Posted tagged ‘Clinton supporters’

Trying to overturn a free and fair election

December 13, 2016

Trying to overturn a free and fair election, Washington Times,

vlad

The world has turned itself upside down. Only yesterday the liberals and the left (the “progressives,” as they want to be called) regarded the CIA as the locus of evil, the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, forever poisoning gentle minds with a diet of conspiracy and tall tale.

In those gloomy days of the Cold War, where every day was seasoned with a sharp wind and a cold rain, it was the Democratic intellectuals who were forever chiding the rest of us that the Soviet Union was not so bad, the Russians just wanted to be understood and maybe deserved an occasional cuddle. It was the Republicans and other conservatives who were mindless rubes who imagined there was a mad Russian under everybody’s bed.

Now the CIA, in the liberal/left’s fevered dreams, is the last bulwark of the republic, the last remaining hope to turn the 2016 election result on its head and deprive Donald Trump of the victory he won. The Russians, it now turns out, are just as bad as the conservatives said they were.

President Obama, who mocked Mitt Romney four years ago for suggesting that Russia and Vladimir Putin was America’s No. 1 enemy, now says it was Mr. Romney who was smart and got it right four years ago. The president himself, in his telling, is the man dumber than a cypress stump.

The president, at last awake and paying attention to Russian cyber warfare, wants answers, and by noon on Jan. 20. He can then only dine out on the answers, because he won’t have any more authority to do anything about them than the cat.

Desperation pursues despair, and the Democrats are stumbling from inanity to insanity in search of a way to block Donald Trump’s path to the White House. Hilary Clinton’s remnant of a campaign has endorsed an attempt by a handful of members of the Electoral College — 9 Democrats and a rogue Republican — to get the “intelligence briefing” they think might derail next Monday’s scheduled day for the members of the Electoral College to vote for president, 306 of whom are honor bound to vote for the Donald. That’s 36 votes more than he needs.

“The bipartisan electors’ letter raises very grave issues involving our national security,” John Podesta said Monday. “Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.

“Each day our campaign decried the interference of Russia in our campaign and its evident goal of hurting our campaign to aid Donald Trump. Despite our protestations this matter did not receive the attention it deserved by the media in our campaign. We now know that the CIA has determined Russia’s interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American.”

What should distress every American is the way the left, the liberals, the progressives and their handmaidens in the press have discarded reasonable conversation to try out every absurd alarm, one after the other, to see whether one could stick, to undermine and undercut the results of what everyone agrees was a free and fair election on Nov. 8. None has worked. More than a month later, the republic stands.

Hysteria now threatens to become insanity. Rep. Jim Hines of Connecticut, a Democrat, says it came to him in the night, as if Marley’s ghost was rattling his chains at the bedside, “that this man is not only unqualified to be president, he’s a danger to the republic. I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue, but I would rather have a legal issue, a complicated legal problem, than to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.”

Accusing a president-elect of treason, of plotting with the enemy against his country, and with no evidence at all, is something that even a congressman from Connecticut should understand is beyond the limits of rational and decent political debate. Alas, it’s par for the course on the left this season.

The sudden deep concern by President Obama and the Democrats about Russia and cyber warfare, is a bit rich. The Washington Post, which continues so deep in denial that its side lost the election that it may never find the way to the next stage of grief, hangs its survival on the conclusion of the intelligence agencies — which, to put it charitably, have a dismal record of finding out what’s going on anywhere.

A competent president and a responsible “intelligence community” would have done something about the Russians and their hackers a long time ago. Whining doesn’t work.

Pantsuit Nation Dons Hijabs to Support Jihadi’s Mosque

November 20, 2016

Pantsuit Nation Dons Hijabs to Support Jihadi’s Mosque, Daniel Greenfield, Front Page Magazine, November 20, 2016

morons

Pantsuit Nation was supposed to carry Hillary Clinton to victory. But its cause proved as limp as its pantsuits and now it is bereft and seeking something to do. So a bunch of its members donned hijabs and went out to show their love for a rather notorious mosque.

After a presidential election that divided the country and often stoked tensions against minorities, a group of roughly 40 mostly women and children shared a different message Friday.

“We love our Muslim neighbors,” the signs read.

