Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Comey, don't calls us weasels.

I just now followed the link on Drudge to Politico article titled:
Emotional FBI Director Claims Wasn't In Tank For Clinton...

In which Comey pleads not to call FBI weasels. As one reads, one meaning me, one tends to fisk line for line. It’s ridiculous. There is too much, too overwhelming much, to the contrary.

Weasel.
Weasel.
Weasel.
Weasel.
Weasel.
Weasel.
Weasel.
Weasel.
Weasel.
Weasel!

And then, for the sake of one’s sanity, DO NOT read through the Politico’s comments or risk one’s incipient and suppressed murderous rage explode to the surface as an oil geyser in the early days of Texas wildcat drilling, and get all that slick black goo all over the place and covering your entire self but with none of the fortune. Where "one" means me.

There are too many better things to do with one’s life (meaning mine) like this baked sweet potato and apple casserole with brown sugar and butter sauce with cinnamon, ginger, and Maker’s Mark Whisky. And raisins.

By way of example.

Do you know what I mean?

If you must. Let the internet do your line-by-line fisking for you. You needn't commit this to permanent memory.

If you must. The links are too much trouble to make, so c/p, and read up if you haven't already and avoid the risk being plainly dismissive as the average Political commenter. Be sure to have your shields up to protect your own personality.

Five reasons Comey hearing failed America
Seth Abramson writing for LA Progressive.

https://www.laprogressive.com/clinton-fbi-investigation/

Each of these categories are illuminated at length and in straightforward layman’s terms using everyday examples, so easily comprehended that even a progressive Democrat partisan Politico commenter can take it up. If they cared about their country so much as they care about their sinisterly corrupted party. Abramson really does lay it all out. It's a good read.

1) Comey admits that Hillary Clinton committed multiple federal felonies and misdemeanors.

2) Comey dramatically misrepresented what prosecutorial discretion looks like.

3) Comey left the indelible impression with American news-watchers that prosecutors only prosecute specific-intent crimes, and will only find a sufficient mens rea if and when a defendant has confessed.

4) Comey made it seem that the amount and quality of prosecutorial consideration he gave Clinton was normal.

5) Comey, with the rest of Congress, left the impresson much like the Supreme Court did in 2000, that the legal analyses are fundamentally political analyses.


Six most important moments from James Comey’s testimony
by Chris White writing for Law News

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/5-revealing-moments-from-fbi-director-james-comeys-congressional-testimony/

Each category here is elaborated nicely enough for any American reader to understand the extent of the damage done to trust in government in this country and to agree that prosecution is warranted but evaded for unacceptable political reasoning. Albeit maybe not so for Politico’s commenters nor for Canadian citizens, or for British, or Mexican nationals, nor European readers. But none of that matters.

While reading we’re reminded again that Politico.com itself is already corrupted by colluding with the pervasive and hopelessly corrupted and corrupting Clinton Crime Syndicate™.

1) “Gross Negligence” was not a key determination in deciding whether to bring charges in this case.

2 Hillary Clinton was not “sophisticated enough” to understand the classification system.

3) Congress will submit a referral to the FBI asking for an investigation into whether Hillary Clinton lied under oath.

4) Director Comey made it clear that any other government employee who did this would face serious consequences.

5) Hillary Clinton’s lawyers did not have security clearances when they sorted through her classified emails.

6) Director Comey refused to comment on the existence of a second FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

That’s enough for now but there is so very much more. I haven’t seen any reference to Hillary Clinton insisting on her own private server for the purpose of avoiding FOIA request in order to hide her illegal and corrupted foundation activities whereby services of State, that is her taking personal ownership of your State Department for her personal financial gain, and for laundering unreasonable speaking fees by her corrupted husband, one-time United States president to the tune of half a billion U.S. dollars where for every dollar that goes in six cents goes out to fulfill its stated purpose.

