FBI won’t recommend charges against @HillaryClinton. R.I.P. Rule of Law

July 5, 2016
Above the rules.

Guilty as sin, free as a bird.

This is a very depressing moment:

FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday that his agency would not recommend criminal charges against anyone involved with Hillary Clinton’s private email network, even after finding that Clinton’s team was “extremely careless” in handling classified emails.

“We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges,” he told reporters in Washington. Comey added that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges.

Still, he said Clinton sent or received dozens of emails that were classified at the time they were sent and noted the former secretary of state did not turn over thousands of work-related emails to the State Department.

Comey said 110 emails contained information that was classified at the time they were sent, including eight emails that were top secret. That finding marked a direct contradiction to Clinton’s previous statements, in which she said she never sent any information that was classified at the time it was sent.

Comey said the investigation focused on whether Clinton violated federal statutes prohibiting the removal of classified information from secure areas, which is a crime whether that is done intentionally or inadvertently.

I have to agree with attorney Gabriel Malor:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

This is the statute in question:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer-
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

How, I ask, is Hillary Clinton’s unsecured server, which was in her mansion in Chappaqua, in any way, shape or form a “proper place of custody?” And how in God’s name do any of her actions while in charge of national secrets as Secretary of State constitute anything other than “gross negligence?” General Petraeus was prosecuted for less. The information that passed through her servers is likely in the hands of the Russians and Chinese — and who know who else? Clandestine human and technical sources were almost certainly compromised by her “gross negligence.” Intent is immaterial: the existence of the unauthorized server itself is the smoking gun here.

Mere words aren’t enough to convey my disgust.

The Rule of Law may not be dead in this country, but it is gut-shot and bleeding.

RELATED: One small smidgen of good news. While declining to prosecute, Director Comey’s statement point by point demolished all Hillary’s claims of innocence. Not that anyone seems to care that she’s a congenital liar.

 


Shamefully exploiting an atrocity, Donald Trump displays his megalomania

March 27, 2016
Fine as long as the mouth stays shut

The only man to solve the problem of jihad?

Today is Easter, one of the holiest days of the Christian calendar. It was marred by news of a massacre in Pakistan when a Muslim suicide bomber attacked a park that was a favorite for local Christians and killed scores of women and children:

A suicide bomber killed at least 65 people, mostly women and children, at a park in Lahore on Sunday in an attack claimed by a Pakistani Taliban faction which said it had targeted Christians.

More than 300 other people were wounded, officials said.

The explosion occurred in the parking area of Gulshan-e-Iqbal Park close to children’s swings. The park is a popular site for members of Lahore’s Christian community, many of whom had gone there to celebrate the Easter weekend holiday.

Witnesses said they saw body parts strewn across the parking lot once the dust had settled after the blast.

These women and children were targeted because of their religion by someone who believed he was acting in accord with his religion in furtherance of a 1,400-year old war of domination. It is a war that has cost thousands of lives here in America. One would expect anyone running to be our Chief of State and Commander in Chief would at least have the decency to express sympathy with the victims.

That “anyone,” however, does not include Donald Trump, who tweeted the following:

I alone can solve.” That, ladies and gentlemen, is called “megalomania,” and that came straight from Trump’s verified account. No need to analyze all the ways it’s wrong. Res ipsa loquitur — the thing speaks for itself.

How any rational American  considering the candidates can look at that and think Trump is in any imaginable way qualified to be president and fit to command the most powerful armed forces the world has ever seen is beyond me. He makes Hillary Clinton look positively statesmanlike, while Barack Obama is a picture of humility and self-awareness by comparison.

He doesn’t need to be sent to the White House. He should be sent to the madhouse.

PS: In case Trump comes to his senses and deletes that tweet, here’s a capture:

Trump Pakistan megalomania

 

I’d say “unbelievable,” but these days that’s all too believable. And appalling.


I hope @JimGeraghty will forgive me, but you need to read this. #NeverTrump

March 16, 2016
Fine as long as the mouth stays shut

Anyone but.

As penance, I suggest –nay, I implore you!– to subscribe to his Morning Jolt newsletter.

And it’s from this morning’s edition that I copiously excerpt the following, which anyone who seriously thinks Trump is a reasonable choice or that he has a chance of beating Hillary in November needs to read:

All the polling indicates Rubio would have crushed Hillary Clinton in a general election. Cruz looks like he’s got a shot — not a great shot, but a shot. Donald Trump’s general-election numbers are sinking like a stone. (If you can stand him, John Kasich matches up quite well.)