The visitors – members of the pro-Hillary Clinton group Pantsuit Nation – toured the Islamic Society of Greater Charlotte on The Plaza and greeted worshipers with smiles and signs of support before an afternoon service.

The goal: “To show we love them,” said Kristi Tolman, 40, who stopped by the Islamic center during her lunch hour. “They have to be scared because of all the hateful rhetoric.”

Aww. The poor dears.

But speaking of hateful rhetoric…

At the Islamic Society of Greater Charlotte, few of the several hundred Muslims gathered for Friday Prayer wanted to talk about Mr. Khan.

“This is a very dangerous road when you go and kill someone like this,” said Ayeb Suleiman, 25, a medical resident. “He was just an editor. He was just writing.”

Who was Samir Khan? He was a leading Al Qaeda figure killed in a drone strike who delivered a sermon at the Islamic Society of Greater Charlotte saying that Muslims who weren’t engaged in Jihad were cowards.

Trump Won Fair and Square. Get a life.

November 20, 2016

Trump Won Fair and Square. Get a life. Dan Miller’s Blog, November 20, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Democrats, the lamebrain media (but I repeat myself), academics (Opps!  I repeated myself again) and others who should know better are protesting — often violently — against Trump’s victory. Trump Derangement Syndrome is upon us.

Trump won fair and square. He did not rely on non-citizens or others who are barred from voting. As President, he intends, with the help of Congress, to make changes in U.S. policy. Horrors!

recall

Reflections via Gilbert and Sullivan

Thank Zeus that Hillary won’t be the Monarch of the Sea President of the United States. The Monarch of the Seas, as depicted by G&S, certainly behaves and sounds like Hillary.

Here is Hillary on the day after her defeat.

Here’s how less-than-normally-judgmental Hillary supporters and Never Trumpers see Trump:

So much for Gilbert and Sullivan.

Here are Hillary’s supporters:

Here’s another meltdown. The linked article had a video, but YouTube says “This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.” I wonder why. Oh well. This is how Jonathan Turley describes it:

In an appearance on MSNBC (which seems at times to be moving through the stages of grieving of Kübler-Ross), McInstosh insisted that the problem was with sexist, self-hating women: “Internalized misogyny is a real thing and this is a thing we have to be talking about as we go through and see.” She added “We as a society react poorly to women seeking positions of power. We are uncomfortable about that and we seek to justify that uncomfortable feeling because it can’t possibly be because we don’t want to see a woman in that position of power. As we go through these numbers, as we figure out exactly what happened with turnout, it seems to be white college-educated women . . . We have work to do talking to those women about what happened this year and why we would vote against our self-interest.”

And then there are these no less delusional “feminists.”

gender-climate-1

Daniel Greenfield wrote at Front Page Magazine about the Trump Derangement Syndrome.

#NotOurPresident on Twitter quickly gave way to riots in major cities. Democrats in the affected cities decided that the riots were a great idea even though it was their own police that were being attacked.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York City’s radical leftist boss, claimed that “more disruption… will change the trajectory of things”. Even though the only trajectory that the protests have changed thus far is New York City traffic. “The more people fight back, the more it takes away his power,” he insisted.

Wiser heads on the left recognized that messing up Manhattan traffic wouldn’t stop Trump from taking office. Instead they decided to abolish the Electoral College. Senator Boxer will introduce a bill to that effect. Bernie Sanders mumbled that it’s time to rethink it. Michael Dukakis fired off an angry email insisting that Hillary Clinton had won and that abolishing it should be a top Democratic priority.

Since Hillary lost, the Electoral College is, according to Slate, an “Instrument of White Supremacy—and Sexism”. And probably Islamophobic and Homophobic too. Time Magazine defaulted to the default lefty attack on anything by accusing the Electoral College of being racist. But if Hillary had won, then any attack on the Electoral College would be racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic and claustrophobic.

Rank and filers weren’t interested in waiting to abolish it tomorrow. They skipped right to trying to rig it today. Over 4 million people have signed a petition titled, “Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19”. Because that’s just how they think elections should work.

Efforts were made to contact Electors directly urging them to hijack the election. Idaho Secretary of State Lawerence Denney said that the Electors were being harassed with “insults”, “vulgar language” and “threats”. One Elector reported that his cell, home phone, email and Facebook were targeted.

