Cleveland Division of Police Thank You Video – 2016 RNC, CLEPolice via YouTube
Archive for the ‘Law enforcement’ category
Cleveland Division of Police Thank You Video- 2016 RNC
July 27, 2016Guess Who Filled in for Wasserman-Schultz Yesterday
July 26, 2016Guess Who Filled in for Wasserman-Schultz Yesterday, Power Line,
If you said Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, you understand the modern Democratic party very well. Rawlings-Blake formally opened the proceedings in place of the deposed Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
Readers will recall that, as rioting commenced in Baltimore, Rawlings-Blake stated:
It’s a very delicate balancing act because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well, and we work very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.
(Emphasis added)
Later on, when rioting ran rampant, Rawlings-Blake had the police stand down.
Under Rawlings-Blake, the Baltimore police force has become hugely demoralized. The force is shrinking and the murder rate is soaring.
Kent Scheidegger of the Crime and Consequences blog writes:
If the Democratic Party wanted to make this election all about who is on the criminals’ side and who is on the law-abiding people’s side, with themselves being the wrong side, it could hardly have chosen a more effective face to put forward to open its convention.
We know that Donald Trump wants to make the election in significant part about who is on the criminals’ side. During his acceptance speech, Trump declared himself “the law and order candidate.”
He is. By default.
Democrats in Disarray as Convention Begins
July 24, 2016Democrats in Disarray as Convention Begins, Power Line,
The Democratic convention begins tomorrow in Philadelphia, with the party’s leaders scrambling to fend off a series of negative stories and present a unified front.
The Wikileaks dump of 20,000 DNC emails has exacerbated divisions within the party. The emails show the DNC’s leadership plotting against Bernie Sanders, exactly as he alleged throughout the campaign. Sanders will have a lot of delegates inside the convention hall, and an unknown number of demonstrators outside. Will he go along with the unity theme? Will his supporters? We will see.
In order to placate the Sanders forces, the Democrats have announced that party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s speaking slot has been canceled. Wasserman-Schultz was the chief anti-Sanders schemer, so canceling her speech may not be enough: this morning, Sanders demanded that she resign as party chairwoman. My guess is that the Democrats will throw her all the way under the bus in a desperate attempt to look unified.
Meanwhile, another controversy has arisen over the convention speeches scheduled to be given by Lezley McSpadden and Gwen Carr, the mothers of Michael Brown and Eric Garner respectively. The Democrats evidently chose to come down firmly on the side of the anti-police movement. But their plan elicited a furious response from John McNesby, President of Philadelphia’s police union:
I like that last line: “Mrs. Clinton you should be ashamed of yourself if that is possible.” The DNC, scrambling once again, now says they will add a couple of policemen to the list of speakers. That’s big of them.
With the exception of Ted Cruz’s performance, the Republican convention came off without a hitch, was not disrupted by protests either inside the hall or in the streets, and presented a positive image of the party. Journalists had to struggle to find negativity, sinking so low as to make a major story out of the fact that Melania Trump’s speechwriter copied a couple of sentence fragments from a speech by Michelle Obama. The horror! It will be interesting to see whether the wheels come off for the Democrats over the next four days, and how the press covers it if they do.
It will also be interesting to see what television ratings the Democrats can muster, compared with the Republican convention. Around 35 million watched Donald Trump’s acceptance speech, a number that reportedly fell below expectations. But how many will tune in to see another speech by tired, old retread Hillary Clinton? That, too, will be something to watch for.
Germans Debate Use of Force against Jihadists
July 24, 2016Germans Debate Use of Force against Jihadists, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, July 24, 2016
♦ “I am a soldier of the Caliphate and am launching a martyrdom operation in Germany. … I have lived among you, lived in your homes. I planned this in your own land. And I will slaughter you in your own homes and in the streets. … I will slaughter you with this knife and sever your necks with an axe, if Allah permits. ” – Germany’s axe-attacker, in an Islamic State video.
♦ “Künast should not be watching so many bad movies. Who would believe that if someone attacks the police with an axe and a knife, the police are supposed to shoot the axe out of the attacker’s hands? That is really clueless and stupid. If police officers are attacked in this manner, they will not engage in Kung Fu. Unfortunately, it sometimes ends in the death of the perpetrator. This will not change.” – Rainer Wendt, Chairman of the German Police Union.
♦ The Bavarian Criminal Police Office has now launched an internal investigation to determine if police were justified in shooting a jihadist.
