James Comey Is Trying To Influence The Election & Barack Obama Should Fire Him

The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of that branch, from engaging in some forms of political activity. (Source).

That is what I've read, in any case. That FBI Director James Comey is either trying to influence the election, or is so incompetent that he doesn't realize that this "reopening" of the HRC email investigation (not a reopening, although that is how the RW is characterizing it) could influence the election.

In either case some are saying it's a "firing offense" (an assessment I tend to agree with).

In the past 24 hours, two high-profile figures from opposite sides of the political spectrum have accused FBI Director James B. Comey of potentially and illegally influencing the presidential election. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made the accusation in a letter Sunday night, and Richard Painter, who was an ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, said the same thing in a New York Times op-ed published Sunday. [Painter says] "We don't need to worry ourselves with what actually motivated Comey because we can just look at what the natural result of his behavior is, and whether there is any explanation for his behavior". In other words: If it smells like a Hatch Act violation and it sounds like a Hatch Act violation, it may be a Hatch Act violation. ("It's a firing offense": Why James Comey may have broken the law with Clinton emails By Amber Phillips. 10/30/2016 Washington Post).

As for what the hell is going on (*skip* to my summary immediately following to save time/not have to read the entire article except).

The FBI found the new evidence during an unrelated inquiry into former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner regarding an allegation that he sent illicit, sexual text messages to an underage girl in NC. In the course of that investigation, agents seized a laptop computer Weiner shared with his wife, Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who has already been questioned by the FBI during its investigation. The bureau found the emails now being examined on this shared device... Because Clinton preferred to read documents on paper rather than on a screen, emails and other files were often printed out and provided to her either at her office or home, where they were delivered in a diplomatic pouch by a security agent. Abedin, like many State Dept officials, found the government network technology to be cumbersome, and she had great trouble printing documents there... As a result, she sometimes transferred emails from her unclassified State Department account to either her Yahoo account or her account on Clinton's server, and printed the emails from there. ... Abedin would use this procedure for printing documents when she received emails she believed Clinton needed to see and when the Secretary forwarded emails to her for printing. Abedin told the FBI she would often print these emails without reading them. Abedin printed a large number of emails this way... This procedure for printing documents, the government official says, appears to be how the newly discovered emails ended up on the laptop shared by Abedin and her husband. (Hillary Clinton's emails: The Real Reason The FBI Is Reviewing More of Them by Kurt Eichenwald. 10/28/2016 NewsWeek).

So, in summary... what happened was that the FBI, investigating Weiner for sending his pervert texts to an underage girl, grabbed a laptop shared by the pervert Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin (who is now separating from the pervert), and they found that Huma used the laptop to send emails to herself (from her UNCLASSIFIED State Dept. account to a Yahoo account). Because it was easier to print from Yahoo. Because HRC likes reading hard copy, as opposed to reading from a screen.

As for what is on the laptop, it isn't know yet. Another reason why Comey releasing this statement now is so f*cking stupid. This will very likely be another big nothingburger. Although it could influence the election, which is why it is a violation of the Hatch Act, which is why I say YES, his ass should be fired.

Although, knowing that Trumpers will scream that the firing is politically motivated, Obama should wait until after the election (given that it is mere days away, and the damage is already done). But as soon as HRC is declared the winner? Comey should be handed his walking papers (a "dishonorable" discharge from his position).

BTW, the idiot blogger Luke Spencer's take on this CONFORMS to the Republican narrative. (NOTE: you can stop reading now if you don't care what the blog Troll Luke has to say). According to this MORON, "these Clinton haters are at it again"... by which he means Clinton supporters are "haters". He isn't referring to people who hate Hillary Clinton (a group that includes Luke Spencer).

Luke the Puke says "the Clinton haters are going nuts over Comey's latest statement" because, you know, he likely violated the Hatch Act. But that isn't the reason according to Puke. Puke says Anthony Weiner is "Clinton's pervert buddy". Because HRC served in the Senate while the disgraced Congressman served in the House. No, that isn't it. They are "buddies" because Weiner's (soon to be ex) wife is HRC's top aide.

