Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Clinton, Comey, and the Utter Demise of the Rule of Law


On the day following the 240th birthday of our nation, FBI Director James Comey concluded a long federal investigation as he made a damning statement of facts regarding former Secretary of State and would-be United States President Hillary Clinton's egregious and illegal use of a private email server and the transmission and reception of highly classified information. (See the attached video for a summary.)
    
The facts that Director Comey laid out were so devastating that one could only surmise that the recommendation for an indictment must follow. However, in a bewildering miscarriage of justice, Director Comey seemingly ignored every fact that he had just laid out against Secretary Clinton and stated, "We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

Evidently the rule of law does not apply to Hillary Clinton.  General David Petraeus was convicted of simply sharing his classified day-planner schedule with his biographer/girl-friend and rightfully so. Hillary Clinton sent emails that were top secret and compartmentalized information that by its very classification is deemed exceptionally harmful to the United States if leaked or intercepted by our enemies, and yet she is given a complete pass. Even Director Comey acknowledged in his statement that "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences."  

Indeed!  If you or I were to do something of similar magnitude to what Mrs. Clinton did, I can assure you that a long prison term in a federal facility would immediately follow, as it should.
  
Much of the reaction from the left has been to gloat over the frustration of those of us who wanted to see a just accounting of Mrs. Clinton for her transgressions against the law.  To those that would put party and politics above country, I say SHAME ON YOU!  Hillary will likely become our next president, and her sense of being above the law will only lead her to do even more despicable things that further jeopardize the safety and stability of this country.  She is totally bereft of any shred of integrity or dignity that the office of the president should command.  

Those that intend to vote for such a vile and unscrupulous crook are THE problem with our country today.  Hillary and all of the other corrupt elected officials that are not held accountable to the justice system and We The People will now be further emboldened in their brazen contempt for the laws that govern a just society.  We are about to reap what we have sown.  

240 years after the birth of our nation, the rule of law in the United States of America is now dead. Sadly our country itself will soon follow now.  Our final downfall and demise as a nation will not come from ISIS or some foreign enemy.  It is coming now.  And it is coming from within our own populace that seemingly no longer cares about the rule of law... as long as it is "their person" that gets away with such violations.  

20 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

The "rule of law" for certain segments of our society has been over for many, many years.

T. Paine said...

Jerry, sadly I must agree with you. Even more sadly, it is now dead for all Americans.

Jerry Critter said...

Not at all, TP. You and I are still subject to the rule of law.

T. Paine said...

A constitutional rule of law that does not apply equally to every citizen is in fact dead. You are correct in your implication that you and I would still be subjected to penalties for breaking the law, as Director Comey intimated. We have wandered into very dangerous territory when our elected officials, especially a presidential aspirant, are seemingly exempt from the same laws to which the rest of us citizens are subjected.

Dave Dubya said...

Torture, war of aggression, incarceration without charges, mass surveillance, all USED to illegal until Bush did them.

Just sayin' Hillary isn't the first, or even the worst.

T. Paine said...

Dave, even if all of your charges against Bush were factual, (which some definitely are not) somehow I don't think "He-did-it-first" is a very good defense against Hillary's criminal malfeasance.

I guess anything goes though if it furthers one's own political party and agenda, huh? To hell with the country, as long as progressives win, right?

Jerry Critter said...

Neither Trump nor Clinton is a win for progressives. Unfortunately, they are the only two with any chance of winning. Between the two, Clinton is by far the better choice, albeit the better of two bad choices.

T. Paine said...

Jerry, neither Trump nor Clinton is good for the country... let alone for progressives. Both have serious fatal flaws that are incongruent with being the president and commander in chief for our representative republic. In this case the lesser of two evils is still absolutely an evil choice. I refuse to vote for evil regardless of party.

Dave Dubya said...


neither Trump nor Clinton is good for the country.

I couldn't agree more. They and the Bushes are the American aristocracy the founders dreaded. Yet they dance to even more powerful fiddlers.

Citing Bush's crimes was not intended to defend Hillary, Obama or Democrats. Same with Nixon and every other abuser of power. "If the president does it, it's not illegal."

Just showing the historic pattern of abuse of power.

The Democratic Party is not my party any more than the Republican Party is yours. Both are owned by many of the same wealthy interests, and they have no need for the constraints of democratic representation or equal justice under law.

I hope you've figured that part out by now.

T. Paine said...

Dave, I am very well aware of the corruption and self-serving nature of both major political parties, my friend.

In the end of this cycle though, I see a choice between two authoritarians with the Democrat-version being criminally corrupt already. The fact that nobody seems to care tells me that our republic has already gone far past the point of no return. The fact that millions will vote for Hillary despite her patently obvious corruption, lies, and criminality shows how cynical we have all become.

We need to reboot and start the primaries all over, in my opinion.

Dave Dubya said...

It seems that most don't care. It seems apathy is the rule rather than exception. I think most people are uninformed. It takes a lot of time and energy, that most can't spare, to filter out corporate and political propaganda to get close to the truth. Engineering desirable political beliefs is a huge industry now.

This results in "beliefs" having more influence than facts. The high negatives of the candidates is a result of not just their actions, but the industry of engineering beliefs.

Neither Trump nor Hillary are as evil as made out to be. They are seriously flawed and untrustworthy though.

One difference is Hillary has a visible record, and decades of political demonization.

Trump's past is less apparent.

Who knows what shady dealings would emerge if his financial and tax records are disclosed.