A 17-year-old Afghan asylum seeker brandishing an axe and shouting “Allahu Akbar” (“Allah is the greatest”) seriously injured five people on a train in Würzburg, Bavaria. The assailant was shot dead by police after he charged at them with the axe.
The teenager, who had claimed asylum after arriving in Germany in June 2015 as an unaccompanied minor, had been placed with a foster family just two weeks before the attack as a reward for being “well integrated.”
Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said police had found a hand-painted Islamic State flag in his room at his foster home in the nearby town of Ochsenfurt. They also found a farewell letter to his father which read: “Now pray for me so that I can take revenge on these infidels. Pray for me that I can get to paradise.”
Shortly after the attack, the Islamic State released a video purporting to show an Afghan asylum seeker holding a knife and making threats against Germany:
“In the name of Allah, I am a soldier of the Caliphate and am launching a martyrdom operation in Germany.
“Here I am. I have lived among you, lived in your homes. I planned this in your own land. And I will slaughter you in your own homes and in the streets.
“I will make you forget about the spectacular attacks in France, if Allah permits.
“I will fight to the death, if Allah permits. I will slaughter you with this knife and sever your necks with an axe, if Allah permits.”
In the video, the Islamic State identified the attacker as Muhammad Riyad, who can be heard speaking Pashto, a language spoken in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. But German media identified the attacker as Riaz Khan Ahmadzai. The discrepancy raised questions about the teenager’s true identity.
Police found a Pakistani document in the teenager’s room, leading some to believe he may have lied about being from Afghanistan in order to improve his chances of securing asylum. German authorities generally classify migrants from Pakistan as economic migrants and those from Afghanistan as refugees. But Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière said there is no reason to doubt that the attacker was indeed from Afghanistan.
There are also unresolved questions about the teenager’s ties to the Islamic State. Herrmann, the Bavarian interior minister, said the video is authentic: “The man in the video is the Würzburg attacker.” The federal prosecutor’s office in Karlsruhe said it believed “the attacker committed the offense as a member of the Islamic State.”
Left: The 17-year-old Afghan asylum seeker who seriously injured five people on a train in Germany, while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” is shown in an Islamic State video saying, “In the name of Allah, I am a soldier of the Caliphate and am launching a martyrdom operation in Germany… I will slaughter you in your own homes and in the streets.” Right: The attacker’s body is removed from the place where police shot him, after he charged at them with the axe.
By contrast, De Maizière said the attacker was a self-radicalized “lone wolf” who had been incited by Islamic State propaganda. The public prosecutor in Bamberg, Erik Ohlenschlager, said “We have no evidence that he was in direct contact with the Islamic State.”
After the blood-filled train — an eyewitness said it “looked like a slaughterhouse” — came to a stop at a station in Heidingsfeld near Würzburg, the teenager jumped off and tried to escape. Surrounded by police, he lunged at them with an axe. Police shot the attacker dead because “there was no other option.”
Green Party MP Renate Künast criticized the police for using lethal force. In a tweet, she wrote: “Why could the attacker not have been incapacitated without killing him???? Questions!”
Künast’s comments provoked a furious backlash, with many accusing her of showing more sympathy for the perpetrator than for the victims. The outpouring of anger against Künast indicates that Germans have had enough of their politically correct politicians.
The chairman of the German police union, Rainer Wendt, said:
“The final rescue shot is clearly regulated by law. The policemen were attacked and used their firearm to defend against an immediate danger to life and limb. That is their statutory duty. The Green MP Renate Künast has absolutely no idea about reality of dangerous police actions.”
Speaking on N24 television, Wendt added:
“Künast should not be watching so many bad movies. Who would believe that if someone attacks the police with an axe and a knife, the police are supposed to shoot the axe out of the attacker’s hands? That is really clueless and stupid.
“If police officers are attacked in this manner, they will not engage in Kung Fu. Unfortunately, it sometimes ends in the death of the perpetrator. This will not change.”
The head of the police union in Bavaria, Peter Schall, said: “If a police officer is not allowed to shoot in such situations, he might as well stop carrying a weapon.”
Mike Mohring, a politician with the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU), called for stiffer penalties for those who attack police officers. He said attacks against police are on the rise across Germany and “the only effective deterrent is that the law provides an appropriate penalty.” He also said German police should be outfitted with body cameras to protect both the police and the public.