“They’re just trying to steal this thing,” he said.

The Electoral College is undemocratic. Unless you’re a Democrat asking it to undemocratically hijack the results of a state election while depriving its voters of political representation.

Some Democrats despaired of stealing the election and tried to steal the Supreme Court instead. There were revived calls for a Supreme Court recess appointment. There’s a petition, a Saturday Night Live punch line and a bizarre effort by Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley to move the nomination forward.

Merkley claimed that Trump has “no right to fill” that seat and that the Supreme Court seat was stolen.  “We need to do everything we possibly can to block it,” he insisted.

What does that mean? How about a permanently deadlocked Supreme Court?

A Slate writer urged that, “the only way to answer nihilism is with nihilism of our own.”

“Obstruct the nomination and seating of any Trump nominee to fill Scalia’s seat,” she urged. “We will lose. But that’s not the point now… If Democrats can muster the energy to fight about nothing else, it should be this.”

A permanently deadlocked Supreme Court doesn’t sound like much of a plan. But Trump Derangement Syndrome means embracing nihilism. And it’s downright rational compared to the celebrity meltdowns as TMZ’s finest cope with the blow to their egos of an election that showed they didn’t matter.

Lady Gaga has been yelling at Trump on and off Twitter. Constitutional scholar George Takei demanded that Obama just appoint Garland. Honorary feminist Joss Whedon declared, “This is simple: Trump cannot CANNOT be allowed a term in office. It’s not about 2018. It’s about RIGHT NOW.”

What does that mean? It’s a tantrum. It means that baby wants his power and he wants it now.

And it only gets crazier from there.

The outer reaches of Trump Derangement Syndrome include calls to boycott three brands of toilet paper because they’re allegedly made by the Koch Brothers. Never mind that the Koch Brothers weren’t supporting Trump. Facts, like democracy, only matter when they happen to be on your side.

Then there are the ritual burnings of New Balance sneakers on YouTube and Instagram. Not to mention support for the secession of California from the United States of America.

A man has sued Donald Trump for $1 billion for having inflicted “great emotional pain, fear and anxiety on Election Day and beyond.” Students at Cornell held a “cry-in” to mourn the results of the election.  The University of Kansas offered students therapy dogs. At the University of Michigan’s multi-ethnic student affairs center students took comfort in regressing to childhood with coloring books and Play-Doh.

John Hopkins recommended a healing circle. Stanford urged students to “take care of yourselves and to give support to those who need it.” Vanderbilt encouraged them “to take advantage of the outstanding mental health support the university offers.”

At the University of Maryland, an astronomy test was canceled to help students cope with “a personally threatening election result.” A Yale economics professor made his test optional because students were “in shock” over losing an election.  A dozen midterms were rescheduled at Columbia.

One student complained, “Instead of studying for my exam, I was glued to the election update. It’s not fair to have a test the following day when something so monumental is taking place, especially when this event is threatening so many groups of people in our country.”

Under all the outraged rhetoric is a narcissistic sense of entitlement. Frustrate it and tantrums happen.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is the tantrum that happens when that sense of entitlement bursts. It’s not a new phenomenon. We saw it with Bush and with previous Republican presidents before him. But as the left’s power has grown, its insular ivory towers have become unable to imagine ever losing it.

Obama maintained the illusion that the opposition didn’t matter by ruling unilaterally. Then in one election the illusion collapsed. The left wasn’t really in charge. There were millions of people across the country in places they had never visited or even heard of who got to decide on all these issues.

That warm comfortable safe space of John Oliver and Samantha Bee viral videos, Buzzfeed stories and social media feeds filled with carefully curated people who agreed with them wasn’t reality. It had been an illusion all along. It was an elitist island that had little in common with that vast geography of people who get their say through the Electoral College. After two terms of getting their way on everything, they woke to a world in which they didn’t matter and which was suddenly no longer catering to their whims.

They don’t really want to abolish the Electoral College, to put Garland on the Supreme Court or to burn New Balance sneakers. What they really want is to get rid of democracy and replace it with a dictatorship. Trump Derangement Syndrome is the tantrum of tyrants.

It’s a real threat to democracy. But that’s what the left has always been.

