Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
It. Does. Not. Matter.To the press, she was proven innocent. Mentioning it is just "political gamesmanship".The press does not care that they were lied to. Makes one wonder why our current media should qualify for First Amendment protections as they, clearly, are not a "free press".Let's start shutting down newspapers. And TV news channels.Law is not real. Let it all burn.
It occurs to me that everyone is gambling that some hacker out there doesn't have all the emails, or will not publish them late in the election.You know there is some really damning stuff in there, regarding the Clinton Crime Foundation and the State Dept.
It occurs to me that everyone is gambling that some hacker out there doesn't have all the emails, or will not publish them late in the election.You know there is some really damning stuff in there, regarding the Clinton Crime Foundation and the State Dept.Russia has them, almost guaranteed.Ditto China.Democrats are going to vote for a person who is as blackmailable as any person in the annals of human history. Because she possesses a vagina.
If Russia or China DOES has them, one would think it would be in their best interests to keep them off the table for now, and use them as leverage later.
It's an excellent video. No editorializing needed. Shows that Hillary is a liar.
If Russia or China DOES has them, one would think it would be in their best interests to keep them off the table for now, and use them as leverage later.Oh, they very much will.
"Equal justice under the law", my ass. This is life in a banana republic.
Israel, China, Russia and Guccifer 2.0 all have the deleted emails. Williams & Connolly destroyed evidence of her criminal activity. When the deleted emails are made public it will be a firestorm.
That none of her lawyers are under indictment for receiving and viewing classified material is another reason Congress should just repeal all national security laws.
Why do the makers of these "supercut" opposition videos always think inserting some variant of clownish music rolling in the background -- indeed sometime almost downing-out the voices -- adds something to the import of what is being delivered?Maybe works sometimes when a gaffe is visual, distracting when it's spoken, especially as here when the music is rolling while the video cuts between what is supposed to be serious (Comey) and what I guess is supposed to be the absurd (Clinton).Problem is in this case the desired aura should be ominous, not absurd."Let's go with the usual stuff, something dark and ominous. Like losing your penis is a bad thing."
Why would Hillary fear Russian blackmail at this point?She's done so much and escaped so many threats. What could they have on her? and why would she care?She does not care, and that's why Putin should probably view Hillary as a bigger threat than Trump.
That is one greasy character
I'm also impressed at this bout of prosecutorial discretion given that Obama has prosecuted more officials for leaked info under the Espionage Act than all of his predecessors...combined.
Here's the bottom line: do Comey's findings make you any less likely to vote for Hillary Clinton, Professor? Do the FBI's findings "lose" Hillary for you--do they make it impossible for you to vote for Hillary?I suspect not. I'd bet you'll still vote for Hillary. You will probably say that Trump failed to make his case, that he failed to use this bad material correctly, etc...and that will undoubtedly be true. Trump's a bad candidate and he'll run a poor campaign, almost certainly.This won't disqualify Hillary to you, nor to most Americans. An actual indictment MIGHT have, but this certainly won't. That's the reality, and that's the bottom line. The Media will run some stories on this for a week or two and then it's "old news." You'll vote for Hillary and you'll have lots of reasons why--this won't stop you and it won't stop a majority of Americans from voting for Hillary.
She's so gross. That chipmunk smirk at the end. *gag me with a spoon*Our press is an arm of the democrat party. That's why they are giddy and refuse to re-play any of Comey's statements. oh - it's time to move on now.
Looks to me like just another sexist, racist, white-man trying to damage the reputation of a woman who could be elected President of the United States.
That's a damning video. Just a brilliant work.Contrast what the Trump campaign put out.Bad. Repetitive. It's a horrible edit. It's like his crappy website with his homemade videos. Cheap, shoddy, amateur hour. Reason has a light touch. They just lay out the evidence. And it's damning!Donnie is heavy-handed and obvious. His attitude seems to be that we're all third graders, so everything needs to be repeated and drilled into our heads.Now I'm wondering if he edited the damn thing himself! We're supposed to obsess on one or two words?
Renfro Jeffries. Nazi And Proud Of It!I can't help but laugh at the State of Affairs in Mud America. You all were so afraid of scary Nazis that you let the Fascist Government-Media Complex run rampant over you! The New York-types (you know what I mean by that) control you! The Bankers and the Reporters, the Politicians and the Law, all in the hands of those who will only serve themselves: the Noses of Their True masters (you know what I mean by that) are forever in the Trough.None of them see themselves as True Americans, only as part of a Global Cabal -- and we know what happens when there is a Global Cabal (and you know what I mean by THAT) .Even the Gays and the Blacks rule over you (you know what I mean by that, and by that I mean you know what they are REALLY called).You have lost the taste for Freedom by fearing the Cattle Car...I'm Renfro Jeffries, Nazi And Proud Of It!I am Laslo.