Not seen:
Hillary’s aides and Colorado company immunity.
Hillary’s avoiding security briefing.
Hillary insisting server for convenience when it was actually much more inconvenient.
Hillary demanding a private server against persistent advice of high level aides.
Obama stating flatly he heard about this through the news while using it himself under a fake name.
Hillary destroying telephones.
Hillary exposing top secret information to workers and friends without clearance
Hillary carelessly exposing state secrets to foreign governments.
Hillary needing help with simple procedures
Hillary reclassifying email so that it can be transmitted
Hillary’s combining state work with her foundation
Hillary hiding public property and her activities from FOIA requests
Hillary covering her criminal trail by destroying evidence
Hillary tampering with investigations
Hillary corrupting entire U.S. government departments though Democrat loyalty.
Hillary playing stupid about the whole mess

[problems with Comey’s investigaton]

https://www.google.com/search?q=problems+with+comey%27s+investigation&num=30&client=safari&rls=en&gbv=1&sei=mTLsV9_3O4GsjwOEsYiAAw

https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../hillary-clintons-email-problems-might-be -even-worse-than-we-thought/

www.wnd.com/.../comey-has-long-history-of-clinton-related-cases/

Whitewater to Benghazi: A primer on Bill and Hillary Clinton …
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/...the.../396182/

James Comey's Rebuke of Hillary Clinton Fits a 3-Decade Pattern
www.nytimes.com/.../james-comey-fbi-hillary-clinton-email-investigation. html

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of ...
https://www.fbi.gov/.../statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the- investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-...

Alan Dershowitz: Comey May Have Overstepped His Authority
www.newsmax.com/Headline/...Comey...Investigation/.../737299/

Watch Rep. Trey Gowdy Rip Apart FBI Director James Comey
thefederalist.com/.../watch-rep-trey-gowdy-rip-apart-fbi-director-james- comey-about-hillary-clinton/

www.nationalreview.com/.../hillary-clinton-e-mails-james-comey-didnt-end- her-problems

www.counterpunch.org/.../those-damn-emails-comeys-political-fix- unraveling/

The FBI overshares with Congress on Clinton email investigation ...
www.latimes.com/.../la-ed-congress-emails-20160819-snap-story.html

Congress Issues Subpoena About Hillary's FBI Criminal Investigation!
www.thepoliticalinsider.com/congress-issues-subpoena-hillarys-fbi-criminal- investigation/

Now, doesn’t all that look like fun and interesting reading for a quiet lazy Wednesday evening?

You can cook something sweet at the same time and mentally box all this terrible comprehension too burdensome for sweethearts such as yourselves, protect your angelic good nature, and leave all the government corruption to work itself out one way or another and without touching you, without tainting your natural charm..

12 comments:

edutcher said...

Comey is all mobbed up with the Ozark Mafia Slush Fund.

They own him and always have.

ndspinelli said...

Gowdy said, and he was a US Attorney, what myself and hundreds of thousands of people who have worked w/ the FBI have said; this was NOT the way the FBI goes about building a case. Not even fucking close. Comey is an errand boy and he hates that people are seeing that. His presser in July was an attempt to make himself look legit. Comey got girly mad when Gowdy ripped him a new asshole.

Leland said...

As a laymen; I keep wondering; did Comey, by giving various people immunity like candy, make whatever evidence that existed (likely not gained from any testimony via immunity, but I doubt this matter) appear to be fruit of the poisonous tree. This would explain why no prosecutor would touch this, while ignoring that the FBI's action made it that way.

Like Robert's and the Obamacare decision; I gave Comey the benefit of doubt and on his initial comments to Congress regarding Hillary's competence, I thought that perhaps (like some thought of Roberts), Comey was crazy like a fox. But then he kept on talking, and as he did, it became obvious that he left nothing that would keep Hillary dangling on the hook. As Congress asked about potential perjury, we learned the FBI didn't do anything that possibly could have trapped Hillary. Prosecutors had no problem doing this to Martha Stewart. When Comey was done talking, there was no longer doubt to me that the fix was in, and he was the fixer. The subsequent releases, and now the whining is just cementing it. This is the type of behavior that lead revolutionaries centuries ago to break out the tar and feathers.

Politically, now is not the time to impeach Comey. He should be impeached, but I get it. But if Trump wins; the GOP should just start the proceedings. If they are too timid; start with Koskinen.

