Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Be Indicted, Part 2

WhyHillaryCintonCannotBeIndicted_part2  <–  PDF version

Since my last essay as to why Hillary Clinton cannot be indicted, a few interesting things have happened. First, President Barack “I lied, period” Obama stated on Fox News Sunday’s 10 Apr 2016 episode:

“I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations.  I do not talk to the FBI directors about impending investigations.  We have a strict line and have always maintained it.  I guarantee it.  I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI; not just in this case, but in any case.  Full stop.  Period.  Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department because nobody is above the law.”

There are several problems here.  Obama said “impending” investigations, not “active” ones.  He did not claim that no one on his staff (such as the President’s Counsel) discusses investigations with the DoJ or FBI.  Every time Obama says “period”, you know he’s lying, like the time he said you could keep your doctor and your health plan, “period”.  If there really is no political interference, surely there would be no need to assure the public about it. Second, Obama endorsed Clinton on 9 Jun 2016.  Now ask yourself, when was the last time any political figure endorsed another, if there was even a 1/100th of 1% chance that the latter could have legal problems?  Never — that isn’t how politicians operate.  He endorsed her because he knows she will not have any legal problems because he and his staff have taken steps to make sure of it. Third, Bill Clinton met secretly with Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix airport on 27 Jun 2016.  He went out of his way to wait for her private plane, then requested access (which was granted), and they spoke for about 30 minutes.  Of course, it was all about golf and grandchildren, if you are naïve and gullible enough to believe it.   The respective security details prevented anyone from taking pictures on the tarmac (a public place), and it was discovered only by local Phoenix reporter Christopher Sign (KNXV-TV) based on tips from his local contacts.  What political figure, or lawyer, or government official would be dumb enough to meet secretly with the spouse of a person being investigated by their department?  Ms. Lynch is not dumb. Today she stated that she would “accept” (not “act upon”) the FBI’s recommendation regarding Hillary Clinton.  What was the plan before?  Are we to believe that the fix was in before, but now that she met with Bill Clinton, she will go along with a criminal indictment if the FBI recommends it? Here is what I believe will happen.  As I said in my previous (8 Mar 2016), all the evidence against Hillary is being collected up to be destroyed or permanently sealed just the way Hillary wanted it.  But the FBI report will state that she “or her staff” had “accidentally or inadvertently” committed some “errors of judgment” that would normally amount to “technicality-type” misdemeanors, but in view of her “outstanding  public service”, and “to avoid a political crisis”, no charges will be recommended.  So Lynch will be off the hook.  Hillary, knowing the evidence is safely hidden or destroyed, will then pretend to issue an apology for some “inerrant carelessness by her staff”.  She will do her best to keep from bursting out laughing.  Then the whole thing goes away. That is how things work in banana republics, and that is how our federal government works when high-ranking political figures like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch, and Hillary Clinton are involved.  The one thing we do not know is how deep the corruption has pervaded the rank-and-file of the FBI and Justice Department.

Posted in elections, Famous people, government powers | No Comments »

Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Be Indicted

WhyHillaryCintonCannotBeIndicted  <– PDF version

The U. S. State Department, having dragged its feet as long as it could, has finally released all the emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private, unauthorized email server.  All total, over 2,000 of those emails are classified, some at very high levels of secrecy.  Mrs. Clinton has consistently claimed that “none of them were marked classified at the time”.  That proves, if it proves anything, that Mrs. Clinton is either completely irresponsible or a moron. It is obvious even to casual thinkers that emails to and from the U. S. Secretary of State are of great interest to our nation’s enemies.  It also seems logical that those emails could have been intercepted at many places on the internet without a need to attack her server directly.  One would think that a person in their right mind holding a highly sensitive office like Secretary of State would make the appropriate application and assume all their emails should be protected by a classified server — but not Mrs. Clinton.

After Mrs. Clinton had her staff attempt to delete the emails off her server, and after the whole matter came to light, the FBI was tasked with recovering those emails (she thought were gone), and to examine whether any laws had been broken.  There are some who believe that Mrs. Clinton could be indicted at least for gross negligence.  But I suspect that will never happen.  FBI Director James Comey testified before Congress on 1 Mar 2016.  He was asked by Congressman Steve Chabot when he thought the investigation would be wrapped up one way or the other.  Director Comey’s response was:

“I can’t, congressman, as you know we don’t talk about our investigations.  What I can assure you is that I am very close personally to that investigation to ensure that we have the resources we need, including people and technology, and that it’s done the way the FBI tries to do all of it’s work: independently, competently and promptly. That’s our goal, and I’m confident that it’s being done that way, but I can’t give you any more details beyond that.”

It is strange indeed that the FBI Director would have a personal hand in the “investigation”.  I hope I am proven wrong, but I suspect Mr. Comey is directly involved in order to ensure that all the evidence is collected up and destroyed, exactly the way Mrs. Clinton wanted it; just the way President Barack “I lied, period” Obama ordered it.  The FBI is certainly thorough; once they are done, there won’t be proof that Hillary Clinton ever worked at the State Department.  That kind of thoroughness takes time.