I think the White House knew that Comey was going to recommend not to indict as ordered and agreed to; I do not think they knew he was going to lay out the case for indictment as he did.There has to be a great deal of anger about that, since Obama himselfnow looks very bad by appearing on stage with her in North Carolina behind a lectern with the presidential seal just hours later. It is going to be interesting to see what happens next on this score. It is not the Chicago way to forgive and forget in such cases.
She's innocent because she wasn't indicted. That the new standard. It's over, Althouse.
This might matter if she was running against anyone but Trump.
Lauderdale Vet said...If Russia or China DOES has them, one would think it would be in their best interests to keep them off the table for now, and use them as leverage later.7/6/16, 7:07 AM"Simple thought experiment: total up the number of countries in the world. then subtract the number of countries in the world that don't have the capability of hacking the homebrew servers. Take the remainder and subtract those countries that have no interest in the internal machinations of the US government. The resulting number is almost a metaphysical certainty that the US has been compromised by virtually every country in the world. Then there are the non-state actors like ISIS and other terrorist groups and criminal groups like the Mafia.
Blogger Hagar said...I think the White House knew that Comey was going to recommend not to indict as ordered and agreed to; I do not think they knew he was going to lay out the case for indictment as he did.There has to be a great deal of anger about that, since Obama himselfnow looks very bad by appearing on stage with her in North Carolina behind a lectern with the presidential seal just hours later. It is going to be interesting to see what happens next on this score. It is not the Chicago way to forgive and forget in such cases.7/6/16, 8:44 AM"I'm sure Drudge could do one of his montages showing Clinton and Obama together with the caption "Laws are for little people. It's the Chicago Way."
There are three basic reactions now in play in the aftermath of the FBI's Clinton investigation.1. A light, frothy shriek of outrage accompanied by pearl clutching, as with a nip slip.2. A nodding, warmly fulfilling cynicism that the fix is in, has always been in, will always be in, so what's on tap with Netflix tonight?3. Something powerfully dark and ugly, in many cases armed, coiling and slithering deep beneath.Let's hope that #3 finds a benign way to sublimate itself.
I think the White House knew that Comey was going to recommend not to indict as ordered and agreed to; I do not think they knew he was going to lay out the case for indictment as he did.A Clintonesque parsing of this sentence seems to confirm both points.....I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government...IOW, though we spent weeks coordinating this whole week while everyone's at the beach, they don't know what I'm about to say now.
Once written, twice... said... This might matter if she was running against anyone but Trump.7/6/16, 8:46 AMSorry, I don't see it. There were fairly good odds that even with an indictment but no conviction, that "the vagina" would close the deal.Without even an indictment, she is a shoo in. There is NO one that could be run against her and win. Between the Clinton machine, the media, the DNC, voter fraud, and a VERY stupid and/or "girl parts rule" electorate, might as well start your planning for "President Clinton"...
I do find it pretty odd that people seem to think any of this matters. Hillary will be our next president and there's nothing anyone can do about it, because the people who should care just don't. It's tragic, but the truth is people will vote for tyranny out of apathy.
Well done. Hillary will be a weak and ineffective president. Country will be better off when the majority distrusts and despises the president.
>>Something powerfully dark and ugly, in many cases armed, coiling and slithering deep beneath.That's a fairly accurate description of the Clinton crime family.
Is this tied to Bengasi? I have wondered about the strange response to Bengasi and the lying aftermath. Could it be that they knew that Clinton had been compromised and that the actions taken were necessary to lead to different conclusions? If security was compromised, then that would have placed US personnel in danger anywhere in the world were we conducted operations that were not to be made public. And it is suspected that the personnel were running guns.
This is such yesterday news. No one cares.
Renfro Jeffries. Nazi And Proud Of It!I get it, I get it: you know in your Heart what is Right, but you Fear saying it. You cannot bring yourself to say "Mud America", but you know that the Country needs less Mexicans and Muslims, not more (you know what I mean by that).You know that the Blacks and the Browns (you know what they are really called) are draining away precious American Resources and Pride: they identify only as their Tribe, yet we are supposed to not say a word about this for fear of the Cosmopolitans (you know what I mean by that).My Tribe is America. It is a Shame that so many feel this way, too, but will do nothing to Change it for the Better (and you know what I mean by Change).The Cattle Cars are coming: it is just a Matter of Who Will be the Engineer of the Train...I'm Renfro Jeffries, Nazi And Proud Of It!I am Laslo.