The hysteria of Trump Derangement Syndrome is the flip side of Obama worship. Both reject democracy and embrace power. They are the illiberal attitudes of a totalitarian movement at odds with America. [Emphasis added.]

Yep.

Left wing Europeans had their own Temper Trumptums

“A world is collapsing before our eyes”, tweeted the French ambassador to the United States, Gerard Araud, as it became clear that Donald Trump had won the US presidential election. Although he later apparently deleted the tweet, the sentiment expressed in his tweet encapsulates the attitude of the majority of the European political establishment.

Deutsche Welle (DW), Germany’s international broadcaster, described the reaction to Trump’s victory across Germany’s political spectrum as “shock and uncertainty.” Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen described Trump’s win as a “heavy shock.” German Justice Minister Heiko Maas tweeted: “The world won’t end, but things will get more crazy”.

Green party leader Cem Özdemir called Trump’s election a “break with the tradition that the West stands for liberal values.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s deputy chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, said:

“Trump is the trailblazer of a new authoritarian and chauvinist international movement. … They want a rollback to the bad old times in which women belonged by the stove or in bed, gays in jail and unions at best at the side table. And he who doesn’t keep his mouth shut gets publicly bashed.”

In a fine touch of irony, EU Commissioner Guenther Oettinger, who recently referred to the Chinese as “slanty eyed,” told Deutschlandfunk radio that the U.S. election was a “warning” for Germany: “Things are getting simplified, black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. You can ask simple questions, but one should not give simple answers.”

In France, the media reaction was summed up by the left-leaning newspaper, Libération:

“Trumpocalypse… Shock… The world’s leading power is from now on in the hands of the far-right. Fifty percent of Americans voted in all conscience for a racist, lying, sexist, vulgar, hateful candidate.”

Critics omitted, however, the runaway lawlessness, divisiveness and corruption that American voters declined to reinstate.

President François Hollande described Trump’s victory as marking the start of “a period of uncertainty.” Previously, Hollande had said that Trump made him “want to retch.”

On a very different, but related note, Nigel Farage speaks about the Trump and Brexit revolutions:

Sharyl Attkisson explains in the next video how and why the lamebrain media were consistently wrong about the presidential election:

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a reformist Muslim, agrees with Trump’s much-maligned — and grossly distorted by the media — plans for deciding which Muslims will be allowed to enter the United States.

Conclusions

I engaged in a bit of Schadenfreude while writing this, but the problem has its serious aspects.

Many people wanted “feminist” Hillary to continue Obama’s feckless foreign and domestic policies; not enough to win the election for Hillary, but enough to make them believe that they should and would win hands-down. Since they didn’t, they concluded that something serious — they don’t know what, beyond the idiocy of American voters and a “corrupt” electoral system — must have caused “racist, antisemitic, misogynist bully” Trump to win.

Why? Academia — from kindergarten through graduate school — are one big part of the problem and the lamebrain media are another. Most of those placed in charge of them doubtless agree with Obama’s position that His world vision is right and that Populism is dangerous.

Remember the Obama Kids?

Now San Francisco teachers have an anti-Trump lesson plan.

[I]nstead of laudatory songs that praise the new president, a sick new anti-Trump lesson plan that demonizes President-elect Trump and his supporters has already been offered to teachers in the San Francisco area.  High school social studies teacher Fakhra Shah apparently drew up the lesson plan in a fit of spite and rage in the wee hours of the morning of November 9, right after Trump was elected. The school district reportedly has no problem with the plan, which characterizes the new president and his supporters as racist and sexist bigots.

. . . .

[Ms. Shah] warned teachers that some students may lash out at the new president using foul and obscene language. She even encouraged this because it is how kids living under white supremacy lift themselves up and fight oppression at school. Or something.

“I know that they might curse and swear, but you would too if you have suffered under the constructs of white supremacy or experienced sexism, or any isms or lack of privilege,” she wrote.

This is not “empowering” or “uplifting.” It is seriously deranged and destructive. The songs of Obama praise were disturbing and inappropriate, but this kind of propaganda is just plain evil. Instead of helping students deal with an election that maybe didn’t go the way they wanted, they are encouraging them to wallow in anger and self-pity and branding over 60 million Americans as racist and sexist bigots.

America won the election but we still have a big problem. I hope to be able to suggest fixes in a later article, but there are no easy solutions.