Clearly a moronic assertion... that the husband of her aide is her "buddy". But such idiocy is to be expected from a moron like Puke. An idiot who says he is a Liberal, but spouts Republican talking points.

For example, Puke says Comey asserted that HRC would "normally would be disciplined for such action" (using a private server) but in reality Comey said "the decision to not recommend charges against the now-Democratic nominee wasn't a close call".

Puke also claims "the FBI investigated all his emails and what do you know, Clinton appears on those emails". But the truth is all Comey has said is that the emails on Huma's laptop "appear to be pertinent to the investigation" and that the FBI still needs to "determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation" (source).

But that does not stop the lying Clinton-hating Puke. He also refers to HRC using the Trump-created nickname, "Crooked Hillary". This, I think, points to the possibility of Puke being an undercover Trump voter. Trump attempted to tie Hillary Clinton to Bill Clinton's affairs. Puke makes an even bigger and more absurd leap, and attempts to link her to Anthony Weiner's sexting.

Also remember that Puke wrote (on his blog Words And Music) "I'm rooting for Trump". But ONLY to "to shove it down the throats of these mean, hate filled, crazy liberals" (he SAYS). Hate directed at him because (he says) "I won't join in their hate fest". And because (he says) "I dare to voice negative comments about Clinton".

But Puke lies. I don't care (that much) about his ill-informed Clinton criticisms. HRC is most definitely not without faults (another false assertion he makes... that HRC supporters "claim their candidate Hillary is without any faults"). He is entitled to his wrong opinion. I do take exception to his lies, both about HRC and those who support her. People such as myself (although I voted for B-S in the primary, I have early-voted for HRC in the General).

But even then I'd be willing to have a rational discussion with Puke about HRC and her faults. But this is an idiot who has trolled my blog for YEARS. As TOM and as Steve (100% proven that he was Steve, given the FACT that he changed the name on the "Steve" account to "Luke").

But even if he was not TOM (more on my proof that Luke is also behind the "TOM" account in my next post), and even if he was not Steve (which he proveably is, given that the account # are a match)... he still trolled my blog... as "Luke" (see SWTD #346). I refer to his absurd accusations of "plagiarism" against myself and others. And his sending of his commentaries (submitted as comments) to the blogs of others "so they don't have to steal them". Now with the addition of a "scumbag" (absurdity Flying Junior is aware of).

Something I asked him to stop doing... which prompted the following response.

Luke: Sorry, King Shithead PSYCHO KILLER TRUMP!!! You will continue to get my posts marked, "Here is my post for today so you don't have to steal it FUCKHEAD!" Because you and your asshole buddies deserve it. I simply won't respond. So enjoy my last comment to you KING SHITHEAD PSYCH KILLER TRUMP!!! If I have anything to say about you King Shithead Psycho Killer Trump, it will be posted on my sidebar where I have listed your retarded behavior. (10/2/2016, unpublished comment).

Sorry, Luke, but you sending me (and others) your posts "so I don't have to steal it" makes YOU the troll. I mean, even though I'd never heard of "Luke" before... one of his accusations of "stealing" his posts was the very first comment he submitted to my blog. HOW could I have stolen anything he'd written when I'd never heard of him and never been to his blog?

Anyway, 7/27/2016 was the first time he commented on my blog as "Luke". As I previously mentioned, he had already been trolling my blog (using the SAME account) as "Steve" for YEARS (although I didn't notice the matching account #s until later).

The point being that Puke is a lying troll. I don't believe he is "Liberal". Maybe he THINKS he is. Puke's latest post does not sound like it was written by a "Liberal" to me. Given his use of many Republican talking points. And use of the Trump-generated nickname "Crooked Hillary". And bashing (with lies) of his "fellow" Liberals.

