Sunday, October 30, 2016

James Comey

So, we know the story up until a couple days ago.
James Comey, FBI director, determined, months ago, that Hillary, for all her (what would anywhere else be considered criminal) activity, had not shown "intent" to commit a criminal act.
I believed at the time, and still suspect, that Comey hoped that Hillary would be tried in the press, since she probably wouldn't be tried by the Obama administration.
That the American public would come to their own conclusion after his unprecedented appearance before Congress, where he almost asked to be subpoenaed .
There were some that said he didn't want to be known as the guy that skewed a presidential election.
Now it appears he wants to be that guy.
What has he seen that would make him want to do THIS "unprecedented" activity?
Last night, Jeanine Pirro rightly castigated him for this.
I felt the same as she when I first heard this.
It's very improper of him to announce an investigation like he did.
Just as improper of him as to speak to congress about the previous investigation like he did.
I believe that Comey is a patriot and not the scoundrel many of us have painted him.
I believe Comey has seen something so damning that he IS actively trying to throw the election.
To save us from a protracted Watergate trial of a sitting president who, as Trump has famously said, should be in jail.
To save us from Tim Kaine.
To ensure the American Public, the Nation, is not robbed.
What do you think?
I hope that this is an answer of God to His peoples prayers for this nation.


  1. "I hope that this is an answer of God to His peoples prayers for this nation."

    May it be so. Amen.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.


    We live after the history of the soviet union has been disclosed. A large number of Stalin's closest associates met a gruesome and untimely end. Even minor apparatchiks wound up there, some believing to the very end that their circumstance was somehow all a mistake: 'If Stalin only knew.'

    It is quite possible given the varied reports that have leaked out and in the emails showing that many of Hillary's closest associates have indeed seen behavior that troubles them. Could any of them have discreetly set things in motion that reduces their risks while not being seen as doing so? Wouldn't some of you?

    Anyone who refuses to consider that these are dangerous times is engaging in -- how should I put this? -- "fear management." As one person told me "it's not that I have my head in the sand, it's just that I don't want to know" without displaying a glimmer of realization the contradiction it was.

  4. "fear management."
    I like that.
    I read the article.
    Comments too.

    1. Perhaps because it has a familiar ring to it.

      Those close to Hillary who've carefully leaked what we've been provided could be said to be engaging in risk management.

      Those who can't bear to consider the far-reaching implications of what Assange said in the link's interview are likely engaging in fear management.

  5. i think mr. comey is in fear for his life and his family's safety.
    may God protect them!

    1. "Vince Foster" is a verb.
      ie: "He/she was Vince Foster'd"

  6. Not really sure, if he were going to bust a case wide open, that he'd transmit that he hadn't yet read the e-mails....and that they were not only NOT from Clinton, but apparently not even about Clinton. Odd.

    But as I said over at Silverfiddle's....pass the popcorn, because we're screwed either way.

    1. As someone who has had serious concerns about Trump, and who has great respect for your intellect and patriotism, I cannot for the life of me understand your inability to vote for Trump as the only credible block to a Clinton presidency, a far worse disaster than Trump could probably be.

    2. I disagree that Trump will not likely be a far worse disaster than Clinton. His campaign has been based on the celebration of ignorance and authoritariansim. And not much of a discriminating choice between pathological lying and calculating lying.

      Additionally, my vote is not going to determine the fate of the Presidential election. But my vote can far more easily affect the LP in getting 5% of the vote, and qualifying for federal funding next cycle.

      Trump will win or lose without my assistance.

    3. Do you mean your ballot is counted in a "Blue" state?
      If so, I see your strategy, but let's hope the LP does better than Johnson.
      Let's hope the R's do better than Trump also.

    4. Nope, "purple" state. In terms of Bbse statistics, my vote will not influence the Hobson's Choice.

      - CI

  7. OH! I wrote SO much and the site kicked it off!
    Here's an abbreviated answer!:

    I believe Comey. BUT, if any of this is true, I'm a dope.