The Stretch Drive (9)

November 4, 2016

The Stretch Drive (9), Power LineSteven Hayward, November 4, 2016

Just three or four weeks ago all the chatter from the Certified Smart People was that Hillary was “expanding the map,” and could concentrate on campaigning in red states like Georgia, Arizona, maybe even Texas. Now, Hillary’s campaign is frantically buying last minute ad time in . . . Michigan. (And Hillary has added a last minute campaign stop in Michigan today.) She’s suddenly campaigning hard in the key swing states. This should tell you everything you need to know about the state of the race with four days to go.

The ABC/Washington Post tracking poll today has Hillary back up to a three-point lead, 47-44, though with the interesting finding that respondents give Trump a nine-point lead as the candidate best able to deal with corruption. Meanwhile, some new individual state polls show Trump within striking distance in blue states—down two points in Pennsylvania, tied in Colorado, comfortably ahead in New Hampshire and Arizona. But behind in Florida, which may yet again turn out to be the key state. Oh goody.

It’s been obvious for a while now that Trump is actually running against four people: Hillary, her husband, President Obama, and Michelle Obama. I can’t recall a presidential election where the incumbent president made so many campaign appearances. Reagan made only one or two for George H.W. Bush in 1988, and of course Bill Clinton made none on behalf of Al Gore in 2000 (by Gore’s own choice reportedly). This shows how difficult it is to put Hillary over the top.

Finally, in the miscellany department, a reader directs me to this very old ABC 20/20 expose of the Clinton standard operating sleaze. The video is 10 minutes long, but worth watching for its stomach-churning glory. Can we really want to put these people back in the White House?

Don’t Be Fooled: Hillarygate Probe Is Now a Formal Federal Criminal Investigation

November 1, 2016

Don’t Be Fooled: Hillarygate Probe Is Now a Formal Federal Criminal Investigation, American Thinker, James G. Wiles, November 1, 2016

The NY Times and the Wall Street Journal both reported on Monday morning that an FBI warrant application to a federal judge over the weekend for permission to search Huma Abedin’s emails and laptop had been granted. The application was made on the basis of the Clinton email investigation. Necessarily, that application (as required by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment) would have been supported by FBI affidavits.

This new fact is a development of immense potential significance – both for Mrs. Clinton personally and for us as American citizens. It is also unprecedented in American history.

At a minimum, it enables us to pierce the thick cloud of black ink and disinformation released over the weekend by Team Hillary and which is being widely misreported in the current news cycle.

The FBI agents had to make this warrant application because their existing Fourth Amendment search authority was on the basis of Anthony Weiner’s (unrelated) suspected misconduct with an underage girl. That investigation was already a grand jury matter. However, that grand jury’s authority – which is supervised by a federal judge — did not authorize the Bureau to pursue information which might be pertinent to the inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a personal email server while she was Secretary of State. Making that application, under standard DOJ protocol, required approval from Main Justice. In this case, the assistant attorney in charge of the Criminal Division, if not the attorney general.

Since the application was made, it’s safe to conclude that the Criminal Division at Main Justice authorized the warrant application. Thus, at a minimum, the senior leadership of the Justice Department is not as unanimously condemnatory of FBI director Comey’s letter to Congress on Friday as media reports would lead us to believe.

It also explains why Director Comey issued his letter to Congress. The reporting tells us that the FBI’s decision to make a warrant application to the supervising judge of the Weiner grand jury triggered Mr. Comey’s decision to notify Congress. Having promised Congressional leaders (perhaps unwisely, since he was not required to do so) that, if the Bureau uncovered new evidence relating to Hillarygate which required further inquiry, he would so notify them, he proceeded on Friday to keep his word and do so.

Now he’s being condemned by the Democrats and the MSM for not saying why. We’ll get to the reason why he’s not in a minute. But, first, the granting of the warrant application means several important and new things:

1) A federal judge supervising a grand jury has now made a finding, based on FBI affidavits which present evidence gathered during the preliminary Hillary inquiry (the one which the FBI director stated had been closed back in July), that there’s probable cause to believe that a federal crime was committed in connection with Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server.

We still, however, don’t know what crime(s) are suspected to have been committed. Or by whom.

