RUTHFULLY YOURS

James Comey’s rationale for not referring Hillary Clinton’s email crimes to the Justice Department rested almost entirely on a single, quite thin, legal and ethical plank, which was that she did not act intentionally when she sent and received classified emails over her home-brew server. Though his argument for deferring prosecution was mostly specious, it did contain at least a shred of credibility in that as Comey described the situation to the American public and Congress, Hillary had no motive to intentionally put American national security at risk. However, the recent evidentiary revelation (many would say confirmation) that Hillary established the server with the deliberate intent of shielding her illicit influence-peddling for her family “Foundation” while secretary of state shows that the issue of her motivation could not be seen by any “reasonable” prosecutor as exculpatory. Comey’s refusal to recommend prosecution, while knowing these facts at the time, proves he was not reasonable, and also that he is incompetent and culpable for not doing so.

At Comey’s July 5 briefing to the nation, he attempted to justify his actions. His first claim in this regard was that the FBI, having uncovered through laborious effort many work-related emails that Clinton did not turn over to State, “found no evidence that any of the work related emails were deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Then Comey noted that Hillary’s attorneys were deliberately overbroad in determining which emails were work-related and “relied on header information” and “search terms” rather than reading them, and that when they finished, the lawyers “cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” Despite this, Comey then said he had “reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.” Then, before launching into a description of all the ways Hillary and her minions were “extremely careless,” Comey said, “[W]e did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate the laws governing the handling of classified information[.]”

Comey concluded his statement with several more references to intent, and the lack thereof. He famously said:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.

Less famously but just as importantly:

[W]e cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

The first of these to statements is a specious rationalization. The second is a bald-faced lie in support of that rationalization.

The Standard Bearer of Bull Connor’s Party Calls Trump Racist

A Hillary Clinton campaign video featuring Confederate flags and goobers in white sheets ominously informs, “If Trump wins, they could be running the country.”

Mike Tyson didn’t bite Evander Holyfield’s ears because the knockout artist felt he was winning.

Such flouting of the Marquess of Queensberry rules of politics (a much rougher sport than boxing) coming in late summer rather than mid fall demonstrates either desperation, deviousness, or both. Though Clinton holds a lead — sometimes slight, sometimes sizable — in recent polls, she suffered through one of the worst weeks of her campaign.

The Associated Press proved that donating money to her “charity” served as the best way to secure a meeting with her as secretary of state. Eighty-five of the 154 people outside of government successful in gaining face time with the secretary did so after donating to the Clinton Foundation.

Rather than answer questions, Clinton attempted to change the subject by going below the belt. “Donald Trump has built his campaign on prejudice and paranoia,” Mrs. Clinton maintained Thursday in a Reno speech. “He’s taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over one of America’s two major political parties.”

The depiction of a Queens Kleagle strikes as far-fetched. The world of mullets, meth, and monster trucks seems as far removed from Trump Tower as one can imagine. But Clinton-Kaine seeks to strangely make it all stick. And hey, he fired Omarosa, didn’t he?

The chutzpah of the negative campaigning appears especially audacious when considering the history of the Democratic Party and, to a lesser extent, its standard bearer.

Hillary Clinton called Senator Robert Byrd not a racist but her “mentor.” From the beginning of the Carter presidency until the end of the Reagan administration, Hillary’s party looked to the former Ku Klux Klan Exalted Cyclops as its exalted leader in the United States Senate.

Hillary Clinton accepted the Margaret Sanger Award in 2009. “I admire Margaret Sanger enormously,” she told Planned Parenthood, “her courage, her tenacity, her vision.” But this vision included blaming Jews and Italians for causing “the multiplication of the unfit in this country,” judging “the Aboriginal Australian” the “lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development,” and using the n-word in private correspondence. If she sounds like an ideal speaker for a KKK rally in some barn, that’s because Sanger really once spoke at a KKK rally in some barn.