Bavarian Justice Minister Winfried Bausback called on Künast to resign: “Anyone who publicly suspects police in such a situation without any knowledge of the matter — as Künast has done in her tweet — is unacceptable as chairman of the parliamentary legal committee.”
Green leader Cem Özdemir distanced himself from Künast:
“I did not understand what she wrote there. It is always a good idea to think about what you are writing before you send a tweet. What are police officers supposed to do if they are attacked? They protected others and they protected themselves. Her view is not the position of my party.”
Andreas Scheuer, the general secretary of the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU, said Künast’s comments were “perverse.” He added: “The CSU’s policy is: protection of victims takes priority over protection of perpetrators.”
German commentator Klaus Kelle wrote:
“Our police in Germany do an excellent job and are hardly ever thanked for it. They are poorly paid … and repeatedly are whipping boys for errors of policy. Endless overtime, violent attacks, even in harmless situations such as illegal parking, is part of everyday life for our sons and daughters, who serve all of us.
“Where are the politicians who support our policemen, rather than those who mindlessly criticize them, as now? Ms. Künast, does the presumption of innocence apply to police officers in this country?”
The Bavarian Criminal Police Office has now launched an internal investigation to determine if police were justified in shooting a jihadist.
Philadelphia Police Union Rips Clinton, DNC for Not Including Families of Slain Police Officers as Convention Speakers
July 21, 2016Philadelphia’s police union is angry with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Convention for giving speaking roles to family members of police shooting victims but not to family members of police officers who died in the line of duty.
John McNesby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5, told Philadelphia’s local CBS affiliate that the speaker choices were “putting salt in the wound” and promoting an “anti-police movement.”
The union also released a statement that it was “insulted” by the exclusion of police widows and family members, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer:
“It is sad that to win an election Mrs. Clinton must pander to the interests of people who do not know all the facts, while the men and women they seek to destroy are outside protecting the political institutions of this country,” the statement read. “Mrs. Clinton, you should be ashamed of yourself if that is possible.”
The statement came days after the Clinton campaign announced that former President Bill Clinton would speak Tuesday night along with members of Mothers of the Movement, a group that includes Gwen Carr, mother of Eric Garner; Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin; and Lezley McSpadden, mother of Michael Brown.
Clinton’s campaign responded Wednesday, noting that two members of law enforcement are scheduled to speak at the convention, including former Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey.
Barack Obama Warns Black Lives Matter ‘Rhetoric,’ Violence, May Stop His Takeover of State, Local Police
July 12, 2016Barack Obama Warns Black Lives Matter ‘Rhetoric,’ Violence, May Stop His Takeover of State, Local Police, Breitbart, Neil Munro, July 12, 2016
[T]he growing wave of attacks on cops has put Obama on the political defense, and his supporters may spin further out of control to create more riots or attack that would delegitimize his campaign to federalize state and local police forces — and also damage Hillary Clinton’s election chances.
*********************
President Barack Obama is warning his angry supporters that more violence and “rhetoric” by the Black Lives Matter movement could derail his campaign to federalize state and local police forces.
“In a movement like Black Lives Matter, there’s always going to be some folks who say things that are stupid, or imprudent, or overgeneralized, or harsh,” Obama told reporters at a Sunday press conference, just three days after an African-American cop-hating racist murdered five police officers who were guarding a Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas.
“Everybody involved in the Black Lives Matter movement … I want all of them to maintain a respectful, thoughtful tone — because, as a practical matter, that’s what’s going to get change done,” Obama said.
The shocking attack in Dallas has wrecked the political momentum gained by the Obama-backed movement when stressed police killed two African-American suspects during that first week of July, in Minnesota and Louisiana. Immediately after those shootings, Obama had sought to use the two shootings to push his campaign to get more federal regulatory control over state and local police forces.
But because his campaign has been accompanied by a growing number of riots and of attacks on police, including in Dallas, Obama is being forced to defend and calm his angry allies, amid growing criticism that his anti-cop rhetoric has ignored a nationwide, low-level “War on Cops.”
So far this year, 26 police have been killed in shootings, marking a 63 percent increase over 2015, according to the Officer Down Memorial Page. After the Dallas shooting, gunman shot at three more policemen in Tennessee, Missouri, and Georgia. On Sunday, in Missouri, an African-American man was shot and killed as he broke into a police officers’ home following an argument on Facebook.