2) The FBI can use this new grant of grand jury authority to investigate Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for the first time to issues subpoenaes to obtain testimony from witnesses and compel the production of documents and things. The Bureau and DOJ can, furthermore, use the judge’s probable cause finding to support further warrant applications.

This means that, if DOJ authorizes it, a United States attorney now has the ability for the first time to put subpoenaed witnesses before a grand jury. There, without their lawyer in the room, they may be questioned under oath by a federal prosecutor. If the witnesses take the Fifth – and the witness’s lawyer is allowed to sit outside the grand jury room and be consulted by the witness before answering a question, they can be immunized and, if they still refuse to testify, a judge can jail them indefinitely until they change their mind.

Huma Abedin, according to prior reporting, received a grant of immunity during the FBI’s preliminary investigation. During the first Clinton presidency, Clinton allies chose jail over cooperating with the federal grand jury investigating both Clintons.

We may get to see if a new generation of Clinton allies are willing to do the same.

3) The liberal media’s reporting that the Hillarygate email server investigation has not, in fact, been “reopened” is totally false.

Why?

Because, not only is the probe reopened, it has been upgraded and expanded. It has been upgraded from a preliminary inquiry to a formal criminal investigation with grand jury power. That also means that, at least at the level of the federal grand jury itself, assistant U.S. attorneys assigned to that grand jury are now for the first time formally involved.

In other words: the Beast is now fully awake.

4) This weekend’s development potentially escalates the threat to Mrs. Clinton. While several other procedural steps and processes are necessary, it is a federal grand jury, not the FBI,  which issues indictments. The FBI — using the the grand jury to obtain testimony, conduct searches and compel the production of documents and things – investigates crimes. The U.S. Attorneys, acting though the grand jury, charge and prosecute those persons whom the grand jury finds probable cause to believe have committed those crimes.

5) This weekend’s development also means that, for the first time in American history, a candidate for President of the United States is likely now a subject/target of a federal grand jury investigation.

These facts now enable us to analyze and dispel Team Clinton’s attempts to lay down a thick fog of misdirection over the scene.

Here it is: Mrs. Clinton’s demand that the FBI be “transparent” is pure posturing — spinning to the max (which Mrs. Clinton, as the most criminally investigated presidential candidate in U.S. history, well knows). Younger readers, please take note: this is not, to put it mildly, Hillary Clinton’s first rodeo.

Not for the first time, Mrs. Clinton is being totally disingenuous with the voters (and the media). She is also making FBI director Comey into her personal punching bag. And she’s doing it because she knows that the director can’t fight back.

In this, Mrs. Clinton is simply repeating a tactic which she and her catspaw Sidney Blumenthal used to good effect during the Whitewater, Travelgate, and Monica Lewinsky investigations in the 1990s. And that tactic worked.

It’s called grand jury secrecy. Now that Hillarygate is, for the first time, a grand jury investigation, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) prohibits the FBI and prosecutors from saying anything about “matters occurring before the grand jury.” Their lips are sealed.

Team Hillary’s lips, however, are not. They are neither federal prosecutors nor “agents of the grand jury.” So, Mrs. Clinton and her spokesmen — unlike the federal law enforcement officials they’ve been targeting all weekend — are free to tell us everything they know.

Let’s see if they do. A reporter should ask them.

And, in the meantime, let’s not bother to hold our breaths.

If Hillary really wants “transparency,” let her release the FBI’s warrant application for permission to search Huma Abedin and Mr. Weiner’s emails for evidence relating to whether Hillary’s use of a private server violated federal law. Huma’s lawyers likely have it. If not, they can certainly get it.

Huma, of course, is also free to release the emails too.

That’s why Hillary’s demand for “transparency” by the FBI is moonshine. She damn well knows the feds can’t do it.

She also now knows that the threat level against her has just been upgraded to ORANGE.

William Safire and Christopher Hitchens, thou shouldst be living at this hour!

Feminists defend Hillary Clinton against ‘sexist’ FBI investigation: ‘Bitch hunt’

October 31, 2016

Feminists defend Hillary Clinton against ‘sexist’ FBI investigation: ‘Bitch hunt’, Washington TimesBradford Richardson, October 31, 2016

campaign_2016_clinton-jpeg-6c739_c0-134-3190-1993_s885x516Attendees listen as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign rally at Kent State University, Monday, Oct. 31, 2016, in Kent, Ohio. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Hillary Clinton supporters are employing a tried-and-true defense in the wake of the renewed FBI investigation into the Democratic presidential nominee’s emails: It’s “sexist.”