Turns out Trump and Bernie are correct. The system is rigged. Just more in favor of Trump's class than ours.

T. Paine said...

I would respectfully disagree with you Dave. Hillary and Trump are indeed seriously flawed and untrustworthy for sure, but I think that their self-interests rise to the level of evilness.

Hillary basically sold access to the State Department for foreign nationals with business before the United States via donations to the Clinton Foundation. She endangered national security by using a private server, and myriads of other un-presidential scandals.

Trump says that troops will follow his orders as commander in chief, even when illegal, out of sure loyalty. That sounds Hilter-esque for sure!

Both of those things alone are exceptionally scary. Neither person is fit to be president. And those that think Trump is an outsider are foolish. With all of his connections, he is very well attuned to Washington politics. It is part of how he created his business empire.

The system is indeed rigged, and we Americans are the losers for not holding them accountable accordingly, sir.

Jerry Critter said...

"Hillary basically sold access to the State Department for foreign nationals with business before the United States..."

Sounds like what lobbists do every day with members of congress on behalf of corporations and rich individuals. Trump has admitted that he donated money to congressmen to gain influence.

Dave Dubya said...

Jerry,
Exactly! Hillary did what almost every politician does. At least her foundation is charitable.

The Clinton Foundation:
Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.

Not so Hitleresque, really. And to be objective, most of the "scandals" over Hillary are FOX/Republican engineered.

The bottom line is she is a neo-con corporatist, and that is antithetical to a democratic representative republic.

The greater evil is the system itself. Corporations are now "super persons" endowed with inalienable human rights.

They have the representation, we don't.

Access and influence are openly for sale in our corporatocracy.

Mark Twain said, "We have the best congress money can buy".

It is the nature of power and wealth when embedded into politics and government.



T. Paine said...

Jerry, sadly you make a very good point. That said, most lobbyists are simply trying to enrich their corporate masters. Hillary's selling of favors involves some matters of national security, such as when Russia acquired a huge swath of our uranium resources.

Dave, Hillary doesn't need Fox to make her look unscrupulous. And before you go singing the praises of the Clinton foundation, consider the fact that only about 10 to 15% of the monies raised goes to charity. The rest of the funds are for "administrative costs" that basically enrich the Clintons.

Dave Dubya said...

The anti-Clinton smear machine has been working for decades. This is fact. Now any and all claims by that smear machine are taken for truth.

"the fact that only about 10 to 15% of the monies raised goes to charity."

Sez who, old buddy?

Jerry Critter said...

TP - Your Clinton bias is showing in your comments about the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

Dave - you are right. The problem is with the system. It needs to be changed starting with publically financed elections, no private money, no lobbist money.

Dave Dubya said...

Let's turn to FOX News for clarification (I bet I never say that again, LOL!) of this Clinton Foundation issue.

Fox News correspondent Eric Shawn debunked his Fox colleagues' earlier criticism that the Clinton Foundation spent just 10 percent of its budget on charitable activities in 2013, calling these claims "incredibly misleading" because the non-profit carries out its humanitarian programs in-house.

On the May 6 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Shawn addressed accusations of misconduct based on flawed analyses of the Clinton Foundation's expenditures.

When asked by host Bill O'Reilly about the "accusation ... that there only 10 percent of the money raised -- and it's $2 billion -- goes to grants out to poor people or institutions," Shawn responded, "That sounds really bad but it's actually incredibly misleading." Shawn went on to explain that "the way the charity works, they don't give grants to other charities -- they do most of it themselves." According to IRS filings, Shawn said, the Clinton Foundation's charitable spending is around 80 percent, and "the experts for charity say that's very good."


FOX probably had to work overtime to undo this clarification.

This all goes to my point about the industry of engineering beliefs. It obviously works, especially when reinforcing bias.


T. Paine said...

Lets look at the decidedly not conservative NY Post:

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

You are right though Dave -- people's beliefs and political ideologies will often times trump facts.

Dave Dubya said...

"decidedly not conservative NY Post"???

Darned if I could find your stats there.

I don't know what qualifies as "conservative" to you, but to the informed world, FOX/Murdoch/New York Post/News Corp is a very conservative media empire. In fact it is the world's major right wing media empire.

How could you not know this fact?

You seem to be exemplifying my case of "belief engineering".

All this is beside the point. The organization did do charity work. It may be evil, but good and evil exists in all of us, and in every large organization and institution.

This is what Charity Navigator said about the Clinton Foundation: (The part NOT quoted by far Right NY Post, BTW)

Why isn't this organization rated?

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.


The post fabricated a lie about the foundation being on a "watch list" which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. I checked their site. It is not on a "watch list".

For an explanation, please see the corporate media fact check link Jerry provided.

You seem to believe only Republican media sources. This appears to be for bias confirmation.

I don't trust Hillary for good reasons, and I also don't trust far Right media for good reasons.

I won't let my beliefs be engineered by partisan/corporate propaganda. Unfortunately I'm in a very small minority.

Now back to my primary point:

The bottom line is she is a neo-con, neo-liberal corporatist, and that is antithetical to a democratic representative republic.

The greater evil is the system itself. Corporations are now "super persons" endowed with inalienable human rights.

They have the representation, we don't.

Access and influence are openly for sale in our corporatocracy.

Neither mainstream nor right wing corporate media will touch this point. They never even use the term neo-liberal. Why do you suppose that is?

THERE's your political correctness.