The anger among Obama’s allies was recorded July 9, when a BLM activist in St. Paul, Minn., frantically berated a TV reporter, while others shouted ‘Get Out of Here,’ and urged each other to attack him. “He is the face of white supremacy,” the activist shouted.
The video can be viewed here:
The African-American anti-cop movement also put rioters on the streets of several cities over the weekend. In 2014 and 2015, African-American rioters wrecked the town of Ferguson, Mo., and damaged the center of Baltimore.
For the moment, Obama and his deputies are simply pretending that the Dallas attack had nothing to do the Black Lives Matter movement, despite the killer’s decision to explain his anti-cop, anti-white motives to Dallas police. “The shooter is not reflective of the large movement to bring about change that was out in Dallas to peacefully demonstrate,” Jeh Johnson, Obama’s loyal head of the Department of Homeland Security, told a CBS interviewer on Sunday.
But the growing wave of attacks on cops has put Obama on the political defense, and his supporters may spin further out of control to create more riots or attack that would delegitimize his campaign to federalize state and local police forces — and also damage Hillary Clinton’s election chances.
“I would just say to everybody who’s concerned about the issue of police shootings or racial bias in the criminal justice system that maintaining a truthful and serious and respectful tone is going to help mobilize American society to bring about real change. And that is our ultimate objective,” he said at the Sunday press conference.
Obama did briefly condemn attacks on police, but spent much of the Sunday press conference repeatedly telling his African-American allies that angry rhetoric against police is counterproductive to his political goals.
Any violence directed at police officers is a reprehensible crime and needs to be prosecuted. But even rhetorically, if we paint police in broad brush, without recognizing that the vast majority of police officers are doing a really good job and are trying to protect people and do so fairly and without racial bias, if our rhetoric does not recognize that, then we’re going to lose allies in the reform cause.
Yet Obama simultaneously raised the political temperature by portraying the anti-cop movement as similar to the prior nation-changing political groups, some of which have include violent campaigns, such as the attacks launched by the terrorist groups, such as the Black Panthers, the Weathermen and violence by union members. Obama even cited the abolitionist movement, whose work was completed by the very bloody U.S. Civil War.
One of the great things about America is that individual citizens and groups of citizens can petition their government, can protest, can speak truth to power. And that is sometimes messy and controversial. But because of that ability to protest and engage in free speech, America, over time, has gotten better. We’ve all benefited from that.
The abolition movement was contentious. The effort for women to get the right to vote was contentious and messy. There were times when activists might have engaged in rhetoric that was overheated and occasionally counterproductive. But the point was to raise issues so that we, as a society, could grapple with it. The same was true with the Civil Rights Movement, the union movement, the environmental movement, the anti-war movement during Vietnam. And I think what you’re seeing now is part of that longstanding tradition.
Obama also said that the “flip side” of non-violence by his allies is for the cops to admit they’re in the wrong.
The flip side of that … would hope that police organizations are also respectful of the frustration that people in these communities feel and not just dismiss these protests and these complaints as political correctness, or as politics or attacks on police. There are legitimate issues that have been raised, and there’s data and evidence to back up the concerns that are being expressed by these protesters.
“If police organizations and departments acknowledge that there’s a problem and there’s an issue, then that, too, is going to contribute to real solutions,” he said, without describing what would happen if police organizations do not submit to his political demands.
Trump: I am the Law and Order candidate, email scandal shows Clinton is deceitful and incompetent
July 11, 2016Germany’s New “No Means No” Rape Law
July 8, 2016Germany’s New “No Means No” Rape Law, Gatestone Institute, Soeren Kern, July 8, 2016
♦ The reforms are unlikely to end Germany’s migrant rape epidemic.
♦ When it comes to immigration, political correctness often overrides the rule of law in Germany, where many migrants who commit sexual crimes are never brought to justice, and those who do stand trial receive lenient sentences from sympathetic judges.
♦”Every police officer knows he has to meet a particular political expectation. It is better to keep quiet [about migrant crime] to avoid problems.” — Rainer Wendt, head of the German police union.
♦ “It is unacceptable that asylum seekers are trampling on our society at the same time that they are here seeking our protection.” — Prosecutor Bastian Blaut.
The German parliament has approved changes to the criminal code that expand the definition of rape and make it easier to deport migrants who commit sex crimes.
Under the bill, also known as the “No Means No” (“Nein heißt Nein”) law, any form of non-consensual sex will now be punishable as a crime. Previously, only cases in which victims could show that they physically resisted their attackers were punishable under German law.