Writing in Time magazine, University of California, Berkeley linguistics professor Robin Lakoff described the investigation into the private server Mrs. Clinton used while secretary of state as a “bitch hunt.”

“I am mad,” Ms. Lakoff wrote. “I am mad because I am scared. And if you are a woman, you should be, too. Emailgate is a bitch hunt, but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us.

“The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female,” she wrote. “Can you imagine this happening to a man? Clinton is guilty of SWF (Speaking While Female), and emailgate is just a reminder to us all that she has no business doing what she’s doing and must be punished, for the sake of all decent women everywhere.

Clinton has repeatedly apologized, but apparently not enough for her accusers,” the professor continued. ”In fact, her apologies were her only mistake. By apologizing she acknowledged guilt. But that’s what women are supposed to do (because women are always guilty of something). ”

National Book Award winner Joyce Carol Oates echoed that sentiment, arguing that the investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server compromised national security interests is “sexist.”

If the former secretary of state’s emails are subject to FBI scrutiny, Ms. Oates said, then so should those of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“Time to investigate FBI emails. GOP emails. T***p emails,” Ms. Oates tweeted Monday, censoring Mr. Trump’s name. “Why focus exclusively on Hillary Clinton? Insane bias, indefensible & sexist.”

FBI director James Comey announced Friday that the bureau is taking another look at Mrs. Clinton’s email practices, after investigators found 650,000 emails on a laptop purportedly belonging to disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton confidant Huma Abedin.

The emails were reportedly uncovered in a separate probe into the possibility that Mr. Weiner sent sexually lewd messages to a teenage minor.

Former AG Under Contempt Of Congress: “Deeply Concerned” Over Comey’s Actions

October 31, 2016

Former AG Under Contempt Of Congress: “Deeply Concerned” Over Comey’s Actions, Hot Air, Ed Morrissey, October 31, 2016

holder

Nothing will start a morning off with a good laugh more than an op-ed from Eric Holder touting his record of fighting public corruption. The former Attorney General, who earned a contempt citation from Congress and who participated in one of the most corrupt presidential pardons in US history, took time out from his retirement to wag his finger at James Comey because the FBI director kept Congress informed. Why, Holder writes, that goes against everything I did as AG!

That may actually be one good argument in favor of Comey:

I began my career in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section 40 years ago, investigating cases of official corruption. In the years since, I have seen America’s justice system firsthand from nearly every angle — as a prosecutor, judge, attorney in private practice, and attorney general of the United States. I understand the gravity of the work our Justice Department performs every day to defend the security of our nation, protect the American people, uphold the rule of law and be fair.

That is why I am deeply concerned about FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision to write a vague letter to Congress about emails potentially connected to a matter of public, and political, interest. That decision was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season. That guidance, which reinforced established policy, is still in effect and applies to the entire Justice Department — including the FBI.

Let’s take a moment to recall the career of the man who issued this scolding. Holder most famously stonewalled Congress over the ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious program, which ran guns into Mexico in an attempt to make political hay over allegedly widespread “straw man” purchases of firearms in the US. Instead, the ATF thoroughly botched the operation and dumped thousands of guns into the hands of the drug cartels south of the border; the weapons were later traced to hundreds of murders, including those of two Border Patrol agents. When Congress demanded records and communications from the ATF and the Department of Justice, Holder refused to comply, offering a specious claim of “executive privilege” that only applies to the President. Congress approved a contempt citation that the DoJ refused to enforce, and a later court rejected Holder’s claims of executive privilege.

But Holder cites his earlier work on “public integrity,” too. What did that look like? Well, Holder’s approach to public integrity was to promote pardons for tax fugitives whose friends and family kicked in a lot of dough to the Clintons. Slate’s Justin Peters recalled the case of Marc Rich after his demise, the multibillionaire who got off scot-free thanks to Bill Clinton’s last-minute pardon while on the run for tax evasion:

Eric Holder was the key man. As deputy AG, Holder was in charge of advising the president on the merits of various petitions for pardon. Jack Quinn, a lawyer for Rich, approached Holder about clemency for his client. Quinn was a confidant of Al Gore, then a candidate for president; Holder had ambitions of being named attorney general in a Gore administration. A report from the House Committee on Government Reform on the Rich debacle later concluded that Holder must have decided that cooperating in the Rich matter could pay dividends later on.