OT, but funny:Australia's national women's soccer team the Matildas lose 7-0 to an under FIFTEENS boys' side
The e-mail thing is boring, not the Aussie soccer thing...
Once written, twice... said...The e-mail thing is boring, not the Aussie soccer thing...7/6/16, 9:22 AMFor progressive's treason and corruption are as boring as water is to fish.
Soccer is boring
Another Clinton ‘scandal’ goes poof The Boston Globe"Rule of law","Due Process","objective facts", all of these constraints on our power must be crushed.
Those who continue to talk about this are boring whiners. Sorry, but you know it is true.
"Democrats are going to vote for a person who is as blackmailable as any person" What Ellison said. Why? She's as free as she's ever been. What difference, at this point, etc. Sure, some law prof up at UW thinks we're going to "discuss" this now during the campaign. We cynics outside the Madison bubble know better."I think the White House knew that Comey was going to recommend not to indict as ordered and agreed to; I do not think they knew he was going to lay out the case for indictment as he did. There has to be a great deal of anger about that, since Obama himselfnow looks very bad by appearing on stage with her" Some anger, sure--Comey's unusual public declaration wandered off the reservation just a tad. It was a compromise: the FBI knew they couldn't get an indictment, but the agents and Comey himself didn't just want to let it pass. So they covered their asses while laying out the case, denying Hill and O any further deniability. Except that the no-indictment-therefore-no-crime thing offers a meta-denial: nothing to see here anymore, move along. But thinking O is mad because he looks bad attributes ordinary human feelings to a Prog pol. The Chicago gang and Dem supporters don't care, as trolls on this blog have amply confirmed, so there's nothing bad to be worried about.
Once bitten, if this is so boring to you, fuck off. Taunters are both boring and childish.
That was a pretty damning video.I've got two never Trump Republicans on my Facebook. One of them has dropped the never Trump over this. The other is waiting to see who he picks for vice president. But he admits he is weakening.
that is perhaps the tip of the iceberg,https://world.wng.org/2016/06/fatal_connections
NOTHING is more boring than soccer!
I think Once bitten is a conservative troll.
Russia has them, almost guaranteed.Ditto China.LOL,Israel, Iran, France, UK, Germany, India?- Particularly Israel and France. Both are huge on using their intel gathering to support national commercial interests. and the Clinton Crime Family is nothing if not a commercial interest...
Yep, just think of what Republicans could've done with this if they wouldn't have elected an equally or more flawed candidate. Does even one day pass that Trump doesn't make a huge mistake? At least Clinton seems intelligent, not so for Trump. Can you imagine him with other heads of state? America would be a laughing stock.
What is the most accurate adjective to describe Hillary? Crooked isn't quite right. She's not an out and out crook. Morally careless? Morally lazy? That's closer, but one too many words. Also, doesn't capture the Lady MacBeth side of her over weaning ambition. (Like, why did she marry Bill in the first place? Because she wanted to ride his coat tails, very likely.) Time to go to Roget's Thesaurus.
Mark Halperin: “He [Comey] convicted her without giving her in some ways in the court of public opinion without giving her a chance to respond.”My take is that Comey knew the time of day. That is, he knew that the DOJ would NEVER indict Hillary. Realizing that he did the best given the circumstances. A half loaf instead of no loaf sort of thing. He lays out all these facts, which Trump will wisely use and state as established/proven facts, and Hillary will have no defense with which to respond because the facts are now part of the record.
Nixon is owed a posthumous apology. Watergate withers in comparison to Hillarygate.
I think Once bitten is a conservative troll. Nope. It’s more likely a moby. We’ve had a few lately. “Coupe” was an obvious moby. Moby: An insidious and specialized type of left-wing troll who visits blogs and impersonates a conservative for the purpose of either spreading false rumors intended to sow dissension among conservative voters, or who purposely posts inflammatory and offensive comments for the purpose of discrediting the blog in question.
At least Clinton seems intelligent,What is your evidence for this? She was only let skate on the email thing because vast incompetence and stupidity rather than malicious intent was assumed.Or is her giving advanced weapons to Jihadis in Syria your evidence?Or was it her reckless overthrow of Qaddafi? Or was it her preternatural acumen as a cattle futures "trader"?It's like saying somebody is a good golfer, but son of a gun, they just keep hitting a lot of bad shots! At some point being right as often as a stopped clock is not enough.
Trump's speech yesterday proves just how smart he is and how he can be trusted with our national security.