The changes, which were prompted by the sex attacks in Cologne, where hundreds of women were assaulted by mobs of mostly Muslim migrants on New Year’s Eve, is being hailed as a “paradigm shift” in German jurisprudence.
But the reforms, which are designed to make it easier for victims of sexual assault to file criminal complaints, are unlikely to end Germany’s migrant rape epidemic. This is because Germany’s politically correct justice system is notoriously lenient when it comes to prosecuting, sentencing and deporting foreign offenders.
The bill was unanimously approved on July 7 by the Bundestag, the lower house of parliament. The measure must still be approved by the Bundesrat, the upper house, which will vote on the reforms after the summer recess.
According to the original law, as stipulated in Paragraph 177 of the Criminal Code, victims were required to prove that they had physically defended themselves for an act to constitute rape. Verbal communication — simply saying “No” — was insufficient to bring charges against an assailant. The original law was written that way to deter false accusations of rape and avoid frivolous lawsuits, according to German legal experts.
The reforms will allow prosecutors and courts to take into account physical, verbal and non-verbal signals from the victim when determining whether or not a rape occurred. Anyone convicted of sexual activity that goes against the “discernable will” (erkennbaren Willen) of the victim faces up to five years in prison. The law also broadens the definition of sexual assault to include groping, which is punishable by up to two years in prison.
Moreover, the new law introduces Paragraph 184j, which will make it crime just to be in a group that carries out sexual assaults. The measure is aimed to deter attacks such as those which occurred in Cologne, although some lawmakers say this provision is unconstitutional because a person could be convicted of a crime that he or she did not personally commit. Finally, the reforms make it easier to deport migrants who are convicted of sex crimes in Germany.
The German Minister for Women, Manuela Schwesig, hailed the measure as a milestone:
“In the past there were cases where women were raped but the perpetrators could not be punished. The change in the law will help increase the number of victims who choose to press charges, reduce the number of criminal prosecutions that are shelved and ensure sexual assaults are properly punished.”
According to Minister of Justice Heiko Maas, only one in 10 rapes in Germany is reported and just 8% of rape trials result in convictions.
Even if the new law results in an increase in the number of rape convictions, it is unlikely to be a meaningful deterrent for the migrants who are sexually assaulting German women and children.
When it comes to immigration, political correctness often overrides the rule of law in Germany, where many migrants who commit sexual crimes are never brought to justice, and those who do stand trial receive lenient sentences from sympathetic judges.
On June 30, for example, a court in the northern German town of Ahrensburg found a 17-year-old migrant from Eritrea guilty of attempting to rape an 18-year-old woman in the stairwell of a parking garage at the train station in Bad Oldesloe. The woman was seriously injured in the attack, in which the migrant tried to subdue her by repeatedly biting her in the face and neck. After police arrived, the migrant resisted arrest and head-butted a police officer, who was also sent to the hospital.
Despite finding the Eritrean guilty of sexually assaulting the woman and physically assaulting the police officer, the court gave him a seven-month suspended sentence and ordered him to do 30 hours of community service. He has been released from custody and will not be deported.
In addition to judicial leniency, migrant criminals have benefited from German authorities, who have repeatedly been accused of underreporting the true scale of the migrant crime problem in the country, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments.
In January, the newspaper Die Welt reported that the suppression of data about migrant criminality is a “Germany-wide phenomenon.” According to Rainer Wendt, the head of the German police union (Deutschen Polizeigewerkschaft, DPolG), “Every police officer knows he has to meet a particular political expectation. It is better to keep quiet [about migrant crime] to avoid problems.”
Also in January, a document leaked to the newspaper Bild revealed that politicians in the northern city of Kiel had ordered local police to overlook many of the crimes perpetrated by migrants. According to Bild, police in North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony have also been instructed to be lenient to criminal migrants.
In February, Die Welt reported that authorities in the German state of Hesse were suppressing information about migrant-related crimes, ostensibly due to a “lack of public interest.”
In May, a chief superintendent from the Cologne police department revealed that an official at the interior ministry in North-Rhine Westphalia ordered him to remove the term “rape” from an internal police report about the assaults in Cologne.
Police in Cologne now say they have received more than 1,000 complaints from women, including 454 reports of sexual assaults, related to New Year’s Eve. Police in Hamburg say they have received complaints from 351 women, including 218 reports of sexual assault that took place on the same evening.
