November 4, 2016

O.J. Rides Again

The news of last Friday's FBI decision, and the coverage of it over the weekend, struck me as the same kind of bombshell real-time news phenomenon as O.J. Simpson fleeing police in a white Ford Bronco. So naturally I wanted to read the Wayne Allen Root article by the same name - Hillary and the White Ford Bronco.

At any minute I expect to hear that every national TV news network is hosting live coverage of a police car chase. It will feature Hillary riding in the back seat of a white Ford Bronco, driven by Huma, headed for the Mexican border, with hundreds of FBI vans and police cars chasing behind. And of course Democrats lining the streets to catch the last glimpse of their former presidential nominee.

Hillary has had quite a series of October surprises. Just one would be enough to drive anyone into doing something strange. But Hillary has already suffered two devastating October surprises.

And rumor has it there’s another on the way.

But the real legacy of the Clintons, Hillary and William Jefferson, is far grander than a mere flouting of federal law regarding classified information.

What this new FBI investigation is not about is taking bribes (disguised as donations) at the Clinton Foundation from countries that fund ISIS. Wikileaks proves Hillary knew that Qatar and Saudi Arabia were funding ISIS, but took their money anyway.

What this investigation is not about is taking $1 million from Qatar to celebrate Bill Clinton’s birthday. What did that country expect in return? What did the Clintons promise?

What this investigation is not about is Hillary taking $12 million from the King of Morocco, who are our own government considers corrupt, while Secretary of State. What did the King expect? What did the Clintons promise?

What this investigation is not about is the crime of treason for running an organized criminal enterprise called the Clinton Foundation built around “pay for play” while Hillary was Secretary of State.

What this investigation is not about is running a charity scam called the Clinton Foundation that rarely pays out anything to charity and uses the billions it receives in "donations" to fund a billionaire’s lifestyle for the Clintons.

What this investigation is not about is funneling almost $700,000 in what looks like bribes (disguised as "donations") through Clinton’s best friend Terry McAuliffe to the Democratic politician wife of the FBI agent overseeing Hillary’s investigation.

All of that is still to come.

Unless she is pardoned by Barack Obama on January 19th, 2017.

2016 Dirty Hippies Don't Demand the Unearned Politics Posted by JohnGalt at November 4, 2016 6:57 PM

I think the three key words are "rumor has it."

There is zero separation betwixt us that Sec. Clinton deserves to be indicted. My problem is a Facebook feed in which every third post is some unknown right wing site that assures "HLLARY IS TOAST" NOW!" "NEW INFORMATION -- IT's OVER!!"

Um guys, have you noticed the last thirty have not changed anything? We have a DOJ somewhere between totally corrupt and no appetite and a fractured FBI that knows there is no support up top.

I think she skates. Boy do I ever hope I am wrong. I do not take lightly the end of real rule-of-law. But I think she skates.

Posted by: jk at November 4, 2016 7:25 PM

The word objective is right in the name of the life philosophy I claim to adhere to so its a pretty important concept to me.

I have multiple friends on both sides of the aisle and what I here is this:

Friend A (paraphrasing): They have been chasing the Clintons for 30 years but they never get convicted and so really they must be fine people who are just being unjustly harassed because they are Democrats.

Friend B (paraphrasing) : They have been chasing the Clintons for 30 years but they never get convicted so the system must be rigged because they are rich and powerful, they can get away with anything. If us little people behaved like that, we would be in jail.

Funny how all the Friend A people are Liberals and all the Friend B people are conservatives.

Will someone PLEASE advise on how to form an objective opinion on these matters because I have no idea.

Posted by: dagny at November 4, 2016 7:49 PM

Of course you know what is objectively right. And so does jk. He said, "She skates" not "She's innocent."

Your friend A people are lying to themselves to protect something. Or if not to themselves, then to you, but still to protect something. The more interesting question you should be asking is, what are the Clinton apologists protecting?

Posted by: johngalt at November 5, 2016 11:08 PM

And I suggest objective supporting evidence to B is to compare how less connected people were treated for the same offenses. Officers have lost their commissions for inadvertently doing what Sec. Clinton has done with mens rea.

General David Petraeus and Scooter Libbey must be wishing they had sent a million to the Clinton Foundation.

Posted by: jk at November 6, 2016 11:32 AM

Nope! Director Comey has spoken -- she is innocent of all charges, ever (that issue in the fourth grade with the fountain pen and her rival's dress? Exonerated!)

I really do not know what to say.

Posted by: jk at November 7, 2016 9:50 AM

You could say the same thing my dear ol' dad said.

"Drain the swamp."

Posted by: johngalt at November 7, 2016 12:26 PM


friend A people are lying to themselves to protect something

Their egos. I have the same issue writ large: my favorite is the one who's been telling me the GOP is done as a party... for, well, as long as we've been FB friends. Years. Long before DJT won a single primary. He's an entrepreneur (well, not really successful one) who's a dedicated Sanders guy. That HAS to be ego. He's also a bit of an arrogant prat, so the ego big holds.

There are some "type A" who are just long-time Dems who will listen to the whisper campaign about the nasty, poopy-headed GOP (even for a guy like Romney).

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 9, 2016 12:21 AM


Director Comey has spoken -- she is innocent of all charges

No, she skates. The weasiling used was there was no "intent" to cause harm or break the law. Charming. I can just see now that 'hate' speech will invariably be put in the intent column. The insanity has begun... perhaps even, as PowerLine postulates if Trump wins (he's won OH, WI and FL).

Posted by: nanobrewer at November 9, 2016 12:31 AM | What do you think? [8]