Another Clinton ‘scandal’ goes poof The Boston GlobeYou're quoting a Boston Globe columnist, who also felt the need to quote the FBI ("extremely careless") and said that Clinton needs to apologize.So, yes, that is one Hillary voter who will remain a Hillary voter. I imagine there are millions just like him!In the same issue of the Boston Globe:"Hillary Clinton is the new O.J. Simpson. She may have gotten off, but everyone knows what she did was wrong."Ouch! And that's a liberal newspaper. One of Hillary's strongest arguments is that she is vetted and experienced and knows way more than Trump about national security. And that argument has been severely damaged. Now she seems reckless and irresponsible and dishonest and untrustworthy. And it's not just Republicans saying that. It's Obama's FBI and DOJ that is saying that. And now it's the media who is saying that. You are quoting from the opinion pages. Contrast the front page."FBI's rebuke of Clinton""the Democratic Party will avoid its worst-case scenario: A mug shot of their presidential nominee""Comey’s scathing assessment of her e-mail practices reinforced existing questions about her trustworthiness and a perception that she plays by her own set of rules.""Gmail, the widely used and free e-mail service provided by Google, features better security and archiving functions than Clinton’s homemade setup"Let's put it this way. Her years as Obama's Secretary of State? She can't run on that record. That record is a liability. She screwed up, big time.
Unknown said... [hush][hide comment]Yep, just think of what Republicans could've done with this if they wouldn't have elected an equally or more flawed candidate. Does even one day pass that Trump doesn't make a huge mistake? At least Clinton seems intelligent, not so for Trump. Can you imagine him with other heads of state? America would be a laughing stock.7/6/16, 10:12 AMSorry but I think that ship has sailed thanks to President Three-putt...
Now when Clinton brags about all the countries she has visited, I will think, "Great! That's another spy organization that hacked your stupid Blackberry."
I wonder what "intent" Comey could have been talking about?Perhaps a deliberate intent to compromise US security. But that is one area where "intent" is not required.Otherwise there seems to have been plenty of "intents." The server system(s?) did not accidentally set themselves up, she did intend to make sure her "private" correspondence was not "accessible," and among the "private" correspondence there were some of her daily schedules, etc., that she was required by law to file and save at the State Dept.So, it seems to me that in some parts of his statement, Comey contradicted himself.
President Nixon tried to bring the FBI under control by installing his own man, L. Patrick Gray, as director.This did not work out well for either Nixon or Pat Gray.
@Hagar: President Nixon tried to bring the FBI under control by installing his own man, L. Patrick Gray, as director. This did not work out well for either Nixon or Pat Gray.Worked about as well as Henry II of England appointing Becket as Archbishop of Canterbury.
Jill Abramson, former editor of the NYT, put her reputation on the line to say that contrary to the evidence, Hillary "is fundamentally honest". The media elite have no interest in truth, integrity or good-faith. For them the citizenry are simply fools to be manipulated and they no longer feel the necessity to hide their efforts to do so.
I'm sure Drudge could do one of his montages showing Clinton and Obama together with the caption "Laws are for little people.Well, Drudge did. See AA's previous post.I think Hillary! now has two husbands.
That none of her lawyers are under indictment for receiving and viewing classified material is another reason Congress should just repeal all national security laws.I think that this was answered yesterday. Two of her attorneys were given security clearances to help delete non-work related emails, and instead of actually reviewing emails, they used search terms on email headers. Something like that. And, in their credit, they seem to have been the first ones to have detected a problem, and turned their copies over to the Feds in very short order.
ABC News is maximizing the drama for all its worth. Morning Joe has been brutal.
"Looks to me like just another sexist, racist, white-man trying to damage the reputation of a woman who could be elected President of the United States."Knock it off, that's Tim in Vermont's comment to make. However, I've noticed he is not proving up to the task to be ALL-IN on Hillary! Unless, of course, he's leading by example, being just as incompetent as she is.
Bruce Hayden said, "I think that this was answered yesterday. Two of her attorneys were given security clearances to help delete non-work related emails, and instead of actually reviewing emails, they used search terms on email headers. Something like that. And, in their credit, they seem to have been the first ones to have detected a problem, and turned their copies over to the Feds in very short order."So let me get this straight: "To their credit" Hillary needed to hand over all work-related e-mails to State. So instead of doing that, she instructed others to determine what was work-related by using search terms they devised themselves and only looking at subject lines which are often irrevelant to contents. None of which was agreed upon by State, which involved non-secure individuals needing security clearance to do, and which still resulted in individuals having access to contents above their security clearance.I don't blame the lawyers, but I do blame whoever came up with and agreed to that scheme. And that is a scheme, make no mistake.
Comey had to stifle the indictment. The trail of evidence went all the way to the White House. Obama was communicating with the clintonemail.com server as well. An indictment for Hillary was an indictment for Obama.