Maybe he WAS a Liberal. His commentaries as TOM on his old blog Stay A While (inactive for years now) sound as if they were written from a Liberal perspective. But now? Who knows. The only one SURE thing is that he is a troll.

Finally (file this under "interesting/bewildering"), Luke the Puke (posting as Steve on 9/05/2013) told me "I'm planing a surprise for you". But no "surprise" ever materialized. Now I'm thinking that Steve returning as "Luke" might be the surprise he was referring to. I mean, yeah, it is (at least a little) surprising that someone would be dumb enough to think they could accuse many bloggers of plagiarizing them... with ZERO proof.

Video: James Comey's actions influence 2016 elections. Excerpted from CNBC's Squawk Box (4:44).

PE: Harry Reid: FBI director should face criminal charges, 10/31/2016. SZ: October Ambush, 10/31/2016.

SWTD #356

Republican FBI Director James Comey On HRC Breaking The Law: "In Connection With Her Use Of The email Server? My Judgement Is That She Did Not"

Republicans were gearing up a multi-pronged political assault that could keep the controversy thriving until the November elections, and possibly beyond ~ excerpt from the 7/7/2016 Daily Beast article Hillary Clinton's emails Are the GOP's New Benghazi.

"Definitely before November. Possibly in a month or two" was when Hillary Clinton was supposed to be indicted journalist Ronald Kessler said on 4/15/2016 (on the Rightwing Steve Malzberg Show re the HRC email controversy).

Kessler further predicted that after the indictment Barack Obama would step in and pardon her. Because there was "no question she will be indicted" due to the fact that FBI Director "is a man of great integrity" (SWTD #333).

So, clearly (according to Kessler) HRC broke the law. But FBI Director Comey (who testified before the House Oversight Committee yesterday, 7/7/2016) says otherwise (audio clips sourced from The Stephanie Miller Show 7/7/2016 and transcribed by me).

AUDIO CLIP #1 Jason Chaffetz: Did Hillary Clinton break the law? James Comey: In connection with her use of the email server? My judgement is that she did not. Jason Chaffetz: You're just not able to prosecute it, or did Hillary Clinton break the law? James Comey: I don't want to give an overly lawyerly answer, but the question I always look at is - is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that someone engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute. And my judgement here is that there is not. AUDIO CLIP #2 James Comey: When I look at the facts we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton, or those with those whom she was corresponding, both talked about classified information on email, and knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law. So, given that assessment of the facts [and] my understanding of the law, my conclusion was (and remains) no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the 2nd case in a hundred years focused on gross negligence. So I know that's been a source of confusion for some folks. That's just the way it is. I know the Department of Justice, I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying they would. I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would and nobody did.

Stephanie Miller (on the 7/6 edition of her show) informed her listeners and viewers there would be no charges because "the case lacked the aggravating factors that have lead prosecutors to press charges in the past. Comey noted those previously charged in such instances intentionally or willfully mishandled classified information, or did so in such vast quantities that they must have known what they were doing...".

In addition Miller noted (quoting an AP story) that such mishandling of information was routine and "consistent with the State Department culture over the past 2 administrations".

So, the standard (regarding decisions on whether or not to bring charges) is not "gross negligence" but whether or not the person violated the rules intentionally. So HRC did not break the law because there was no intent. As Comey noted in his Congressional testimony, the FBI considered "the context of a person's actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past" (Why the FBI Let Hillary Clinton Off the Hook).

Although, in regards to the previous administration's mishandling of sensitive information... yeah, that happened. But the bush White House also deleted a 22 million emails ("a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act") in conjunction with their coverup of election fraud - AG Alberto Gonzales fired US attorneys who wouldn't investigate fake/non-existent voter fraud cases (SWTD #331).

And all that happened then was that Gonzales was pressured to step down. There was no kind of investigation, even though the evidence CLEARLY pointed to INTENTIONAL violations of the law (bushie attempts to manipulate the vote to get gwb re-elected).