On July 7, more than six months after the Cologne attacks (and the same day that the Bundestag approved the new “No Means No” rape law), a German court issued the first two convictions: The District Court of Cologne gave a 20-year-old Iraqi and a 26-year-old Algerian a one-year suspended sentence and then released the two men.
The court found the Iraqi, identified only as Hussain A., guilty of kissing one of the victims and licking her face. The Algerian, named as Hassan T., prevented the boyfriend of the other victim from intervening to stop the attack and offered him money to have sex with her: “Give the girls or you die,” he said. He was found guilty of being an accessory to sexual assault.
The Iraqi man, who was 20 at the time, was sentenced under juvenile law and was ordered to attend an integration course and do 80 hours of community service. The newspaper Bild published photographs of a jubilant Hassan T. smiling as he left the courtroom.
One observer said the light sentence was a mockery of justice and would serve as an invitation for criminal migrants to do as they please with German women.
Prosecutor Bastian Blaut said:
“It is unacceptable when basic values such as the equality of woman and man are violated. It is unacceptable that migrants are bargaining over women as in a bazaar. It is unacceptable that asylum seekers are trampling on our society at the same time that they are here seeking our protection.”
The FBI Recommendation Not to Indict Hillary Will Help Trump
July 6, 2016The FBI Recommendation Not to Indict Hillary Will Help Trump, Dan Miller’s Blog, July 6, 2016
(The views expressed in this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
FBI Director Comey intimidated that anyone except a former high-ranking Democrat government official currently running for high office as a Democrat would have faced serious consequences. The exemption granted to Hillary Clinton does not sit well with many if not most Republican and Independent voters; even the generally supportive lamebrain media are finally attacking Her. Nevertheless, She will get the Democrat presidential nomination and “likable” but befuddled Joe Biden won’t. All of that is good for Trump.
I’m Guilty as Hell and free as a bird. This is for the little people.
Here’s FBI Director Comey’s statement on his decision not to recommend Clinton’s indictment:
The GOP posted this advertisement on July 5th:
Shortly after Comey made his announcement, ABC hailed it as having “lifted a cloud” for Clinton and Obama. [All bold-face type is in the original at News Busters.]
In the moments following FBI Director James Comey’s announcement on Tuesday that Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges for her private e-mail servers scandal, the cast assembled by ABC News hailed the “extraordinary decision” as “a momentous day” signaling that “a cloud is lifted” for Clinton to continue on with the presidential race and President Obama to give his own thoughts on the matter.
. . . .
Wrapping it all up, Stephanopoulos spun to Karl that “even though this report is kind of damning, the announcement of no indictment before that first joint campaign stop kind of clears the decks for [President Obama] as well.”
Karl gushed that “the timing is so extraordinary….to think you have that Air Force One on the tarmac ready to take them down to this first campaign appearance together, but this whole process has been a cloud hanging over the head of Hillary Clinton and her campaign so that cloud is lifted.”
“But as we pointed out — there’s so much bad here for Hillary Clinton. But ultimately when they get beyond this, they no longer have to have the possibility of an indictment,” he added.
According to a Rasmussen poll taken on the evening of July 5th,
37% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with the FBI’s decision. But 54% disagree and believe the FBI should have sought a criminal indictment of Clinton. Ten percent (10%) are undecided.
. . . .
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats agree with Comey’s decision not to seek an indictment of their party’s presumptive presidential nominee. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans, 63% of voters not affiliated with either major political party and 25% of Democrats disagree with the decision. [Emphasis added.]
Director Comey has agreed to appear before the House Oversight Committee on July 7th to respond to questions about his decision not to indict Ms. Clinton.
The initial lamebrain media reaction was trumped by its own later reactions. The media picked up on Comey’s shredding of Clinton’s practices, particularly calling her “extremely careless” with classified information and refuting her talking points such as that she didn’t send or receive e-mail marked classified on her unsecured system.
The mainstream press across the dial commented on how this hurt Clinton’s campaign, played into the set narrative that she’s not trustworthy and called into question her judgment on matters of national security.
According to WaPo, a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy sycophantic long time advocate for Hillary,
THE BIG IDEA: Want to know why two-thirds of Americans do not consider Hillary Clinton trustworthy? Re-watch pretty much any public comment she’s made about her email use over the past 16 months and then watch James Comey’s speech yesterday.