It's just business as usual. Why is anyone surprised?
New campaign slogan: "Hillary Clinton: Deal With It"
'You can't fully understand what it means to make life and death decisions until you've done it. That's the truth,' Obama stated.Continuing, Obama said, 'But I can tell you this, Hillary Clinton has been tested. She's seen up close what's involved in making those decisions.'especially the death ones.
"Hillary will be a weak and ineffective president"This is the silver lining. There will be no political cost for a Congress, Senate, or State telling her to go fuck herself. Can you imagine a President Hillary throwing out the first pitch at some MLB game? She'll never do it for fear of being booed out of the stadium. She will be President but she'll be a president-in-hiding.
Bruce Hayden said..."I think that this was answered yesterday. Two of her attorneys were given security clearances to help delete non-work related emails, and instead of actually reviewing emails, they used search terms on email headers. Something like that. And, in their credit, they seem to have been the first ones to have detected a problem, and turned their copies over to the Feds in very short order."Bruce, normally I think your posts are insightful and well thought out. Would you care to revise and extend this one? Specifically;1. the process you describe is sometimes used in civil law "discovery",. It would be worth noting that both parties need to agree on the search terms, not just Hillary.2. In Discovery, even after culling the "relevant" files, the parties are not free to destroy records, that don't today seem relevant3. I doubt that they were given clearances at the TS/SCI/SI/TK/H/Gamma level, because the operative lie at that point was "nothing was classified in the emails". Regardless, there was no SCIF, nor I suspect any secure AIS system, because again, "nothing was classified in the emails"4. By detecting a problem, don't you mean: After running the queries, destroying half the evidence, destroying hard drives, and learning through the MSM that the Clinton campaign was using them as the excuse, they came forward to the FBI and disclosed that they had still copies of some of the files?And yes, I know something of what I speak. I've had SCI access for most of the 46 years that I have had my TS clearance. I've been a TS document and Nuke weapons Codes custodian. I've been an ISSO (Information Systems Security Officer), and a Facility Security Officer (FSO). I've survived multiple Nuclear Weapons Surety inspections where the only passing score is perfect, and won a "Cogswell" award as a contractor.
Nice work by the folks at Reason. It is actually a modest little video. I recall about 20 other Clinton lies about her email, her devices, her server and the FBI security rev- er, investigation.
One thing the MSM have ignored is the outrage from Sanders supporters. But I'll bet they will make their collective presence known at the convention. In all fairness, Bernie should get the Dem nomination but I hope he doesn't, as he'd be harder to beat than Hillary!
I can't think of a time when the major "establishment" institutions showed more disrespect and outright contempt for the people...or at any rate for the people with whom they disagree.The Media openly flaunts their bias. Rolling Stone pushes a ridiculous story and ruins lives...but after all their target was white frat boys so who cares? Katie Couric falsifies footage...but after all she was just making pro-gun people look stupid, so what's the big deal? Dan Rather puts an obviously-fake document out to attack a Republican presidential candidate close to an election...and his peers give him an award...and they make him & his producer the heroes of a Hollywood movie! Utter contempt.Schools/the Academy? If you don't parrot the Left line you're likely to find yourself either before a tribunal of some sort or fending off a mob. Not a theoretical mob, mind you...and actual mob (like the one that invaded the library at Dartmouth, shouted insults and curses, physically intimidated people...but was judged to have note violated any school codes by the school itself). Chalk the wrong thing and it's over for you, pal. They laugh about the partisan/ideological tilt, and they treat calls for open debate with contempt.The government? Where to start! The EPA and IRS apparently have their own mandates to target citizens and groups they don't like, using the full power of the government and the threat of law. Who is going to stop them? They don't comply with FOIA requests, don't give Congressional committees the time of day, and the agencies themselves don't hold employees accountable for bad behavior. Oh, and good luck firing any of them, even for cause. They hold the idea of "public service" in contempt.The current President doesn't hide the fact that he's taking actions to push his particular agenda down the throats of half the nation--he doesn't bother trying to win over lawmakers or compromise with Congress; his "pen and a phone" and "we won" guide his actions. Never shy to ascribe bad faith to his opponents, Obama lately stops just short of calling anyone who disagrees with his policies responsible for murder...and his congressional allies go right ahead and do that. In the next breath he bemoans the "obstructionist Republicans" and blames excess partisanship and divisiveness on everyone else. If you don't believe what he does he's not interested in your opinion, and if you happen to think the role of the Executive ought to be constrained by checks and balances, well, our current President feels contempt for that opinion.The political parties themselves sure don't seem to think much of the voters! The Dem party obviously went all in for Clinton, screwing over poor ol' Bernie at every opportunity (no need for more than a few debates, ya'll!), and the worst thing about their targeted victim-group pandering is that it probably works. The Republican party is worse--none of the "mainstream" candidates could bring themselves to be on the correct side of an issue that a huge percentage of the primary voters obviously cared about (immigration)...and what's worse none of them could defend their actual positions in ways that didn't openly insult those very same voters. Instead of trying to band together to beat, co-opt, or at least change/influence Trump the smart set decided it was best to mock him & sneer at anyone to whom some of Trump's positions might sound good, leaving us with a divided party and a terrible candidate. The establishment politicians and party bosses of both parties feel nothing but contempt for independent-minded citizens, including potential voters.