The only reason this HRC email server controversy went as far as it did (an FBI investigation of HRC when there was no investigation re actual bushie crimes), is because Republicans use EVERY opportunity to attack Democrats. And use investigations and hearings as political weapons. Remember it was during the unending Benghazi hearings that HRC's email server situation came up (similar to how the investigation into Whitewater during Bill Clinton's presidency eventually led to an impeachment for a BJ).

Republicans "investigate" again and again, and again... not caring if any actual misdeeds are uncovered... the simple fact that there are investigations are proof enough for their stupid voters that there MUST be some wrongdoing. Although maybe they'll get lucky and SOMETHING will stick.

The unending investigations explaining how we ended up with 13 published reports on Benghazi. All of which found that there was no "stand down" order, no intelligence failure leading to the Benghazi tradegy, and no administrative wrongdoing (Benghazi By The Numbers).

Now I hear that Congressional Republicans plan to appoint a special prosecutor to further investigate HRC re her private email server. And the FACT is that the purpose of this "investigation" (JUST LIKE the Benghazi "investigation"), is to politically harm HRC's presidential campaign (Republican Whistleblower Confirms Benghazi Investigation Is Illegally Targeting Clinton).

Obviously these "investigations" are purely political. And illegal, given that it's a violation of federal law (31 U.S.C. § 1301) to use official government resources for political purposes.

For the record, I'm actually in favor of such rules being strictly enforced. But only going forward. Don't tell me that HRC should be prosecuted for negligence when the bush administration was totally let off the hook in regards to actual and intentional crimes! Because that absolutely will NOT fly with me.

SWTD #338. See also OST #156.

Ronald Kessler Tells Newsmax Hillary Clinton Indictment Likely B4 General Election

A virulent strain of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, which scientists and Republicans thought had been wiped out at the end of the last century, is now afflicting millions of conservative Americans. Some Republicans so detest Hillary Clinton they are badly underestimating how likely she is, at this point in the campaign, to be America's 45th president ~ Mark Halperin, from a 10/26/2015 Bloomberg Politics article.

According to Wikipedia "Kessler's writings have been criticized in publications such as the Washington Post and The Week for overt partisanship and a lack of journalistic rigor". This HRC "indictment likely" BS falls into that category, IMO. And, YES, I absolutely think the suggestion that HRC will be indicted is total bullshit. It will NOT happen (I predict).

As for Kessler's partisanship, I can think of one other example. (The 73yo) Kessler is the one who reported that when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he said the reason was to get "niggers voting Democratic for the next 100 years" (SWTD #228).

Although what he actually said (according to his press secretary, Bill Moyers) was "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come". I think that worry (which has been proven correct) is proof that LBJ's motivations were NOT to trick Black people into voting Democratic (as Republicans contend) but because it was "to eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in our beloved country [and] to close the springs of racial poison". These were LBJ's words in an address to the nation upon his signing of the legislation (which was broadcast live on 7/2/1964).

Given the fact that Rightwingers love this "quote", as it "proves" that the racist LBJ's motivations were to trick African Americans into voting Democratic, HELL YES, I've got to wonder if Kessler "reported" this for partisan reasons.

And I've wondering if Mr. Kessler reported that Hillary is "likely" to be indicted (over her emails) for partisan reasons. Especially considering which candidate he praised in his remarks (as reported by NewsMax).

Veteran journalist Ronald Kessler tells Newsmax TV that Hillary Clinton will likely be indicted before the general election for using a private email server to conduct classified government business as secretary of state — but will likely be pardoned by President Barack Obama. "Definitely before November. Possibly in a month or two", Kessler said Friday [4/15/2016] on "The Steve Malzberg Show". "By definition, putting classified information on an unsecured server is gross negligence. You saw President Obama trying to make excuses for her. I think he's leading up to giving a pardon to Hillary, but there's no question. She will be indicted. ... Jim Comey, the FBI director, is a man of great integrity. I think [Attorney General] Loretta Lynch is as well ... not political in the way Eric Holder was. No question she will be indicted". Kessler - a former Washington Post reporter... said that even if Clinton is pardoned, the damage will have been done. "Either way, she's going to be besmirched and it's possible that [Vice President Joe] Biden might step in," he told Malzberg. Kessler also praised Donald Trump as a candidate who would be very different operating in the White House than how he appears on the campaign trail. "People don't understand about Donald that there are two Donald Trumps. One is the guy you see on TV who makes these provocative comments to get attention", Kessler said. (NewsMax 4/15/2016).