Chip Ahoy said...

Yes, Leland. The first link to Seth Abramson covers that explicitly in fine detail. He goes on at length about that precise thing in his first point.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

Comey, don't be a zero,
Don't make a fool of yourself...

Too late.

AprilApple said...

Wait until Hillary gets in. You talk about a fix being in - she will institutionalize corruption. Every court pick - every cabinet pick, every layer of government will all be part of her corruption.

Comey knows where his bread is buttered.

AprilApple said...

Every Trump ad should be relentless pointing out her corruption, the corrupt system and the corrupt media.

edutcher said...

Old news. The best thing he can do is remind people she's ready for the glue factory.

And, if there was a fix, it's a long way from in.

Leland said...

Chip,

Either I have no idea what fruit of the poisonous tree is, or misunderstood my concern. I read Seth's article, and there's no doubt to me that evidence exists for negligence (I'd say gross). Certainly the statute doesn't mention intent, and I know enough the difference between Intent, Knowing, and Negligence.

My concern is that Comey tainted the evidence. By this, I mean he likely had evidence gained through normal investigation. But then he offered immunity to Cheryl Mills, who possibly gave him so information that he already knew. Whether Clinton attended briefings on how to handle classified information or not, may be Clinton's excuse; but Cheryl Mills did attend the briefings. And it seems clear that Cheryl Mills had knowledge, as a State Department employee with a clearance, of violations of the law. Cheryl, in my view, should be prosecuted by evidence that has been obtained from emails she seemed to thought destroyed but were otherwise recovered from emails trails of other employees. That's evidence of violating handling classified information and destroying evidence (prosecutors just nailed a submariner for such behavior). But if Cheryl was given immunity, and perhaps mentioned the name of one of the employees, whose properly archived emails showed the evidence of a cover-up; is that evidence now tainted and can't be used against Cheryl Mills in a court of law?

There's numerous examples of prosecutors unable to pin a crime on a King Pin. But history also shows prosecutors then setting their sites on the consigliere's that do have evidence against them. Again, Hillary may be incompetent as Comey stated. But is Cheryl Mills too? Is everyone in the State Department incompetent? I don't think so. At least one of these competent people that knew about Clinton's server, and didn't report it, as the laws on handling classified information demand, violated the law. Yet no one at all is being prosecuted. I'm concerned now that Comey made sure that none of them could.

Lem said...

I read somewhere, it might have been politico, that Comey has a sort of self righteous streak.

Chip Ahoy said...

You noticed in Comey's testimony when asked about subpoenaing Hillary aides laptops, and then, oddly and corruptly allowing them to play double duty during Hillary's testimony as Hillary's lawyers, thier laptops, their computers, that Comey responds:

Anytime you know you're subpoenaing a loptop from a lawyer that involved a lawyer's practice of law, you know you're getting into a big megillah."

THAT is your f'n job. That is what this is all about. It's precisely what this is all about. And you avoided it, thus becoming part of it. Were this Watergate back then, the whole thing would never have made it out of the starting gate. You veritably shut down your own investigation!

And don't go springing your Yiddish on me, Buster. It's not charming. It's not disarming. It's not colloquial. It doesn't help you.

What does megillah mean anyway? It means a lengthy and detailed explanation, a tediously complicated situation or matter, it means this explanation of yours to us about your exoneration of high crimes and misty meaners. It means your overly complicated excusal of very serious crimes against the people of the United States. It means your confusing Democrats to the point of having them not understand how serious all this is and allowing for their displaced loyalty to dismiss all further the pursuit of justice as just more partisan politics. This is far far far worse than Watergate and now you, Comey, have created the situation where it can be all dismissed as you know they will do. You condemned her then exonerated her and that last bit is not your place. Now in the minds of loyalists it can all just slide. You left it voters to decide while delivering such a profoundly confusing answer for yourself that Democrat loyalist cannot comprehend the extent of the perfidy. And worse, you know that. Weasel.

Leland said...

Shorter Comey - "no reasonable prosecutor would ever go after a lawyer"

I'm not sure I like the incentives Comey is creating here.