change them.
    3. People are partisan. They know who they like and what they like, and those whos and whats get every possible break, every possible favorable inference, even breaks that don’t make sense. They also know who and what they don’t like, and those whos and whats never even get listened to, leave alone getting the benefit of the doubt.
    4. People are immature. They almost never pass up the opportunity for a cheap sneer or jeer, and freely resort to crude sexual or scatological humor and attacks on others they disagree with.
    5. People are arrogant. This is partly #2 and #3, but they also easily default to the position that anyone who disagrees with them is either stupid or bad, and therefore worthy of nothing but contempt.
    6. People are lazy. They don’t want to do the work of knowing or understanding their own positions or the positions of others and frequently don’t see the point of doing that work when a bumper-sticker slogan superimposed on a picture or a link to an article that confirms their biases only requires a click or two.

    • You left out “A lot of people are incapable of rational thought.” Here was a quote from a Gail Sheehy column about views on Clinton in the NYT over the weekend:

      “Among those unlikables consistently repeated to me by women who are conflicted about her: not authentic; can’t trust her; she lies; she’s establishment; she’s a hawk.”

      WHAT? If you can’t trust her and she lies, where’s the conflict, you cretins?

  11. Has anyone ever heard of Stuxnet?

    http://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/

    Basically, earlier this decade, there was a bit of a scare going around the internet…. There was a virus making the rounds, infecting computers and replicating at an amazing speed. No one seemed to know what it did, but the concern was that the worm would activate and take out a huge portion of the digital world. It was especially scary, since once found, it was given to some of the best and brightest in the tech world to reverse engineer, and it took almost a year to complete a process that usually took days.

    What the worm actually did was two things: It scanned the system that it was in, and if the system did not trigger it’s secondary programming, it replicated itself on every device connected to it, with a soft spot for USB thumb drives. If it was in one of the devices it was specifically designed for, the secondary programming kicked in and rewrote some code.

    The only devices that Stuxnet would affect were the exact make and model of nuclear centrifuge used in Iran’s nuclear program, the code rewrites caused the spinning motors to speed up and slow down slightly, causing the motors to prematurely fail.

    But wait, Iran’s nuclear program has a secure system, you might say. And you’d be right! The government systems were very much separate from the private systems. Government employees apparently liked to get around the security and take work home with them by putting files on…. you guessed it… Thumb drives. The thumb drives would be infected from their home computers and they’d bring the virus to work.

    To this day we don’t know who coded Struxnet, but the two most common theories are the US government or Israel. Regardless, it’s widely seen as one of the first shots over the bow in a new age of covert operations.

    Why is this germane to this conversation? Because it highlights the importance of not using private computers to handle sensitive government material. Ever.

    • This is great stuff, incredible. Write an op-ed or other article with this information, the theme cast as your last paragraph, and see who will print it. Better yet, send your post to Fox News (I know, I know); they would jump on it. Send it also to CNN and watch it be buried…

  12. Does anyone really think the political left will allow some “trivial non-issue” such as emails to stop them from being the party that puts the first female President into the oval office? Remember, in the eyes of the entire political left, this email scandal is all a right wing conspiracy to wrongly besmirch Hillary and stop their righteous plan to make her the first female President.

    This is President Clinton’s wife, President Clinton is actively campaigning for his wife, Hillary Clinton is Obama’s only real “moderate” hope to continue his policies and push them to the nest inevitable step. Obama and Hillary know full well that Sanders will not be able to achieve what they all really want with his “everything is a nail” and he’s a hammer approach. It’s quite curious that neither Sanders or O’Malley are using the email issue as a campaign issue, this kind of thing is right up the alley of the political left; everyone knows good and well that this would be front and center if it wasn’t Hillary Clinton in the hot seat. Neither of the Clinton’s or President Obama seem to be concerned in the slightest about this issue and the other Democratic Party candidates don’t seem to be really concerned about this issue either; personally I think there have been some behind the scenes Presidential related deals/promises made on behalf of Hillary Clinton; the deck is being stacked. Personally I think Sanders and O’Malley are both campaigning for Vice-President and I’m not sure which one will get it but it’ll probably be Sanders to draw in that ever growing crowd of Socialist minded voters.

    After watching the last 20+ years, I think the political left has completely stripped away all their morals, they are truly morally bankrupt now and they will ignore or justify anything to achieve their goal; “the ends justify the means” is not just a meme that they use against the political right, it’s a way of life in the minds of the political left; period. Yes, that’s what I’ve seen and that’s exactly how corrupt and immorally low I think the political left has stooped. I’d be willing to bet the farm that there is an active plan in place and an inevitable spot where the email issue will suddenly and legally just go away, and the whole thing will get twisted into a massive anti-GOP campaign smear to get people to vote against Republicans. I don’t think it matters whether Hillary is exonerated with the stroke of a Presidential pen or some other yet unknown maneuver, but I’m sure the political left has already got all the “reasonable” justifications and rationalizations lined up to present to the American people, we just haven’t seen them all – yet. I’m also waiting for the left to start playing the inevitable race card for anyone who’s opposed to Hillary because she will continue, and likely expand, Obama’s policies; I suspect this will be a wide-spread attack on the GOP after she gets the nomination.

    As I’ve said before; the political left has absolutely no plan to, and really doesn’t need to, get anyone outside their solid base of voters to vote for their ideology, all they have to do is get a majority of voters outside their base to vote against the GOP ticket. All the Democratic Party has to do is create reasonable doubt about the GOP ticket, and/or the GOP in general, has the capability to run the office of the President of the United States and the government in a “reasonable manner” and Trump has been actively providing the GOP opposition with loads of verbal ammunition to “prove” the GOP is anything but reasonable. Every unethical word that spews forth from the roots of Trumps immoral soul will help the Democratic ticket, it’s irrelevant whether it’s intentional help from Trump or not, the result will be the same. Trump is the perfect “plant” to keep the White House in the hands of the Democratic Party.

    I used to be quite independent; however, the immorality of the political left, primarily since the mid 1990’s, has been shoving me towards the right. My problem with the 2016 campaign is the complete lack of ethics of Trump and how so many on the political right have washed their hands of logic and values in favor of such an immoral man. I’m now actively seeing the same things happening in the Republican Party that I’ve seen in the Democratic Party, the extremes are taking over and it’s my belief that the political left has much more experience with using the immoral extremes than the political right, the political left will win the immoral extremes game.

  13. Why do so many people defend Hillary?

    Just take a look at these beliefs held by large chunks of the American electorate:

    If anyone wonders why Donald Trump is even electable, consider the folllwing:

    – Employers impose their religion and violate women’s rights if they refuse to offer health care coverage that includes contraception without co-pay, but somehow do not do this by refusing to offer coupons for BevMo.
    Citizens United means that corporations are people.
    – Requiring government officials to do their jobs violates religious freedom.
    – Universities are perfectly competent to investigate rape claims
    – The Department of Education Office of Civil Rights has the power to interpret law.
    – Hate speech is not free speech.
    – A public university’s code of conduct overrides the First Amendment.

    In various comments on Facebook and Disqus, I have read examples of all of the above.

  14. With exemplars like these, I am surprised that anyone doubts that politicians like Hillary will “move on” forever, without being taken down, laid low, as low as they can go, by someone. By “whatever means are necessary.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.