My observation is that this scandal is boring to ordinary people, but only in the way that it is shunted to the subconscious to be processed in the Fall. Ordinary people do not have the luxury of abandoning the responsibilities of family, friends, work, and household. That does not, however, imply that the corruption of people with pretenses of godhood go unnoticed.
"The problem with the internet is that there are no gatekeepers." -Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Chelsea Manning, the ex-US-soldier who is serving a 35-year prison sentence for leaking thousands of secret military documents, allegedly attempted suicide in prison. Another victim of Hillary's whitewash yesterday. Hillary earned a 350-year sentence.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3677223/Chelsea-Manning-28-rushed-hospital-trying-hang-inside-cell-maximum-security-prison.html#ixzz4DeTtVL7d Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
"The problem with the internet is that there are no gatekeepers." -Hillary Rodham Clinton. Right, unlike the MSM. Just imagine how little information we would get if we had to depend on the MSM? We don't need no stinkin' gatekeepers!
Bruce Hayden said..."I think that this was answered yesterday. Two of her attorneys were given security clearances to help delete non-work related emails,bruce, this time, it's not about your thoughts, but about the statement above attributed to somebody.Inquiring minds want to know:The operative lie throughout was: "nothing on the server was classified,"1. So why did the lawyers need clearances? Sure, there might have been PII, or budget data, but that could be covered by a classic Agency NDA.Hillary would have had to go to State, during States protracted but very civilized arm wrestling for here emails and request that her lawyers be granted clearances to screen out her private emails from her official records.2. Why didn't State demand to be a part of that process?3. Why clearances? Nothing was classified. What reason did Hillary use?4. what level clearances?
The Cracker Unknown said..."Hillary will be a weak and ineffective president"This is the silver lining. There will be no political cost for a Congress, Senate, or State telling her to go fuck herself. Can you imagine a President Hillary throwing out the first pitch at some MLB game? She'll never do it for fear of being booed out of the stadium. She will be President but she'll be a president-in-hiding.7/6/16, 12:22 PMDon't you take that bet.Not only will she go to "all the right parties" but she will [I would expect] set new ground for a sitting President by taking on paid speaking engagements at all of the "right" financial institutions and tech companies. This will be the first openly "pay as you play" presidency. Not only will they strip the Whitehouse to the bare walls but they will raid any companies they can for speaking fees and will retire vastly richer than they are now as multi-nationals pour money into their "foundation" in exchange for directed tax money and bail-outs. In comparison Al Capone was a piker.
Anyway it's the age of "Get Over It" or "Deal With It" now. It's about power, not consent or persuasion.You can't persuade moderate people like the Professor to vote against the Left. Any non-Left vote seems too cold, too mean. Think of the children! (Or the minorities, etc). What's worse is it really does seem like we've moved beyond trying to use reason or argument to persuade. They don't reason--they shout. They don't argue--they bully. They storm the stage, shout down the speaker, attack rally-goers...it's all force.Government acts badly, judicial decisions are poorly reasoned (are transparently about getting the desired result), the Media is ridiculously biased...hey, "get over it," whiner.The President and his party says I'm partially to blame for a terrorist's mass murder because I have a different view of personal rights than the President does. A 2nd generation Afghan immigrant Democrat murders a large number of gay people at a nightclub and somehow it's my fault...a gay group in NY marches behind a banner "Republican Hate Kills." Ooh, does that hurt your feelings, non-Lefty people? Get over it.That's the ethos of our present age. I can't imagine why so many people feel disenfranchised...I can't imagine why we're so divided as a nation. Eh, who the fuck cares, though, right? Hillary's going to be President, the influence of old white men and their "traditional" values will die off all that much faster...huzzah!
Hillary will screw us and it will be huge. You think Bill is a rapist? Hillary is the real rapist. You aint' seen nothing yet.Hillary will take what Obama started and make it stick. She will institutionalize corruption. The Supreme Court, ObamaCare turned HillaryCare turned publicCare - or the VA for all, for starters. Our only defense against Clinton tyranny will be if we hold the house and senate. Sleep well.