Mrs. Clinton cannot be indicted: she is too high on the political food chain to be inconvenienced by having to take responsibility for her actions.  Like I said, I hope I am proven wrong, but it seems in these modern times that “taking responsibility” is only for the little people.


Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Mohammed’s Maggots Attack Paris

PDF version –>  MohammedsMaggots_20151115

The operational wing of the underside of Islam conducted their well-advertised attack against the residents of Paris on 13 Nov 2015, focusing on the innocent and the unprepared.  This attack came only ten months after a similar one against the French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo.  It proves that although the Hebdo attack led the French authorities to step up their preparedness against terrorism, something isn’t working since this one caught them off-guard again.  French President Francois Hollande promptly and accurately characterized it as “an act of war”, and promised that France would return the favor.  Meanwhile, U. S. President Barack “I lied, period” Obama took a break from a fund-raiser long enough to give the attacks two solid harrumphs at a news conference, issuing the standard drivel in his normal Commander Obvious way: “this was an attack on the civilized world”.  As usual, he declined to name the enemy.

So it turns out that Mr. Hollande has the will but not the military means.  Mr. Obama has the military means but not the will.  But by combining forces, and with careful negotiations guaranteed not to offend anyone, a Western alliance with neither the will nor the means will be established to fight the Maggots.  Therefore, the Maggots will continue to grow and fester, laying plans to expand their malignancy to other parts of the Western world.  It is likely that Paris is a mere prototype.

Mr. Obama is now at the G-20 Conference in Turkey, conferring in a side meeting with that paragon of virtue and liberty, Russian President Putin.  Syria is engaged in a multi-facetted civil war: the current government led by President Bashar al-Assad, several local groups hoping to depose him and establish something else (we know not what), and ISIS (Mohammed’s Maggots).  Mr. Putin’s goal is to defend and protect his Middle Eastern ally, Mr. Assad.  To do so, Russian forces are fighting against groups opposed to Mr. Assad, except ISIS.   To expect Mr. Putin to devote his attention to ISIS as an aid to France seems logical only to the delusional Mr. Obama. If the Maggots do expand their operation, it will be other nation’s problems as well, but not Russia’s.  The Maggots are smart enough not to attack Russia directly.  They took down a Russian plane in the Sinai as an attack against Egypt’s economy, not against Russia.  This is perfectly understandable to Mr. Putin: it is the long-standing tactic of Communists everywhere, and besides, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.  The conclusion is that the response to the Paris attack is France’s problem; they should expect no material assistance from Russia, the U. S., or other Europeans.

I would advise France not to rely on Saudi Arabia for assistance either.  Let’s not forget that ISIS came from al-Qaeda, and al-Qaeda came from Wahabism, which is the official state-sponsored religion of Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia has not and will not fight ISIS, even though they are in the immediate neighborhood, as it is not polite to bomb your allies.  The goal of the House of Saud is to buy time and ultimately share power with the Maggot Caliphate until such time as it becomes opportune to place the House of Saud on the Caliph’s throne.

France has two problems.  The obvious first one is with the Maggots; the second is with its limp-wristed allies.

Tags: , ,
Posted in terrorism | No Comments »

Success in America’s Major Cities

SuccessInAmericasMajorCities  <– PDF version

An examination of the economic situation in our major cities proves that you can’t argue with success.  The success I’m referring to is the political success the Democratic Party has had in winning municipal elections and controlling the economic future of our major cities, mostly in the Northeastern states.  The economic policies that have been implemented over the past two generations are laughable; the disasters are evident to anyone with even a teaspoon of common sense.  But the Democratic Party parties on in these places, continuing the same economic policies that turned industrial giants into pathetic basket cases.  Here is a list of major U. S. cities, and the durations over which the Democratic Party has been in control:

Baltimore, MD:  Continuous Democratic Party control since 1967 (48 years)

Boston, MA:  Continuous Democratic Party control since 1930 (85 years)

Buffalo, NY:  Continuous Democratic Party control since 1966 (49 years)

Chicago, IL:  Continuous Democratic Party control since 1931 (84 years)

Cincinnati, OH: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1984 (31 years)

Cleveland, OH: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1990 (25 years)

Detroit, MI: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1962 (53 years)

Erie, PA: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1966 (49 years)

Newark, NJ: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1962 (53 years)

Pittsburgh, PA: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1934 (81 years)

Philadelphia, PA: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1952 (63 years)

St. Louis, MO: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1949 (66 years)

Washington, DC: Continuous Democratic Party control since 1961 (54 years)

Our largest city, New York, requires a little explanation.  It has been ruled by Democrats continuously since 1970, with the exception of the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations.  Both of these men were elected as Republicans, but in fact Bloomberg is as hard-core a Marxist as you will find anywhere (now that he made his fortune).  It is fair to say then, that except for the eight years of Giuliani, New York has been run by Democrats for 37 of the last 45 years.

With this list of enormous successes, we can now say for sure what the benefits of socialism amount to: a) High taxes on nearly everything; b) Stringent regulation on nearly everything; c) Reduction of business opportunities; d) Scarcity of work; e) Poor public services; f) Dangerous streets; and above all, g) An arrogant, incompetent, entrenched oligarchy at the top, living the high life.

Posted in Economics, elections, progressive | No Comments »