my letter to the editor–what they cut is in bold

Religion or Global Warming?

Boy did I pick the wrong religion to believe in.  Nowhere in our teachings are there 72 virgins waiting for me if I get to Heaven.  Wonder where they get all of them?

I wonder what is waiting for female bombers and the children bombers–anybody heard?

There are 7.4 billion people in the world

With 1.6 billion Muslims’ in the world, of which it is stated that 15% are radical, and some list showing as many as 216 terrorist groups, whose watching those millions of  possible terrorist,  who have carried out over 449 recorded attacks since the 1980’s?

What other religion preaches KAFFIR, which means death to non-believers, non-Muslims,  they must be killed.  Heading this list is Israel called Uquds Days–the day of destruction of Israel, followed by the great Satan-American, gays and  then the rest of the western world.  Stone them or behead them is their call.

Does your religion push Jihad–War– or Jafsir Al Jacalaynsays–meaning to slay them, the religion of hatred not peace.  when is the last time your religion called for a Caliphate, a total Muslim religious state.

But not all Muslims’ are terrorist, many millions are moderates and want peace, where are they, where is there outrage, their speaking out against what the terrorists are doing.  They are too afraid as they know if they speak out they are on the list.

it is truly sad that they have no second thoughts about strapping a bomb on a child and killing somebody, or as they shoot people say those famous words we all know now–“Allah Akbar”. And our government wants us to believe Global Warming is the biggest threat facing us today.

A sword, or a bullet versus a 1 degree rise in temperature in decades really make me wonder just how smart these guys in D.C. are?






If you happen to see the Bill Clinton five-minute TV ad for Hillary in which he introduces the commercial by saying he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary’s background, beware as I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than just about anyone.  I offer a few corrections:

Bill says:  “In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.”

Facts are:  Hillary’s main extra-curricular activity in ‘Law School’ was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a ‘Federal Agent.’  She went to Court every day as part of a Law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.

Bill says:  “Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a Children’s rights project for poor kids.”

Facts are:  Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party.  She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.

Bill says:  “Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers.”

Facts are:  She flunked the D.C. bar exam, ‘Yes’, flunked it, it is a matter of record, and only passed the Arkansas bar.  She had no job offers in Arkansas, ‘None’, and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there.  She did not join the prestigious Rose Law Firm until Bill became Arkansas Attorney General and was made a partner only after he was elected Arkansas Governor.

Bill says:  “President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its Chairman.”

Facts are:  The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy.  Hillary then became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.

Bill says:  “She served on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital.”

Facts are: Yes she did.  But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors, for a substantial fee.  She was silent about their labor and health care practices.

Bill says:  “Hillary didn’t succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994 but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance.”

Facts are:  Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP.  It was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott.  I know; I helped to negotiate the deal.  The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals’ tobacco settlement.  Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

Bill says:  “Hillary was the face of America all over the World.” (LOL)

Facts are:  Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House.  Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.

Bill says:  “Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for Children’s and Women’s issues.”

Facts are:  Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four substantive pieces of legislation.  One set up a national park in Puerto Rico.  A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer’s or other conditions.  And two were routine bills to aid 911 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire N.Y. delegation.  Presently she is trying to have the US memorialize Woodstock.

Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton.  She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our Country (that’s you and me) when it comes to the ‘War on Terror’.

She wants to close GITMO and move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.

She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA.

She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells and supporters in the USA.

She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the Military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists even though such tactics might save American lives.

She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned.

source-dick morris,

2016 Democratic National Committee email leak-

2016 Democratic National Committee email leak–48Ih.B43

In July 2016, WikiLeaks published a collection of e-mails which allegedly showed that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had tried to sabotage the presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton‘s campaign. The collection included 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the DNC, the governing body of the United States’ Democratic Party.[1] The leak includes e-mails from seven key DNC staff members, and date from January 2015 to May 2016.[2] Since the DNC has not responded to the leak, the authenticity of the leaked documents is not clear.[3] WikiLeaks have not revealed their source.[4] A website claiming to be the creation of an individual working alone and going by the handle “Guccifer 2.0” claims that Guccifer 2.0 was the source of the leaks, but experts find this claim doubtful; in June 2016, the DNC stated that Russian hackers had broken into their email system and stolen material.[5][6][7]

The e-mails include DNC staff’s ‘off-the-record’ correspondence with mediapersons, including the reporters at Politico, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post.[4]

The e-mails suggested that the DNC, which is supposed to be neutral during the primaries, was biased against Bernie Sanders’ campaign, and favored Hillary Clinton’s campaign. A May 2016 e-mail chain indicates that two DNC executives, the DNC chief financial officer and the DNC chief executive officer, considered having someone ask Sanders if he is an atheist and the potential for damage that his answer would have in electoral chances in more religious states.[6] After the leak, the DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall later apologized for his “insensitive, emotional” emails.[9]

In May, MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski called on Debbie Wasserman Schultz to step down over the DNC’s bias towards the Bernie Sanders campaign.[10] Schultz was upset at the negative coverage of her actions in the media, and she emailed Chuck Todd that such coverage of her “must stop”.[11] Describing the coverage as the “LAST straw”, she ordered the DNC’s communications director to call MSNBC president Phil Griffin to demand an apology from Brzezinski.[12][13]

One particular e-mail describes a hypothetical fake craigslist job posting made by DNC Staffers to mock Clinton’s Republican rival Donald Trump.[4]

The leak also includes personal information about the donors of the Democratic Party, including credit card and social security numbers, which could facilitate identity theft.[14] In a tweet, WikiLeaks stated that the release of this personal information was intentional.[15]

It also reveals that White House officials vetoed Ariana Grande from performing at the White House because of the July 2015 doughnut-licking incident

The emails released Friday cover a period from Janury 2015 to May 2016. They purportedly come from the accounts of seven major figures in the DNC: Senior Adviser Andrew Wright, National Finance Director Jordan Kaplan, Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer, Communications Director Luis Miranda, Northern California Finance Director Robert Stowe, Finance Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish and Finance Director Allen Zachary.

The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10770 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3797 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finanace Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1472 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year.

isitors to the site can navigate the nearly 20,000 emails and attachments by using a search bar that allows users to input keywords that may appear in the documents.

WikiLeaks previously released over 1,000 Iraq war related emails sent both from and to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton earlier this month, and released another searchable database of over 30,000 leaked emails from Clinton’s private server in March.

In June, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced his plans to release enough evidence to indict Clinton, and branded the Democratic candidate as “a bit of problem for freedom of the press” after she attempted to prosecute the site.

source-wikipedia, politico, wsj, wash post, mika brezezinski, wasserman schultz, luis miranda, patrice taylor, charlie nash, julian assange

Massive Huma Terror-Connection Uncovered… Clinton Team in Panic Mode

 Massive Huma Terror-Connection Uncovered… Clinton Team in Panic Mode–77ih.,b3

Seven years ago, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton entered into discussions with Saudi Arabia about the Muslim World League ceasing to fund Islamic terrorism. What Clinton either did not know or purposefully chose to ignore at the time was that her closest aide, Huma Abedin, held direct ties to the MWL.

An investigation by Breitbart revealed that the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs operated out of the league’s London-based office — and that Abedin used to work for the institute. Moreover, Vanity Fair classified the institute as an ostensible “Abedin family business,” because the aide’s brother and sister have both also worked there.

According to a State Department cable obtained by WikiLeaks, Clinton’s office explicitly designated the Muslim World League a terrorist organization in 2009.

The cable also listed talking points to be used in diplomatic negotiations with Saudi Arabia — talking points that Abedin could have easily funneled right back to the Muslim World League, which had close ties with the Saudi government.

source- conservative tribune, breitbart, vanity fair, wikileaks

You Won’t Believe How Many Laws Nancy Pelosi Broke…Just to go Shoe-Shopping

You Won’t Believe How Many Laws Nancy Pelosi Broke…Just to go Shoe-Shopping!–43ih. b25

Hillary Clinton isn’t the only politician who thinks she’s above the law. California Congress(wo)man Nancy Pelosi thinks that traffic laws only apply to the commoners. She’s way too important to be bothered by local traffic laws, especially when she’s on official business…like shopping for shoes at Footcandy.

Not surprisingly, Nancy Pelosi drives around in a gas-guzzling, carbon-emitting SUV. Actually, she doesn’t drive it. Her driver – with the U.S. Capitol Police – does.

I honestly don’t care that they haul her around in a giant SUV. It’s just that Pelosi’s one of those self-righteous politicians who preaches about the evils of carbon emissions, and harps on “deniers” for “rejecting science,” but then she seems to have no problem at all being driven around in a large, carbon-emitting vehicle. I guess it’s par for the course.

It all started when Pelosi wanted to shop for shoes at a fancy boutique in St. Helena, California last month. An eyewitness was so appalled by her self-importance that he wrote in to the St. Helena Star to relay his account. Here’s how he described what happened:

“Last Saturday afternoon (June 4) I’m standing on the west side of Main Street directly across from the Hunt Avenue intersection chatting with friends. Of course, traffic was heavy in both directions.

A large perfectly polished and gleaming black SUV is attempting a left turn from Hunt onto southbound Main (not easy). Suddenly blue/red lights are flashing from the windshield area of the SUV (like you would see in an official fire/police vehicle). I said to my friends, I’ve never seen that before on a “regular” vehicle and I’d think that’s illegal and dangerous. They agreed.

The big black SUV then darts out across both lanes of traffic with lights flashing in both front and rear windows. It goes directly into the red zone/fire hydrant area in front of Padis and Footcandy.

A St. Helena police car happens to be going northbound and pulls into the center lane and the officer starts shaking his arm and hollering at the driver of the SUV. While this goes on a man exits the SUV assisting a woman from the vehicle. She dashes off to Footcandy while he waits by the SUV in the red zone.

The SHPD car leaves and proceeds northbound.

My friends and I are puzzled, say goodbye and I walk south on Main. As I approach Footcandy, Nancy Pelosi comes out with her shopping bags and the man assists her into the awaiting SUV. The SUV, with lights flashing, bursts back into southbound traffic.


Privilege? Power? Arrogance? Whose SUV, taxpayers?”

The Star reached out to the St. Helena Police Chief Bill Imboden to confirm the account. Sure enough, it happened, and here’s how he responded to the eyewitness’s account:

“The St. Helena Police Department has received similar complaints in the past, and on occasion we come across a scenario like what is mentioned in the complaint. Unfortunately local law enforcement has no authority to prevent this type of activity. The U.S. Capitol Police and the U.S. Secret Service provide dignitary protection for certain high-ranking members of the Federal Government, and this protection comes with the discretion to violate some state and local laws (illegal U-turns, parking in a red zone) under the guise of providing the best possible protection to the dignitary. In the case of Congresswoman Pelosi, she receives her protection detail from the Capitol Police. As the Chief of Police in St. Helena I can assure you we don’t like or condone their behavior, but I can tell you from personal experience that while they sympathize with the position they put us in, they will not alter their tactics to appease us.

This is the way things are these days. Politicians only care about laws insofar as they benefit them, and can be used against their opponents. If they can get away with breaking laws meant only for peasants, they’ll ignore them – especially if it’s for something really important, like shopping for expensive shoes.


source-eagles rising, philip hodges,

Where Clinton, Trump Stand on Energy, Climate Change

Where Clinton, Trump Stand on Energy, Climate Change—-21Ih.,B38—

The Republican and Democratic parties are firming up their policy platforms ahead of their conventions in Cleveland and Philadelphia later this month. But once a convention week starts, pageantry and partisanship tend to eclipse actual policy messaging in the media spotlight. So before we all enter the media-circus “event horizon,” it’s worth remembering where presumptive nominees Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump stood on climate and energy policy during the primary season.

  • Fracking: Trump has been enthusiastic about this controversial gas extraction process, stating via Twitter as far back as 2012 that “fracking will lead to American energy independence.” His public comments since then have been less succinct, but supportive. In his one major energy policy speech in North Dakota in late May, Trump said he would “revoke policies that impose unwarranted restrictions on new drilling technologies,” an indirect way of saying he wouldn’t regulate methane emissions from fracking rigs, which the Obama administration is currently attempting to do.
  • Renewables: Trump doesn’t have the same visceral dislike for subsidies that more ideologically pure Republicans have concerning renewable power, so analysts believe he will not push to have them eliminated. He was also a supporter of ethanol subsidies while campaigning in Iowa.
  • EPA/Regulation: Trump has both the temperament and the motivation to attack environmental regulation and the Environmental Protection Agency on all fronts. During his North Dakota speech he promised to rescind by executive order many of the Obama administration’s most ambitious environmental goals, including the EPA’s landmark Climate Action Plan that would close many of the country’s older coal plants.
  • Climate Change: Trump’s comment in North Dakota that he would “cancel the Paris Climate Agreement” is a clear rejection of both accepted climate science and attempts to reach global consensus over the past decade concerning greenhouse gas emissions. There probably isn’t a clearer policy difference between the two camps than on climate change, especially given the possible long-term consequences.
  • Nuclear: Trump has said very little concerning nuclear power in recent years, although back in 2011, just after the Fukushima disaster, he told Fox News that “nuclear is a way we get what we have to get, which is energy. “ It’s likely his opinion hasn’t changed.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton has had to work much harder politically than Trump in terms of her policy formation, and has moved some of her energy and environmental views to the left, thanks largely to the candidacy of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who argued aggressively against all fracking and nuclear power production in the United States.

  • Fracking: Clinton’s position on this issue has been a little tough to discern. Unlike Trump, who has never run for political office, Clinton has taken a position on every single environmental issue during her nearly quarter-century of public life. As secretary of state, she promoted fracking technology overseas, but during a Flint, Mich., debate in March, Clinton said she would treat fracking to a three-part test that could dramatically curtail its use in many parts of the country if fully enforced.
  • Renewables: Clinton is in step with the broad swath of left-leaning voters who would like to see a quicker transition to a post-fossil-fuel economy. She has a stated goal of installing 500 million solar panels to increase solar energy production eight-fold in the U.S. by the end of her first term in office. She also wants to the make wind power’s production tax credit permanent.
  • EPA/Regulation: Clinton intends to use the EPA in a similar fashion as the Obama administration – as the vanguard regulatory agency to reduce pollution of all kinds, especially air and water pollution in disadvantaged areas such as Flint. Opposition to “environmental racism” – the practice of placing hazardous materials or production facilities near low-income communities — runs strongly though the Democratic Party; Clinton will continue the tradition of using government agencies to advance environmental and political goals.
  • Climate Change: Clinton is likely to move forward with Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which would meet the Paris targets for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, although the outcome of federal court cases concerning the CPP will also affect future policy implementation.
  • Nuclear: As with fracking, Clinton has been “flexible” in her views on nuclear power, alternating between being “agnostic” about it to generally supporting it. During her time in the U.S. Senate, however, she voted consistently against opening the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada.

source–real clear politics, bill murray,


July 8, 2016: This Week’s Headlines

July 8, 2016: This Week’s Headlines—39hi.,b3a

In fact, a few hours ago we submitted to a federal court judge  a request for permission to depose former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

We also asked permission to depose the Director of Office of Correspondence and Records of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-CRM”) Clarence Finney; and the former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”) John Bentel.

Our request arises in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit  before U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton.  The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the system. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

Judge Sullivan almost immediately issued a court order, just as your Weekly Update went to press, scheduling a hearing on the issue on July 18.

As you know, the court previously  granted discovery on the system, and we have deposed seven former Clinton top aides and current State Department officials, including top Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and  Huma Abedin.  We also deposed IT official Brian Pagliano, who asserted his Fifth Amendment right not to testify during the deposition.   In granting Judicial Watch’s initial discovery motion, the court ruled that Judicial Watch may seek permission for Hillary Clinton’s testimony, if necessary.  Today’s brief argues that the Clinton testimony is necessary:

[Judicial Watch] recognizes the significance of asking a former agency head and presumptive nominee for president to sit for a deposition.  As the primary driving force behind and principal user of the system, however, Secretary Clinton’s testimony is crucial to understanding how and why the system was created and operated. It also is crucial to understanding why the secretary chose to use the system for all her official email communications, not only initially but also after the system proved to be so problematic for the department, top departmental officials, and the secretary herself. Plaintiff has attempted to obtain as much evidence as possible from other State Department officials, but Secretary Clinton is an indispensable witness and significant questions remain, including why records management officials apparently had no knowledge of the system when so many other officials used the system to communicate with her. Consequently, Secretary Clinton’s deposition is necessary.

Our brief also points to this week’s findings announced by FBI Director James Comey as providing additional reasons for Clinton’s testimony:

In his statement announcing the conclusion of the FBI investigation into Clinton’s email practices, Comey stated, “The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.”  The FBI’s finding raises questions about Clinton’s assertions in her August 8, 2015, declaration that she directed that all her emails on the system in her custody “that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State” and that “on information and belief, this has been done.”  Clinton’s deposition is necessary to inquire about the basis of these assertions in light of the FBI’s finding.

We are seeking the testimony of Finney because, as chief Freedom of Information (FOIA) officer for the Secretary’s office, he “had day-to-day responsibility for records management and research, including conducting and coordinating searches in response to FOIA requests, during Secretary Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s tenure.”

We are seeking the deposition of Bentel for several reasons. When asked by his staff about Clinton’s use of a email account to conduct government business, “Mr. Bentel instructed them not to discuss the issue.  As a result, obtaining Mr. Bentel’s testimony is essential to determine what he knew, when he knew it, and why he did not share the information with the appropriate State Department employees responsible for responding to FOIA requests.”

Judicial Watch has a separate request for Clinton’s testimony pending before U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, who ruled on March 29 that “where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.”

Comey first detailed Clinton’s massive destruction of government records and grossly negligent handling of classified information.  But then came an enormous disconnect between these devastating findings and Comey’s weak recommendation not to prosecute.

Comey provided the following detailed examples of how Mrs. Clinton violated the law:

  • “110 e-mails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information.”
  • Comey charged that former Secretary of State Clinton (and her colleagues), “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” And he confirmed that, “any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”
  • With respect to Mrs. Clinton’s culpability in compromising national defense information to hostile actors, Mr. Comey stated: “We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.
  • She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”
  • Did Hillary Clinton lie to Congress about her email practices? Not part of the investigation. Did she conceal and illegally remove federal records? Not part of the investigation. And no word on the pay-for-play schemes with the Clinton Foundation and its donors. How did the classified material get on Clinton’s system? Comey confessed his FBI didn’t even investigate this basic question.
  • One analysis of Comey’s legal sophistry is that he saw that the fix was in and he wasn’t going to cause a crisis and put his job on the line by recommending a prosecution to a compromised and conflicted Obama Justice Department.
  • Comey may think he’s successfully threaded the political needle – highlighting Clinton’s malfeasance while giving her a get-out-of-jail-free card.  But all he’s done is further lowered the reputation of the FBI in the eyes of the American people.
  • Comey’s FBI Helped Convict Navy Reservist who “Handled Classified Materials Inappropriately”

  • Among many things making Comey’s decision infuriating was the fact that his FBI helped convict a Navy reservist who “handled classified materials inappropriately.”  Our Corruption Chronicles blog had that story:
  • Illustrating that FBI Director James Comey is a liar and a fraud, his agency helped convict a Navy reservist last summer of the same crime that he just cleared Hillary Clinton of committing. In that case the reservist from northern California got criminally charged—as per FBI recommendation—for having classified material on personal electronic devices that weren’t authorized by the government to contain such information. The FBI investigation didn’t reveal evidence that the reservist intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel, so he was just being “extremely careless” like Clinton and her top aides.
  • Similar offenses, vastly different outcome. The key factor, of course, is that one subject is a regular Joe without Clinton-like political connections. His name is Bryan H. Nishimura and last July he pleaded guilty to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials after the FBI found such materials were copied and stored in at least one “unauthorized and unclassified system.” Clinton had droves of classified and top secret materials in an “unauthorized and unclassified system.”
  • Nishimura had been deployed to Afghanistan as a regional engineer for the U.S. military and had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers, according to the FBI announcement, which defines the reservist’s crime in the following manner; “handled classified materials inappropriately.” So did Clinton on a much larger scale.
  • Incredibly, during his 15-minute press conference this week Comey provided details of how Clinton violated the law by exchanging dozens of email chains containing classified and top secret information and how she mishandled national defense information on her outlaw email server. The FBI director even outlined how Clinton compromised the country’s national defense to “hostile actors,” yet he asserts Clinton and her cohorts didn’t intend to break the law. “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information,” Comey said, “there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” Enough to be criminally charged like the Navy reservist from northern California.
  • When Comey, the federal prosecutor in the Martha Stewart case, put the television celebrity in jail for participating in an insider trading scheme, he acknowledged the importance of not granting special treatment to a rich and famous person. Stewart went to prison for obstructing justice and lying to investigators about a sudden stock sale that helped her avoid losing thousands of dollars. In an interview with his college newspaper a few years after Stewart’s conviction Comey, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said that if Stewart were Jane Doe she would have been prosecuted. “I thought of my hesitation about the case due to someone being rich and famous, and how it shouldn’t be that way,” Comey said. “I decided we had to do it.”
  • source-judicial watch, clarence finney, john bentel, fox, the hill,