Trump spend the late Summer and early Fall hammering her on this, but here is how Clinton is going to play it:She will give no interviews where she is questioned on the lies she told that Comey refuted yesterday. She will continue to give no press conferences. This leaves the debates, which would be watched by a lot of voters whose minds can be changed- that is the big hurdle for her. It is hard to make sure such questions can't be asked by the moderators, and she would have a very hard time filibustering such a question. There are two things she could do- she could claim she has a faulty memory and thought she was telling the truth those multiple instances; or she could pull out of the debates altogether. I think the latter is more likely, she just needs a pretext on which to announce it.
I think the latter is more likely, she just needs a pretext on which to announce it.That's easy..."I will not dignify or legitimize Trump's outrageous candidacy for the presidency by appearing on the same stage as him."
Mockturtle wrote: "One thing the MSM have ignored is the outrage from Sanders supporters. But I'll bet they will make their collective presence known at the convention."Well, Sanders has only himself to blame, in my opinion. He was the one who, last Fall, claimed this was a nothing issue and didn't deign to hit her with it. I have zero sympathy for him or his supporters.
The present Comey bestowed on Hillary yesterday wasn't exoneration, it was MRSA. It's going to begin gnawing away at her from the cankles up. She can very well tell those she pays to move on, but those are the only ones obligated to do so. The rest will keep swaying and flicking their tongues like Komodo dragons, following her into the bush until she lays down and dies. If that happens to be 18 months into her presidency, fine. Those reptiles are patient.
The Clinton brand of corruption has a lot to do with big corporations who give to the Clintons in exchange for favors. mmmm. It's gonna be great, folks.
Our only defense against Clinton tyranny will be if we hold the house and senate. Sleep well.Nah. There are other, less "pleasant" defenses as well. Elites had best hope that the people they look down on don't decide to use them. We outnumber them handidly and aren't pathetic schmucks.
Im old enough to remember when Bill Clinton was president. They called him slick Willy for a reason.I got very frustrated at the media during the Clinton presidency. There was a time he called for two things. Always separately. Never one right after the other.1) Raise the taxes on cigarettes. For the children.2) Raise the minimum wage, for the children.No one ever put 2 and 2 together. Hillary will be just as slick.
That's right, let's shoot all those elites, sez damikesc. Which one are you going to shoot first, just so the FBI and all the other alphabet agencies have a heads up. I'm sure they must peruse these blogs comments sections...some dummy always has to post threats online. That's da Mike in SC.
I'd love to see damikesc explain to the FBI guys who come knocking on his door that he was merely shooting off his big mouth and really didn't mean to threaten anyone.
Comey is like Pontious Pilate, washing his hands.
I'd love to see damikesc explain to the FBI guys who come knocking on his door that he was merely shooting off his big mouth and really didn't mean to threaten anyone.Civil disobedience hardly need be violent. There are millions of tiny ways for citizens inclined to do so to make a Clinton presidency non-functional outside zones directly controlled by Capitol City. Crucial utilities fail unexpectedly. Necessary personnel get their wires crossed. Millions and millions of tiny things.
For anyone interested in Hillary's emails, here they are.https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/?q=iraq%7Cbaghdad%7Cbasra%7Cmosoul&mfrom&mto&title¬itle&date_from&date_to&nofrom¬o&count=50&sort=0#searchresultSupposedly there are 30,000 there. Somehow I'm suspicious. I think it's just a headline to match the number 30,000 that she deleted.
Remember when I said it was sad how much the Media loves lefties like Clinton even as those lefties shit all over the Media? Check this out:Time: FBI Says Clinton Claim on Reading Emails Was FalseShort version: Time published an article about the email "scandal" way back, and used a fact sheet the Clinton campaign put out--based on that fact sheet Time said Clinton's lawyers used keyword searching to determine which emails were work related and which weren't. The Clinton campaign spokesman vigorously objected, told Time they were wrong and needed to correct the article, and Time wrote a new article, essentially to let the Clinton campaign respond. Ok, pretty normal so far, if brazen--the campaign spokesperson doubled down a a big lie, fine. But read this quote:In addition to Merrill’s on-the-record statement, a senior Clinton adviser, who was granted anonymity to describe the email-sorting process in greater depth, repeatedly told TIME in an interview that her lawyers had read all of the documents prior to deleting them.That's right, folks, the Media backed up the Clinton campaign's lie by getting an off-the-record confirmation from a senior Clinton campaign worker, repeatedly...which also turns out to have been a big lie. Even so, at this late date, the Media is still COVERING for that anonymous source by not outing them! TIME was lied to repeatedly, was used to promulgate a false story/propaganda for the Clinton campaign, and yet even now they can't bring themselves to stand up for the truth in any meaningful way. What price will the Clinton campaign pay for treating the Media like shit--for using them in this way? None! The Media is still firmly on the Clinton's side, and I 100% guarantee that TIME will keep trusting Clinton campaign spokespeople and anonymous sources. Speaking truth to power!Truly, truly pathetic.