Kessler is a former reporter for WP, but (what the article above failed to disclose) is that "from 2006 to 2012, Kessler was chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax". This would be the "conservative website and magazine" that "has continued to stoke birther fantasies" and supports Donald Trump for president.

With stories such as "Pat Buchanan to GOP: Support Trump Now or Lose to Hillary" I don't know how anyone couldn't conclude that they are far, FAR Right. Up there with World Net Daily.

Steve Malzberg, btw, is a wingnut who said "the president [Barack Obama] can be perceived and has been perceived by many as being an Islamist sympathizer by his actions [and that] most of his Middle East policies favor the Muslim Brotherhood" (Newsmax's Steve Malzberg Uses CNN Appearance To Legitimize Questioning Obama's Faith, Citizenship, 9/20/2015).

So, regarding Kessler... "birds of a feather flock together" could apply here, I think (Rightwing nutjobs associate with others of the same ilk). Certainly this HRC indictment being "likely/definitely" is nutty. Which I say because it isn't f*cking going to happen.

Past cases suggest Hillary won't be indicted (article excerpt) A Politico review of dozens of recent federal investigations for mishandling of classified records suggests that it's highly unlikely — but not impossible. The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton's use of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted — aggravating circumstances that don't appear to be present in Clinton's case. The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form. A former senior FBI official told Politico that when it comes to mishandling of classified information the Justice Department has traditionally turned down prosecution of all but the most clear-cut cases. (4/11/2016 article by Josh Gerstein).

"There's no question" HRC will be indicted sez Kessler, but that definitive an assertion is total bullplop. "Highly unlikely" (as the Politico article says) is more like it. Oh, and that Kessler suggests Biden might be the Democratic nominee and praises Trump (dismissing Trump's racism as "provocative comments") is proof enough for me that he's a total wingnut. As opposed to a "veteran journalist".

Which explains why he lied about LBJ (although that is a qualified "lie"; see SWTD #273). Also, why he's lying about Hillary being indicted.

Although, if HRC were indicted, that would throw the nomination (and presidency) to Bernie Sanders. Given the fact that Biden is definitely NOT going to "step in" (to suggest he might is pure idiocy) and neither Trump nor Cruz have much of a chance against either Hillary or Bernie. So, given this, I (as a Sanders supporter) might be able to get behind this HRC indictment notion? Nah. Why even consider that, when the chances are next to nil? Not when it's more fun to make fun of those who suffer from insane delusions regarding the Clintons (SWTD #313).

Mark Halperin (the game changer who called president Obama a dick), BTW, is absolutely correct about how virulent this strain of Clinton derangement syndrome is. Ronald Kessler being but one among the millions of those who are afflicted. Although, Halperin is dead wrong about CDS having been "wiped out at the end of the last century". The last century ended on 12/31/2000 and Hillary Clinton ran her first presidential campaign in 2008 against Obama, then served as Obama's Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 (and during ALL of this time CDS was alive and well).

SWTD #333

HRC email Controversy Way Overblown Compared To bush Admin eMail Scandal (Imaginary Vs Actual Crimes)

You have Democrats beginning to panic about the one thing that a lot of them never worried about, which was Clinton's electability in the general election ...the challenge she faces in the general election is both the trust problem and the likability problem ~ Robert Shrum AKA "Dumb Shrum" (dob 1943) an American political consultant, who has worked on numerous Democratic campaigns, including the losing presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry.