The FBI director shredded so many of the talking points that the former Secretary of State and her top aides have used over and over again throughout this scandal, including that she never emailed classified material; that information in the emails was classified retroactively; that none of the emails were marked as containing classified information; that there were definitively no security breaches; that she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department; that the set-up was driven by convenience; and that the government was merely conducting “a security review.”
Rosalind Helderman, who has been covering this saga closely, writes that Comey “systematically dismantled” Clinton’s defenses. She juxtaposes Clinton quotes since last March against Comey quotes from yesterday. (Read her full piece here.)
— While Clinton dodged a legal bullet that could have been catastrophic to her candidacy, yesterday was neither vindication nor exoneration, and it certainly will not put the matter to rest. Instead, Comey’s declaration that she was “extremely careless” in handling classified material and should have known better will dog her through November. Though the FBI director said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a criminal case against Clinton, his nearly 15-minute speech was tantamount to a political indictment.
Obama still maintains that Hilary is Great. Here’s what He said at a Clinton rally a couple of hours after the FBI decision not to recommend indictment had been announced.
I guess it all depends on what sex most “qualified” in history means. Please see also, Hillary is Best Qualified to Finish Imam Obama’s Work.
As noted by Michael Walsh at PJ Media,
A day after the Fourth of July, we’ve come to a new low in the history of the United States of America and of the criminal organization masquerading as a political party that has seized power . . . .
If on November 8th voters still remember the Clinton non-indictment and Director Comey’s remarks suggesting than anyone else would have been indicted — and it seems likely that Trump, et all will remind them — the impact should be significant.
Even if they don’t remember, at least Hillary will be the Democrat candidate and Joe Malaprop Biden won’t be. On July 5th, Allen West wrote,
Of course, the news cycle is completely dominated by FBI Director James Comey’s announcement yesterday recommending no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. And my response is GREAT! I can’t thank Director Comey enough for coming to this decision. [Emphasis added.]
My concern has always been that Barack Obama would release the hounds on Mrs. Clinton and then push for his vice president, Joe Biden, to be the Democrat nominee. And then, to placate the far lefty socialists, who own the Democrat party, Obama would position Sen. Elizabeth Warren as Biden’s VP. That would be a really tough ticket to beat, since Joe Biden’s favorables, regardless of gaffes and such, are extremely high.
If the voters do remember or are adequately reminded, some NeverTrumpers may change their minds and vote for Trump; they should. A July 5th article at Maggie’s Farm posited,
Hillary Clinton is corrupt and corrupting of everyone she touches. President Obama has engaged in outrageous executive conduct so often as to be numbing. Those in powerful positions throughout this administration behave like lawless thugs and keep getting away with it. The courts have been packed with judges who find excuses to not enforce the laws or who create ones out of ideology contrary to intent. The major media shamelessly look away or cover up for the lawless and abusers, and seek every opportunity – or blow out of proportion every trivial thing – to damn opponents of the regime. Much of the Republicans in office lack the guts or integrity to fight back, outside of mewing noises.
Where does that leave us now?
The Tea Party movement occurred at a point in time between elections, and succeeded in electing many who promised to be better. Some have been. Many have been useless or become tools. Now, it is election time, and the demonstration we require is at the ballot box.
Donald Trump is far from the perfect leader. But, then it takes someone with gumption and determination who will not be intimidated to take on the rot that permeates our government and self-appointed ruling class. And, Trump is the only revolution we have available. [Emphasis added.]
Anyone deserves the end of our once-renowned Republic who stays home or turns coat or otherwise fails to stand up for recovering an America with basic laws and justice, an America which is not beholden to those who would exploit the government for self-aggrandizement or profits, an America with justice for all which does not favor the wealthy or powerful sycophants of state power. [Emphasis added.]
Donald Trump is not George Washington. But he’s the only revolution we have, and very probably our last chance. I have faith in the American people who will bring us back from tottering over the brink of ruination to make it work when Trump is elected. [Emphasis added.]
Get out and work for local candidates and for Trump. Otherwise, be part of the ruination. It’s that simple and brutal a truth.
Trump now has a very substantial chance of winning the November 8th election and the Hildabeast’s chances have diminished. For the “NeverTrumpers” and others who would otherwise vote for the Republican nominee either to stay home or to vote for the Hildebeast would be unconscionable. The nation might well not survive eight years of the Hildebeast, and the Republican Party almost certainly would not.
Don’t be “a day late and a dollar short.” Please.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDEkm4QBXb4
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments