Hillary Clinton made a mockery out of the rule of law, so Americans made a mockery out of her and elected Trump

hillary-clinton-concession-speech

The tears may not be dry on the pillows of Hillary Clinton’s most ardent supporters, but now is the time to discuss one of the many reasons why Donald Trump handily defeated the former secretary of state on Election Day. The American people saw blatant evidence that a nexus of cronyism connecting powerful politicians, lobbyists, and federal bureaucrats kept a woman out of prison who clearly — clearly — should be in an orange jumpsuit.

Imagine if you will, dear reader, a case where you are entrusted with Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) intelligence. You want to run for president one day, but you don’t want reporters or congressional committees gaining access to your work through Freedom of Information Act requests and other legal means. You decide to run the nation’s top secrets through a secret email server in your home, and it somehow winds up on the laptop of Anthony “I-sext-teenagers” Weiner.

Question: Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be in shackles in a heartbeat?

Answer: Of course not, which is one of countless reasons why voters revolted against Mrs. Clinton in droves on Tuesday.

President Obama, The Department of Justice, FBI Director James Comey, and the former secreatry of state made a mockery out of the rule of law, so the American people made a mockery out of her.

electoral-map-2016

Anyone who is remotely familiar with Hillary Clinton knows that she has drooled over the presidency for decades. There was an insatiable craving for power in her eyes that even the writers of Saturday Night Live could not deny. She acted as if she were entitled to job, and so the American people rightly denied her the one thing she wanted more than anything in the world. Her friends in high places may have kept her out of jail, but voters were determined to keep her out of the White House.

This all seems pretty straight forward, doesn’t it? Wrong. To political commentators like like Van Jones, what really happened last night was a “whitelash against a black president.” That may be news to the millions of white voters who voted for Mr. Obama — twice — before pulling the lever for Mr. Trump, but I digress. The point is that no level of electoral punishment is brutal enough to cause many well-known members of the media to engage in serious self-reflection.

Here is the simple truth: If the Democratic Party did not want to lose the 2016 U.S. presidential election, then it should not have nominated a woman who is the epitome of corruption. Case closed.

Anyway, feel free to share your thoughts on the election in the comments below. I’d love to hear what you have to say.

Related:

FBI shreds credibility with Hillary Clinton document dump before holiday weekend; NYTs wonders why Americans love WikiLeaks

James Comey’s decision on Hillary Clinton: Welcome to Animal Farm!

An open letter to James Comey and the FBI about Hillary Clinton’s missing server Snapchat joke

Hillary Clinton turns over server to FBI — after months — yet campaign still calls story ‘nonsense’

Hillary Clinton used personal email account for all State Dept. business: Laws are for little people

Hillary Clinton turns over server to FBI — after months — yet campaign still calls story ‘nonsense’

R.I.P. America: State Dept. says no emails by Clinton’s top IT aide in 4 years

FBI shreds credibility with Hillary Clinton document dump before holiday weekend; NYTs wonders why Americans love WikiLeaks

Hillary Clinton CNN

It was only one month ago that FBI Director James Comey stepped in front of television cameras and raked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the coals for her “extremely careless” handling of the nation’s most sensitive documents — before stating the bizarre conclusion that no prosecution was warranted. In short, Mr. Comey confirmed that the rule of law in the U.S. is a joke — Washington “elites” really are above the law.

Friday’s document dump by the FBIa political move right before Labor Day weekend to minimize the fallout to a presidential candidate — demolishes whatever credibility the agency had left and demonstrates why millions of Americans do not care where WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gets his information from.

CNN reported Friday:

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton repeatedly told the FBI she couldn’t recall key details and events related to classified information procedures, according to notes the bureau released Friday of its July interview with the Democratic presidential nominee, along with a report on its investigation into her private email server.

Clinton told the FBI she “could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information,” according to the bureau’s notes of their interview with Clinton. The documents indicate Clinton told investigators she either does not “recall” or “remember” at least 39 times — often in response to questions about process, potential training or the content of specific emails.

What the network chose not to mention is that Mrs. Clinton literally linked her inability to recall operational security training to a concussion she suffered during a fall in 2012. The entire 58 pages are worth reading because they make clear — especially when coupled with Mr. Comey’s public statements — that Mrs. Clinton would be sitting in a jail cell if she had a different last name.

When the highest reaches of the FBI are no longer independent and it blatantly behaves as as political pawn, then America is in dire straits. I warned readers in April 2011 that Donald Trump was a canary in the mineshaft, and now he is the 2016 Republican presidential nominee. That is important because it is only when one understands how bad of a predicament we are in that he or she can put the acceptance of WikiLeaks into proper perspective.

Wikileaks Julian Assange

The New York Times wants Americans to shun Julian Assange because they see him as a tool of Russian President Vladimir Putin:

The newspaper wrote Aug. 31:

From the outset of WikiLeaks, Mr. Assange said he was motivated by a desire to use “cryptography to protect human rights,” and would focus on authoritarian governments like Russia’s.

But a New York Times examination of WikiLeaks’ activities during Mr. Assange’s years in exile found a different pattern: Whether by conviction, convenience or coincidence, WikiLeaks’ document releases, along with many of Mr. Assange’s statements, have often benefited Russia, at the expense of the West.

Among United States officials, the emerging consensus is that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services. But they say that, at least in the case of the Democrats’ emails, Moscow knew it had a sympathetic outlet in WikiLeaks, where intermediaries could drop pilfered documents in the group’s anonymized digital inbox.

In an interview on Wednesday with The Times, Mr. Assange said Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats were “whipping up a neo-McCarthyist hysteria about Russia.” There is “no concrete evidence” that what WikiLeaks publishes comes from intelligence agencies, he said, even as he indicated that he would happily accept such material.

Let us ask the following question about Mr. Assange by ironically quoting Hillary Clinton: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

The Obama administration as a whole, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the FBI have obliterated the rule of law to protect Mrs. Clinton. Countless media outlets downplay or ignore the story, and other cultural institutions (e.g., academia, the entertainment industry), look the other way as corruption consumes us.

Does it really matter if WikiLeaks gets its information from Russia if it is one of the few organizations willing to expose corruption?

Vladimir Putin made this very same point in an interview with Bloomberg News on Friday — again, on the same day the FBI did whatever it could to protect Hillary Clinton.

Putin

The Russian president said September 2:

“Listen, does it even matter who hacked this data?” Putin said. “The important thing is the content that was given to the public. There should be discussion about this, and there is no reason to distract the public’s attention from the essence of the problem by raising some side issues with the search for who did it.”

It is with great sorrow that I find myself in agreement with Vladimir Putin on this issue. We used to rightfully lash out at Russia for spreading outright lies for its propaganda purposes; we now complain that Mr. Putin is responsible for truthfully exposing our own corruptionIf this does not convey just how far we have fallen, then nothing will.

Related:

James Comey’s decision on Hillary Clinton: Welcome to Animal Farm!

An open letter to James Comey and the FBI about Hillary Clinton’s missing server Snapchat joke

Hillary Clinton turns over server to FBI — after months — yet campaign still calls story ‘nonsense’

Hillary Clinton used personal email account for all State Dept. business: Laws are for little people

James Comey’s decision on Hillary Clinton: Welcome to Animal Farm!

Hillary Clinton Snapchat email joke

Americans everywhere should do themselves a favor and buy George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” today because FBI Director James Comey made clear this afternoon that we are living in it: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

There really is no way to describe the Twilight Zone-like press conference Mr. Comey gave today regarding Hillary Clinton’s private email server. The man personally and professionally destroyed the former secretary of state for nearly 15 minutes and then concluded with, “no reasonable prosecutor” would seek charges in this instance.

Consider just the following snippets from Mr. Comey’s address to the nation:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent. …

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. …

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. …

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Objective Americans know that if they were guilty of a fraction of the negligence shown by Mrs. Clinton during her time as secretary of state that they would be rotting in a jail cell this very moment. The fact that nothing — nothing — will be done to the woman is proof that our country has gone over a cliff. It’s over. The future of the United States is going to be a very dark place, even if there are countless citizens who do not realize they are living in a very real version of Animal Farm.

There are millions of Americans right now who are a.) so blindly partisan that they do not care how dangerous this moment in history is, or b.) so stupid and lazy that high-speed internet streams of NFL football, cat videos, and naked women keep them placated. It would take a miracle of epic proportions to save the country at this point, but at the same time it is right and just for America to reap what it has sown.

This afternoon I tried to discuss the FBI’s decision with a friend and instead of getting visibly angry my eyes just teared up and I thanked God I was behind a computer screen. My wife and I live comfortable lives and we know that we are fortunate to be the right kind of “animal” on this Orwellian estate. My tears are not for myself or the woman I love, but for the generations of Americans to come who will live in country where there are special rules for the elite and well-connected, and then there are rules for everyone else.

If you have a moment, then watch Mr. Comey’s press conference from earlier today. If it turns your stomach, then feel free to throw up your feelings in the comment section below.

 

An open letter to James Comey and the FBI about Hillary Clinton’s missing server Snapchat joke

Hillary Clinton Snapchat email jokeDear FBI director James Comey and the men and women of the FBI,

By now you know that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s response to turning over her personal e-mail server to FBI investigators was to mock their work with a Snapchat joke at a campaign event.

“You may have seen that I’ve recently launched a Snapchat account. I love it. I love it. Those messages disappear all by themselves,” Mrs. Clinton said at an event in Iowa.

As an American who respects the rule of law, I interpret this joke as a giant middle finger to the FBI. It is the mark of a woman who thinks “My husband plays golf with the president while visiting Martha’s Vineyard. You won’t touch me. You can’t touch me.”

Given that the inspector general (IG) for U.S. intelligence agencies revealed Top Secret information had passed through Mrs. Clinton’s private server, and given that at least 305 more documents have now been sent to different agencies for review, I am pleading with you to respond to Mrs. Clinton’s rhetorical “Screw you” as you do to every other American who acts like they are above the law.

To every young FBI agent out there I ask the following questions:

  • What would happen if you somehow managed to have Platte River Networks set up your own private e-mail server, and then used it to conduct day-to-day operations?
  • What would happen if Top Secret information and hundreds (perhaps thousands) of classified documents passed through that server?
  • What if your supervisors found out about your private e-mail server and then you tried to wipe the device clean, held onto it for months, and only then turned it over to investigators?
  • Where would your career be after all of this, and what would happen if you joked about it in public?

In order for the great American experiment to work, citizens need to have faith in the system. When powerful people openly flaunt their ability to play by a completely different set of rules, civil society breaks down. When a politician’s behavior is so grossly irresponsible that the FBI needs to get involved to figure out if national security was compromised — and then she makes cavalier jokes about the matter — it sends the wrong message to anyone who cares about the future of the nation.

Mr. Comey, the pressure put upon you by well-connected people to make this all go away will be great. It must be hard to look at President Obama playing golf with Bill Clinton immediately after the FBI took Hillary’s private email server, and then move ahead with honesty and integrity. Mr. Obama has non-verbally asked the FBI to take the easy wrong instead of the hard right.

Now, more than ever, it is incumbent upon you to remember that the FBI motto — Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity — exists for a reason. I pray that you will go where the evidence takes you and do what is right.

Best,

Doug