On August 19, 2016, Douglas Ernst, of The Washington Times, reported that William Bennett, former secretary of education and author of the Virtues books, declared that holier-than-thou so-called Republicans and conservatives should put the interests of our country above their “vanity” and “moral superiority.” Bennett said: “Donald Trumpdoes not need to speak to the ‘Never Trumpers,’ some of my friends – or maybe former friends – who suffer from a terrible case of moral superiority and put their own vanity and taste above the interest of the country,”

There are many articles and comments here at American Thinker and other websites setting forth the reasons why we should vote for Trump to defeat Hillary. A brief summary of the reasons is that Hillary is a lying crook who will be the third term of Obama. Obamacare will be here to stay, and a Hillary Supreme Court will weaken the Second Amendment by upholding state and local laws on owning and carrying firearms. The nanny state will grow with more regulations. There will be no wall on the southern border, and illegal immigration will continue. Further, Hillary will allow immigration of Syrian and other Middle Eastern “refugees” without proper vetting, which will increase terrorist attacks in our country.

Hillary’s past misdeeds are too much to recount, such as Whitewater and covering up Bill’s rape of Juanita Broaddrick and other sexual misconduct. Worse are the current email scandal, where she destroyed emails relating to her work as secretary of state, and her activities on behalf of the Clinton Foundation. But the absolute worst is her failure to provide the requested security at Benghazi and then compounding it by lying that the cause was a video. She lied to help Obama win the 2012 election and to maintain her political viability. And now she runs an ad attacking Trump for saying that Mrs. Khan had nothing to say while Mr. Khan attacked Trump at the Democrat convention. Hillary has no shame and no conscience, and she will do and say anything to make money and get power.

The NeverTrumpers act, as Bennett said, from “moral superiority.” They say it is only a choice of the lesser evil, and they cannot vote for evil. This is complete nonsense. There is nothing evil about Trump. You may not like some of his words and statements, but there is nothing evil about his conduct. Covering up a rape, using the office of secretary of state to make money, destroying the email evidence and lying about it, and lying to the mother of Sean Smith are evil. There is no moral equivalence between the conduct of Hillary and the words of Trump.

The NeverTrumpers do not act from “moral superiority” because there are not legitimate facts to support a claim that the choice between Hillary and Trump is a choice between two evils.

As Bennett says, if you care about the best interests and welfare of our country, then you have to vote for Trump to defeat Hillary. It is common sense based on the facts.

Note from Dr. John A…..”Bill gets a cool $17.6 million (!!) merely for being an ‘inspiration’ (!!) to students at a for-profit university; university gets favourable treatment from the Administration while Hillary is Secretary of State..”
It’s got all the makings of a conspiracy theory.

After Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Bill Clinton received $17.6 million in payments from a for-profit university. Since that time, another organization with a connection to that university received almost $90 million in grants from an agency that’s part of the State Department.

Critics of the Clintons have cried foul. But is there really something shady going on?

There is no shortage of connections between the Clintons and Laureate International Universities. Laureate is a for-profit university — the same kind Hillary Clinton has railed against for saddling students with huge debts.

“[Students] find little support once they actually enroll, or they graduate and discover that, when it comes to finding a job, their degree isn’t worth what they thought,” she told an audience last year.

Laureate has about one million students worldwide, mostly in Latin America, with five schools in the United States.

Laureate has faced investigations in Brazil over whether students were getting what they paid for, and in Chile concerning its for-profit status. U.S. students have complained the school failed to deliver on its promised degree programs.

In addition, three of the five schools Laureate operates in the United States are under what the U.S. Department of Education calls “heightened cash monitoring” because of potential problems with its “financial responsibility.” The school told CNN it disagrees with the government’s methodology.

The Clinton campaign told CNN that the candidate intends to hold for-profit colleges accountable.

“Hillary Clinton has made it clear that all for-profit institutions should be held to the same standards and she will crack down on law-breaking for-profits by expanding support for federal regulators to enforce laws against deceptive marketing, fraud, and other illegal practices.”