Trump’s fans walk around with great confidence about his general election strengths for which there is no real evidence. They’re convinced he will win over traditional blue-collar Democrats. So far, he doesn’t. They’re convinced he will win over African Americans. Polling in February puts his support among African Americans between 4 and 10 percent. (Romney won 6 percent.) They’re convinced he’ll win a lot more Latinos than everyone thinks. (He’s currently at less than half Mitt Romney’s level of support.) They’re convinced he’ll win Democratic states like New York, New Jersey, and Michigan. (He trails by 18 to 23 points in those states in the most recent polls.)

Trump fans gleefully point to his 7.5 million votes in the primary so far, and forget that the universe of voters in the general election will be on a completely different scale — probably 130 million voters. (Mitt Romney won 10 million primary votes.)

When you mention Trump’s awful head-to-head polling with Hillary Clinton, you hear a lot of references to Ronald Reagan’s trailing Jimmy Carter in March 1980. Ronald Reagan never had the unfavorable numbers Trump has now.

When everybody says, “Oh, the pundits and the elected officials and the other campaigns didn’t see the GOP grassroots embrace of Trump coming . . .” well, yeah; the pundits and the elected officials and the other campaigns thought better of the GOP grassroots.

 

People who support Trump like to say that not backing him guarantees a Hillary Clinton presidency. To the contrary, nominating The Donald almost certainly guarantees a crushing Republican defeat.

But there is still time to derail the “Trump train.”

Trump plays to fear, resentment, and anger. Instead of channeling it in a positive direction, he brings out the worst in people. He is a con artist who poisons everything he touches.

Ask yourselves, what evidence, what smidgen of a hint of proof, is there that Donald Trump would make a good president, or even a mediocre one? You think Trump will “hire good people” and take their advice? When has he in his colossal egotism ever shown that he listens to anyone but yes-men?

Electing Hillary Clinton would be a disaster, but choosing Donald Trump would be a catastrophe — first for conservatism, then for the nation if he’s elected.

We have a good choice. Take a deep breath, let go of your anger, and make it.


Did Hillary Clinton consider fomenting unrest against Israel in 2011?

January 11, 2016
Above the rules.

You can trust me.

That is, did our then-Secretary of State and current Democratic front-runner for the presidency contemplate inciting Palestinian unrest as a club against our closest ally in the region?

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the answer is yes:

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton considered a secret plan created by her then-advisers to foment unrest among Palestinian citizens and spark protests in order to push the Israeli government back to the negotiating table, according to emails released as part of the investigation into the Democratic presidential frontrunner’s private email server.

In a Dec, 18, 2011, email, former U.S. ambassador to Israel Thomas Pickering suggested that Clinton consider a plan to restart then-stalled peace negotiations by kickstarting Palestinian demonstrations against Israel.

Pickering described the effort as a potential “game changer in the region,” recommending that the United States undertake a clandestine campaign to generate unrest. Clinton requested that his email be printed.

“What will change the situation is a major effort to use non-violent protests and demonstrations to put peace back in the center of people’s aspirations as well as their thoughts, and use that to influence the political leadership,” Pickering wrote.

“This is far from a sure thing, but far, in my humble view, from hopeless,” he continued. “Women can and ought to be at the center of these demonstrations. Many men and others will denigrate the idea. I don’t and I don’t think that was your message.”

Palestinian women, he noted, are less likely than men to resort to violence.

“It must be all and only women. Why? On the Palestinian side the male culture is to use force,” Pickering wrote, comparing the effort to the protests in Egypt that deposed former leader Hosni Mubarak. “Palestinian men will not for long patiently demonstrate — they will be inclined over time and much too soon to be frustrated and use force. Their male culture comes close to requiring it.”

Pickering noted that the administration must keep its role in the demonstration a secret, so as not to aggravate ties with Israel.

Gee. Oh, gosh. I do so wonder why the might think the Israelis might object, just because we had a hand in inciting demonstrations against them with utterly unpredictable consequences and with a huge potential to blow up in everyone’s face?

This is one of those revelations that shows how dangerously incompetent Clinton and her team of clowns is, and why she should come nowhere near the presidency.

Just what in Heaven’s name were they thinking? This was near the start of the so-called “Arab Spring,” with demonstrations against secular dictatorships launched in the name (ostensibly) of liberal reform. Instead, what we got was a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, the most important Arab state and a key US ally, which had to be removed in a military coup. Other countries fell into turmoil and even civil war. It has, so far, been an almost-unmitigated disaster for the region, with consequences spreading globally.

And yet Clinton and her advisers thought they could safely harness this to “shame’ the Israelis into making peace? (Newsflash: It’s not Israel that’s been the big obstacle to peace, here.) Did they seriously think for one moment that such demonstrations wouldn’t be hijacked by radical organizations? Did it not occur to them that an “honor and shame” culture such as the Arabs’ could never let their women take the lead for long? That violence would be almost inevitable and that implementing this cockamamie plan risked a new intifada — or worse? Did they think they could control all the forces they would be stirring up?