Regarding Robert Shrum's nickname of "Dumb Shrum", my memory tells me that I heard this on Al Franken's Air America radio program. I might be wrong, however, as I could not confirm this via a Google search. In any case, the nickname comes from the fact that "in eight elections (for either the presidential nomination or for the presidency itself), Shrum's candidates have never won". (Wikipedia reports).

Regarding the quote at the top of this post; it is via the far-Right website 9/9/2009 Newsmax story "Democrats Eyeing White Knight If Clinton Implodes"... which is complete nonsense, as there is almost nothing to this so-called scandal. Despite deluded Righty fantasies of Hillary (and perhaps Obama) ending up behind bars... for their fictional "lawlessness".

Hillary did SOMETHING wrong. As long as the Republicans keep looking, eventually they'll find a transgression with substance. Although they've been looking for the last 35 years and both Hillary and Bill are still free. Not imprisoned for their many imaginary crimes, much to the chagrin of the (real) vast Rightwing conspiracy.

The latest imaginary crime of Hillary Clinton involving her emails, being yet in another in a series of desperate attempts by the Right to derail her POTUS candidacy. Another attempt that will fail, despite what Dumb Shrum sez. Those who do not trust HRC or find her "likable" did not trust or find her likable to begin with. They would not be voting for her even if Congressional Republicans were not continuously investing fake/overblown Clinton misdeeds.

Overblown HRC email Scandal Aspect #1: Used Personal email & Server Which Was Either Illegal Or At Least Shady

This allegation concerns Hillary doing something wrong by using a private email and server. Perhaps even illegal! Except that... no. "Clinton and her staff have stated that her use of the private email account was above board and allowed under State Department rules" and this is indeed the case.

HRC, in using/maintaining a private server broke no laws that existed at the time.

...federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after [Hillary] Clinton stepped down. (That Story About Hillary Clinton's Private Email Account Isn't as Awful as It Seems by Bob Cesca. The Daily Banter 3/3/2015).

Frankly I think it should have been law long ago that government employees were legally required to communicate using government (and not private) systems. However, until recently it has not been. Hillary Clinton followed the law and is guilty of nothing, nor has anything been uncovered (via the release of these emails) that show she was trying to hide something. At most she could be "convicted" of falling "short of the Obama administration's preferred best practices". (A Crystal-Clear Explanation of Hillary's Confusing Email Scandal).

Which differs significantly with what happened during the bush administration. In 2007 it was discovered that preznit bush (and underlings in the office of the preznit) corresponded "via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government... in violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act". (Wikipedia/Bush White House email controversy).

What the bushies were attempting to hide was that their Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, fired US attorneys who wouldn't investigate fake/non-existent voter fraud cases.

Investigative journalist Greg Palast: David Iglesias of New Mexico was one of seven U.S. Attorneys fired by the White House for their refusal to bring voter fraud prosecutions. [According to Iglesias] "We took over 100 complaints... We investigated for almost 2 years [and] I didn't find one prosecutable voter fraud case in the entire state of New Mexico". Specifically, Attorney General Gonzales... wanted him to bring what the prosecutor called "bogus voter fraud" cases. In effect, US Attorney Iglesias was under pressure from the boss to charge citizens with crimes they didn't commit. (Gonzales "wrong and illegal and unethical" by Greg Palast. GregPalast.com 8/28/2007).

The purpose of prosecuting phony-baloney "voter fraud" cases? According to Greg Palast, Karl Rove "convinced Bush to fire upright prosecutors and replace them with Rove-bots ready to strike out at fraudulent (i.e. Democratic) voters". This was another example of bushie election thievery antics, in other words... which is why this (genuine) controversy was viewed as a possible violation of the Hatch Act... which is a law that says the president or VP can't direct their underlings to engage "in some forms of political activity".

The firing of the US attorneys who wouldn't investigate bullpucky "voter fraud" cases to help Republicans win via cheating (preventing legitimate voters from casting ballots by scarring/harassing them away from the polls) was a purely political act... so here we have actual violations of the law, coordinated via email that the bushies tried to hide... and the only thing that happened was that Gonzales fell on his sword (took the blame and resigned).