Political suicide is a terrible thing to witness. But that’s what Texas Senator Ted Cruz might have done with his disastrous speech at the GOP convention last month:

A new poll suggests there is at least one fellow Republican who could unseat U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018: Rick Perry.

The former Texas governor would beat Cruz by 9 percentage points, according to the forthcoming survey from the Democratic-leaning firm Public Policy Polling. Set to be released later today, the poll found Perry would get 46 percent of the vote and Cruz 37 percent, with 18 percent saying they are not sure whom they would support.

Perry is the only challenger that PPP tested who would defeat Cruz. The poll indicates he would trounce two other Republicans talked about as potential opponents, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick by 22 points and U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul by 32 points. He would also beat two Democrats, U.S. Housing Secretary Julián Castro and former gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, both by 12 points.

In general, the poll shows Texas Republicans want Cruz to be their candidate for Senate again in 2018 — but not overwhelmingly. Fifty percent said they would like Cruz to be the nominee, while 43 percent said would like someone else to carry the banner.

Hardly surprising. Cruz didn’t win many friends during this past primary season, and may well have made himself some unnecessary enemies instead. There is much to admire about the Texas senator and his professed fidelity to the Constitution, but whether he has the personality or temperament to run for national office is yet to be determined.

Hillary Clinton may regret her attempt to tar Donald Trump as a racist by linking him to the alt right movement (whatever that is – no such formal organization exists). She went full Southern Poverty Law Center on the Trump campaign, tarring people she disagrees with as racists. (As AT readers know, the SPLC has made a lot of money soliciting contributions from well-meaning people, but has been running out of racists to fight (because racists on the left are invisible to it). So it has resorted to tarring Dr. Ben Carson on its “extremist watch list,” an allegation so absurd that it was forced to issue a totally unconvincing apology.)

In Hillary’s judgment, she use the tactic of guilt-by-association to connect Trump to Steve Bannon to articles published by the website Bannon headed, and those headlines back to Trump. Normally, guilt-by-association is a tactic the left decries as unfair – for instance making any connection between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers.

The problem Hillary faces is she is giving the al right exactly what it wants: attention. And once the alt right gets attention, it starts raising questions in the minds of people that Hillary and the left would prefer remain unspoken.

If there is anyone who can be seen as a spokesman for the alt right, it would be Milo Yiannopoulos, two of whose headlines on Breitbart articles she quoted in her Reno, NV (interesting choice of venue: the city that first gained fame as “America’s divorce capital”).

Milo has fired back in characteristic fashion:

This is precisely what the alt-right is responding to. They post offensive memes because they know it’ll wind up boring, grouchy grannies like Hillary. The speech codes and political correctness of the Left are what has given rise to this vibrant new movement, what has given rise to Donald Trump’s extraordinary popularity, and what gives rise to me — and my fabulous headlines!

What exactly made the Clinton campaign go “race card” on Trump?

It seems a bit early for such a card. After all, isn’t she supposed to be leading by 10 points and headed for a landslide?

Do you recall Reagan ’84, Nixon ’72, or even Clinton ’96 sounding so desperate or attacking their opponents like this? They usually said little or had their helpers engage in attacks.

So what’s going on? Let me give you a couple of theories:

1) The Clinton campaign must have internal polling that it is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, or at least some information that her lead is melting because of all the bad news. They may also (and that’s speculation on my part) have polling that shows that there is zero excitement in the African American communities for her campaign. In other words, she will get 90% but the turnout may be very low! I remember analyzing the 2016 Texas primary on Telemundo Dallas last spring and we spent much of the night talking about the lousy Hispanic turnout. Excitement and Hillary Clinton do not go together!

2) The Clinton campaign may fear some bad news coming. Julian Assange told the media that bad stuff is coming. He may be bluffing or engaging in self-promotion. However, the recent AP story suggests that Assange may put the bow on this scandal. My guess is that some emails may confirm that the State Department and the Clinton Foundation were just a bit too close for comfort. At some point, even the friendly media will call on her to answer some questions!