Rich was an active fugitive, a man who had used his money to evade the law, and presidents do not generally pardon people like that. What’s more, the Justice Department opposed the pardon—or would’ve, if it had known about it. But Holder and Quinn did an end-around, bringing the pardon to Clinton directly and avoiding any chance that Justice colleagues might give negative input. As the House Government Reform Committee report later put it, “Holder failed to inform the prosecutors under him that the Rich pardon was under consideration, despite the fact that he was aware of the pardon effort for almost two months before it was granted.” …

Since then, Bill Clinton hasn’t stopped apologizing for the pardons of Marc Rich and Pincus Green. “It was terrible politics. It wasn’t worth the damage to my reputation,” he told Newsweek in 2002—and, indeed, speculation was rampant that Rich (and his ex-wife) had bought the pardon by, in part, donating $450,000 to Clinton’s presidential library. Clinton denied that the donations had anything to do with the pardon, instead claiming that he took Holder’s advice on the matter. Holder, for his part, has distanced himself from the pardons as well. As the House Government Reform Committee report put it, he claimed that his support for the pardon “was the result of poor judgment, initially not recognizing the seriousness of the Rich case, and then, by the time that he recognized that the pardon was being considered, being distracted by other matters.”

The excuses are weak. In the words of the committee report, “it is difficult to believe that Holder’s judgment would be so monumentally poor that he could not understand how he was being manipulated by Jack Quinn.”

Before the Washington Post offered its pages to Holder for this scolding on law-enforcement ethics, perhaps they should have consulted their own Richard Cohen. Not exactly a conservative activist, Cohen argued vehemently that Holder’s participation in the Rich pardon should have disqualified him for the AG position:

Holder was not just an integral part of the pardon process, he provided the White House with cover by offering his go-ahead recommendation. No alarm seemed to sound for him. Not only had strings been pulled, but it was rare to pardon a fugitive — someone who had avoided possible conviction by avoiding the inconvenience of a trial. The U.S. attorney’s office in New York — which, Holder had told the White House, would oppose any pardon — was kept ignorant of what was going on. Afterward, it was furious. …

But the pardon cannot be excepted. It suggests that Holder, whatever his other qualifications, could not say no to power. The Rich pardon request had power written all over it — the patronage of important Democratic fundraisers, for instance. Holder also said he was “really struck” by the backing of Rich by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the possibility of “foreign policy benefits that would be reaped by granting the pardon.” This is an odd standard for American justice, but more than that, what was Holder thinking? That U.S.-Israeli relations would suffer? Holder does not sound naive. He sounds disingenuous.

And he sounds just as disingenuous here, too. Perhaps Holder feels that he has the moral standing to argue that Congress should be kept in the dark about executive-branch operations, especially when they have a potentially large impact on the body politic; Holder himself certainly exemplified that in Operation Fast and Furious. Or perhaps Holder’s convinced that the Department of Justice should direct all its efforts to get potential felons off the hook, especially in cases where it benefits the Clintons, and Holder has definitely made that part of his life’s work. But Eric Holder lecturing James Comey for not following the examples he set at the DoJ qualifies as farce, and would get gales of laughter had the political parties been swapped.

An argument might be made that shows Comey misstepped, but this isn’t it — and Eric Holder is near the bottom of any list of former officials with the moral authority for public lectures on clean government.

PS: The Marc Rich pardon continues to pay dividends for the Clintons, too. They did big business with former Rich partner Gilbert Chagoury, even while the FBI looked into his connections to terror groups. We can thank Holder for that, too — a dividend of his 2000 efforts for “public integrity” that paid off for the Clintons over and over again.

David Sirota offers another reason to doubt Holder’s moral standing on questions of public integrity:

Comey may or may not be screwing up. But Eric Holder is an unconvincing voice on how law enforcement should act https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/792926441755127809 

I’d say my arguments are more directly on point, but YMMV.