    I also still like Paul Ryan, maybe the last conservative who sees him in the good light I perhaps I'm not the one to chime in here :-)

    As for CI, I'm delighted I do NOT live in a swing state and don't have to necessarily cast the vote for Pres...I may write in Mike Pence, as a matter of fact. I thank God I don't have to vote for a man with Trump's character and I believe CI is right; something a lot of my cons. buddies forget is he can't really 'make this country great' on his own as we don't hire Autocrats for president...
    ugh...just wake me when the election is over then we'll all deal with the future!

    1. You know I support Ryan.
      Do CI a favor and vote for the toker for prez. Maybe next time the Reps and the LP will get it right.

  8. I have no idea Ed. I do believe it is all as dirty as it gets though regardless of the details, perps and outcomes.

  9. Here is the full context of what I surmised above.

    The fear that some of Hillary's closest (perhaps too close) associates now have of her may be the cause of many of the leaks. It could also explain why some have 'accidentally' left "bread crumbs" for the FBI to discover.

    Trump is a terrible choice except for the facts:

    1) Hillary has exhibited far more hatred than has the Donald.
    2) Hillary is known to have the blood of 4 Americans on her hands and he doesn't,

    3) We have yet no end in sight to the consequences of her "handiwork" as Secretary of State in the Middle East in which Trump played no role.

    4) She is known to have breached espionage laws multiple times that had anyone else broken for a single instance would have put them in the Fed pen for decades and he has not.

    But aside from these four minor details, a vote for Trump is no different than a vote for Hillary. And it doesn't matter that some of Hillary's closest "allies" have become so concerned that they have carefully leaked out loads of information that would only a little of which would have the press employing to demolish any other candidate who wasn't a Democrat. And they have been leaking it at risk to their own lives.

    But a vote for Trump is no different to a vote for Hillary.

    You know Ed, Og has been right about something for a very long long time. "You can't logically talk people out of positions they've illogically entered." It's not about voting responsibly for the best outcome, but about feeling good about themselves. Demonstrate the difference in that from the virtue posturing of those who go along with the latest Politically correct fad. You can't.

    1. Good points, but you only listed the negatives of one candidate. Sort of weighting the premise a bit, no. It's also illogical, I'd proffer that another's carefully thought choices, are entered into itself illogical.

      Virtue posturing is just as easily defined as supporting the very worst candidate that the GOP could ever offer, who took what should have been a landslide debate of Clinton, to a horse race, with the Trump-horse looking like a sure loser.

      If you want to choose between two liberals with little regard for the Constitution, and the guarantee of simply repeating this theater for every electoral cycle to're welcome to. I wouldn't say it's's simply expected.

    2. I would, at this point, vote for a liberal (and Trump would fit), Jackson, Truman, etc. to oppose Hillary Clinton, thinking that it is more important to stop her than to advance a political cause (a more pure party).
      I honestly believe that Trump would deliver SCOTUS as promised. That is the end game that everything else hinges on.

    3. The problem remaining, as I see it [presuming Trump would indeed nominate Constitutional justices], is his effect on the down ballot races...including the Justice-confirming Senate, that now looks to be in jeopardy of flipping g to the Democrats.

    4. You may be right about Trump's effect, but how in the world will not voting for Trump improve voter turnout for the down-ballot? ??? Suppressing anti-Hillary votes will also suppress that. Why bother? It's a lost cause before the vote. Is that your view?

    5. It looks win or lose to me. I see the down ballot tied to the prez. It's too late to wish for someone else.
      He either does it or not.
      Not voting for Trump doesn't help the down ballot.
      Just their chances of getting something passed.

    6. Anonymous and I cross-posted, but seem to be saying the same thing.

    7. .....but how in the world will not voting for Trump improve voter turnout for the down-ballot?

      It has no effect either way, that wasn't my point. Trump can effect down ballot races by keeping voters voting for Trump [presumably]....or I not voting for Trump...doesn't effect the down ballot. Not voting for Trump doesn't hurt the down ballot either, as long as the citizen is going to actually vote.

      If GOP voters stay home, that can quite likely be chalked up, in large part, to Trump.

      Frankly, I view the Senate as far more important than the cult of personality POTUS elections have become.