With HRC, no wrongdoing of any kind has yet to be shown. Should she have used a private server? No, she absolutely should not have IMO. But did she break the law or do anything shady? There is no evidence she did.

Overblown HRC email Scandal Aspect #2: Classified Info Was Sent/Received Through Private Server

Here there appears to be a little more substance, in that Hillary may have actually sent or received classified information. Although, it should be noted that nothing HRC sent/received was marked classified at the time. "None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings..." according to Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III (Hillary's emails touch off debate about classified documents by Josh Gerstein. 07/24/2015).

It appears, however, that it is possible that some of these sent/received communications should have been treated as classified (even though not marked as such).

...foreign government information [is defined by] The US government... as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts. This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions... "It's born classified", said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. (Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest by Jonathan Allen. Reuters 8/21/2015).

If HRC is "guilty" of anything, it appears as though this may be the smoking gun. Although I would say this, if it occurred, is most likely an oversight and not due to any nefarious intentions on Clinton's part. Quite unlike bush's email scandal, where the intention was to hide illegal politicking (in the form of election thievery) using the office of the White House (in violation of the Hatch Act).

So we are clearly not dealing with anything of an illegal nature re the Hillary email non-scandal, although a Libertarian blog I read sez that if HRC asserts that she did not know the emails were supposed to be treated as classified "she looks like a total incompetent and a moron".

Personally I do not agree with this assessment. Smart competent people make mistakes all the time. In any case, HRC's team destroyed a large number of communications they deemed "personal", so if there is any incriminating evidence, it's likely gone. "Incriminating" her in regards to what, I do not know. Unlike with the bushies. With this genuinely lawless administration I know they covered up and escaped prosecution in regards to their election thievery.

This is why I predict the Republican investigations will go nowhere (the same direction they've been going thus far). Congressional Republicans know this, of course. They simply want to firmly plant the idea in the gullible base voter's noggin that HRC is getting away with unspecified illegalities. And spread that false meme into the general electorate as widely as they are able. There is no real "investigating" in other words. What is going on is all political in nature.

Hillary Clinton will likely be the nominee as well as our next president... in my estimation. This so-called scandal will not be "devastating" to campaign as the aforementioned Libertarian asserts.

The bottom line here, I'd say, is that I just do not f*cking give a shit. Barring me hearing (at the very least) some sane sounding conspiracy theory concerning ACTUAL wrongdoing by HRC. WHY did she (or her underlings) destroy thousands of emails they say were "personal"? What is she hiding/what is the REAL crime? I mean, the bushies got away with fricking election fraud shenanigans simply by having Alberto fall on his sword and resign.

Although preznit doofus defended him, saying that Gonzales' "good name [was] dragged through the mud", and that he stepped down only because he received "unfair treatment that has created harmful distraction at the Justice Department". Right.

Now we have Hillary-haters who are calling for her head on a pike for significantly lesser transgressions? I am NOT going along with it. She isn't an "incompetent moron" nor a brilliant criminal mastermind who has evaded successful prosecution for 30-plus years for her many (imaginary) crimes... committed as a part of her husband's administration, via the charitable Clinton Foundation, and as a member of the "lawless" Obama WH.

Congressional Repubs just can't seem to get anything to stick. Perhaps because there is (and have been) no wrongdoings by HRC? Call me a partisan, but I say f*ck these Rightwing idiots who think there is even the remotest chance that HRC will end up behind bars for this nothing-burger. Or the even bigger non-scandal of Benghazi.

Which, by the way, was one of the conspiracy theories floated back in March. That a Benghazi stand down order might be found among the HRC emails. A conspiracy that is leagues away from sane sounding, you poor deluded desperate Repub-identifying halfwits.

Video: Alberto Gonzales said "I don't recall" 72 times during his January 2007 Senate hearing. Gonzales resigned on 9/17/2007 (0:52).

SWTD #313. See also OST #71.