Against an ally??

How well did the Clinton-Obama war in Libya go, again?

Who’d they get this plan from? The Underpants Gnomes?

PS: Homework question for the House and Senate foreign relations committees — Was any part of this plan ever implemented?


From the farcical to the surreal: Putin endorses a grateful Trump

December 17, 2015
Fine as long as the mouth stays shut

Endorsed by dictators

When did I cross into Bizarro World?

Russia’s strongman took time out from bumping off political adversaries, putting his muscle in Iran’s service, and annexing other countries’ territory to praise GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump as “an outstanding and talented personality.”

A grateful Trump reacted: “It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.”

So, the currently leading Republican candidate is honored to be endorsed by a man intimidating and dismembering the countries around him, having opponents and critics assassinated, and generally acting like a global thug.

Analyst Tom Nichols offered this apt analogy:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

I won’t go as far as Tom did in another tweet and call Trump a “traitor,” but I do think he is a contemptible buffoon — and a dangerous one, should he win the nomination and the presidency.

Are we sure Rod Serling didn’t introduce this story?


Donald Trump won’t rule out religious identification cards

November 19, 2015
Fine as long as the mouth stays shut

Fine as long as the mouth stays shut

No. Not just no, but Hell, no.

Yahoo News asked Trump whether his push for increased surveillance of American Muslims could include warrantless searches. He suggested he would consider a series of drastic measures.

“We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule,” Trump said. “And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

Yahoo News asked Trump whether this level of tracking might require registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion. He wouldn’t rule it out.

“We’re going to have to — we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,” Trump said when presented with the idea. “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”

This is the kind of crap that can only come from someone either woefully ignorant of History or suffering from a painfully tin ear.

I take a backseat to no one in my dislike for Islam and my wariness of jihad infiltration; I do not think we should be admitting Syrian refugees because, among other reasons, our ability to vet them for ties to jihadist groups has significant weaknesses. Just ask the FBI Director. To let them in is to take unconscionable risk with the safety of the American people.

But religious ID cards? Even to have that tossed out without immediately dismissing it, to include it in a range of reasonable possibilities, should disqualify him as a serious candidate for dog-catcher, let alone the presidency.

Not only is the idea offensive in itself (1), but I can already imagine the Democrats making hay out of this, whether he wins the nomination or not:

“We condemn the outrageous and racist suggestion of the Republican front-runner that Muslims should carry special identification.”

And picture Clinton, Obama, Wasserman-Schultz, Schumer, and every other Democrat intoning that over and over again in every venue they could find.  Imagine every single Jewish group in the US rightfully denouncing this, even if they loathe the Democrats’ treatment of Israel. Pity the poor serious Republican candidates who will likely have to answer question after question about what this moron said, rather than focusing on the crucial issues of the campaign.

Are we sure Donald Trump isn’t a deep-cover agent provocateur for the Democrats?

Via Jonah Goldberg, to whom I give the last word:

Now, I’ll bet Trump walks some of this back in the next 48 hours, just as he did with his initial call to admit Syrian refugees and other statements that have departed his posterior before his brain could catch them. But let’s be clear, getting the federal government involved in tracking and labeling citizens’ religious affiliations is abhorrent on the merits and a huge invitation to profound mischief down the road. Creating databases on all members of any religion is a terrible idea as well.

(…)

But I have little interest in going so far … that we actually resemble the straw men the Left has been screaming about all along.

Exactly.

Footnote:
(1) What else, Donald? Shall we make them wear green crescents on their clothing?

 


(Video) Saudi sheikh gets hot and bothered about the virgins of Paradise

November 18, 2015

I linked to this yesterday, but it really needs to be an entry of its own. A Saudi sheikh, one Yahya Al-Jana’, tells his followers why one should abstain from chasing slutty, uncovered women in this world: because in the afterlife they’ll get slutty virgins who really dig guys who blow themselves up, slit kuffar (1) throats, and burn people alive.

via MEMRI

Do you get the impression Sheikh Yahya thinks about this a lot?

He’s not alone. Go through Memri’s archives, or those of PalWatch, and you’ll find plenty of Islamic preachers waxing lyrical about the sexual rewards awaiting those who kill in Allah’s name. In one of the most sexually repressive cultures on Earth, this is one way they recruit young men for the jihad — “God will give you women!”

Freud would have a field day.

Footnote:
(1) The plural of the word “kufr,” meaning “unbeliever.” That’s us.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 18,212 other followers