    8. This has been an interesting conversation. I appreciate it.
      As to your last point, though, I see the Senate AS important as the POTUS. I doubt we'll get enough for a veto override.

    9. CI: "Good points, but you only listed the negatives of one candidate. Sort of weighting the premise a bit, no."

      LOL. CI, if you want to prove to yourself that your stance is purely rational, there's an easy test. Privately list Trump's negatives and compare them to even this shortened version of Hillary's. When you've found them to match Hillary's, you know that your position is completely rational.

      Once you have satisfied yourself, then you armed to convince others as well.

    10. Why would I try and convince you? Were you trying to convince anyone with your previous post?

    11. This has been an interesting conversation. I appreciate it.

      Thank you. It's good to see that some venues still enjoy respectful and tactful discourse.

  10. Some who know Comey personally have called him a "climber"; a weasel.
    He had the chance to wash his hands of this in July without affecting it personally:
    Give it to a Grand Jury.
    He didn't do it.

    You may be right that he thought our press would convict her. In that case, he's a bigger fool than most people thought.
    This situation would be a delight if the whole damned world hadn't been thrown into chaos during this administration. (And there are still considerable questions as to Huma's Muslim Brotherhood ties.)

    Be prepared folks.
    We may be pulling into the station.

    1. He's at the pinnacle of his career, short of an AG post.
      10 yr tenure.
      To think that the press would be so feckless as they are, given the red meat they were thrown, was almost unimaginable.
      Of course it's been demonstrated elsewise. So I guess he was a fool. So was I.
      I wonder if Huma has Muslim Brotherhood emails on that laptop.

  11. In my mind, congress hasn't stopped barry form doing anything beside denying a scotus appointee. Not trivial, but still they rubber stamped everything else while putting out lip service that would even offend an 18 yr old. For that I have no use for standard issue republicans.
    I'll vote for them this time, but if hilrod gets in you're going to hear a bif sucking sound next election when the repubblekins get maybe 50% of the votes they got this time. Most of us know a hildebeast win is game over.

    1. I heard a highly regarded local politician here, Rep Tim Walberg (R), somebody I once interviewed on the radio, explain on my friends radio show why so little was done along the lines you describe.
      I thought I blogged about it but the link is here if you care to listen. You might have already.
      But I agree. Do something this time.

  12. I think we'll have to wait this one out...

  13. I re-read this and have some thoughts.
    Comey didn't create the timing for this event. clinton did by delaying so long and huma did by not turning over computer equpt as she was required to do.
    huma should be indicted for witholding evidence.
    hairy reid should have his face punched in again for accusing Comey of trying to affect an election. How about that 'Romney didn't pay his taxes line' eh reid you POS.
    I don't think Comey is trying to be a good guy and do his job. I believe there was a revolt within the FBI that threatened him to do his job more than clinton threatened him to not do his job.

    1. Good analysis.
      And i did hear he had a stack of resignations on his desk that he could NOT accept.
      And subordinates ignored him in the hallway.
      I do like to ascribe noble behavior to law enforcement, though. Except traffic cops.

    2. Noble behavior-traffic cops. Huge subject. Probably too big even for a post.

    3. I was unfairly dismissive of traffic cops.
      I've known GOOD and BAD.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. (Fingers working faster than brain.)
      I have a source that says your "ignore in the hallways" comment is valid, Ed.

  14. I've known good and bad cops of several varieties. Of course, slice and dice all the employees of IBM or Facebook, or Apple. You've got every kind of person there. From Evangelical to pervert to actual physical abusers to you name it. Of course, the cops will fit into every category you can name as well. I don't know how you verbalize it. The cops are a population like the rest of us and hopefully will not be above the law, but too many times I think they are.
    I was thinking cops in general also rather than just traffic cops.

  15. As an aside, it is so unfair to say cops are bad because 0.000001% of them have killed an unarmed person. It happens with whites as well as blacks. Who out there thinks an entire population of (fill in the blank) can possibly be held to some standard? Geeez, talk about unreasonable fantasy.

    1. Yep. I try not to generalize and give individuals a chance.
      Then I get burned. :)