I've come to the conclusion that Comey is both a ruthless pragmatist and a sublime political operative. The one forgone conclusion known to everyone before he put pen to press briefing was that Clinton was not going to be prosecuted by Loretta Lynch's Justice Department.That left two options: become the noble but powerless fall guy who impotently recommended her indictment, or prosecute her in his press conference using the full gravitas of his office and leave it to those with more wide ranging powers than he possessed to craft a workaround to Loretta Lynch.He chose the latter option, masterfully, leaving his ostensible impartiality intact and available to anyone in need of it - for example, congressional committees, the press, pundits, Trumps ad writers, anyone who wished to force multiply his gift.
The FBI director is an unimpeachable man of integrity. That is why he got the job."We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges."There are very strong echoes of the Bill Clinton scandals and the GOP severe overreach and reaction. The Clinton's are dishonest but have committed no impeachable or chargeable offenses. And the conservative media and GOP politicians descend again into their Clinton Derangement Syndrome - Investigate the investigators! Let's have a tenth investigation of Benghazi! Surely some faux scandal will stick this time.Instead of being reasonable and running against Clinton's dishonesty the GOP chose one of the few people much more dishonest than she is to be their standard bearer while again turning off the public with their unreasonableness.
The FBI director is an unimpeachable man of integrity. That is why he got the job."We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.""We've come to the conclusion your wife didn't cheat on you. Here are the photos of her not doing so."
Oh my God, please don't be suckered into caring about who Althouse will vote for! Again. Cut bait.
"Civil disobedience hardly need be violent."Exactly. Those who threaten violence don't help their cause.
HoodlumDoodlum said...The Media is still firmly on the Clinton's side, and I 100% guarantee that TIME will keep trusting Clinton campaign spokespeople and anonymous sources. Speaking truth to power!Truly, truly pathetic.7/6/16, 2:20 PMOf course they will. This is a "wink/wink/nod/nod" relationship. The media will do "what ever it takes" to drag Hillary's rotting corpse across the White House threshold. The Clintons promise to continue to lie and the media promise to continue to swallow...
"Civil disobedience hardly need be violent."Exactly. Those who threaten violence don't help their cause.But damikesc didn't threaten violence, Unknown, you did, in his name.
Remember: the Obama Administration has used the Espionage Act against leakers (government workers & contractors who shared gov. info with outsiders---with the Media) more than all previous administrations combined.It's true![fun quote from that article:No matter how broadly interpreted, Kim and Stirling don’t seem to fit that definition. In a statement given to ProPublica, the Justice Department said it does not target whistleblowers who follow the rules, but "we cannot sanction or condone federal employees who knowingly and willfully disclose classified information to the media or others not entitled to receive such information." Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!]Also: Clinton has not given a press conference in more than 6 monthsTHAT is how badly these guys treat the Media...and yet the Media love them! Sad.
I wonder how many opponent's FBI files will end up in the White House with President Hillary? She only got 900 as First Lady....
Keep in mnd that the standard this time is not whether or not there was probable cause to believe that the law was broken, but rather, could a Dem party hack, masquerading as a DoJ persecutor get a conviction. The lawyers using only the headers to determine what to keep was a fig leaf (as was Comey's mention of intent, and not the statutory gross negligence standard). The reason that the headers were supposedly used, as far I can tell, is that avoids the attorneys actually viewing classified information. Note - I am not talking about what actually happened (because I don't think anyone outside the FBI actually knows), but rather the approved narrative. Which gets me to my major point, or, really, current theory. Maybe we are misreading what Dir Comey was really saying. The problem he had was that there seems to have been plenty of evidence supporting convictions of Hillary and gang, based on a gross negligence standard. Comey laid it out for us. But they weren't going to get a conviction for a number of reasons. Where do you sit a jury that won't have a plurality of Clinton voters? DC? (Where the Trump voter would be the anomaly). How about DoJ prosecutors? Maybe at one time - Andrew McCarthy was a career prosecutor there at one point. But the have long tended to be Democrats, and that was before Obama was elected President. AG Holder pushed the career attorneys under hard left. They were essentially utilizing a litmus test to make sure that any attorneys hired in that dept were card carrying leftist loons and social justice warriors. It wasn't apparently just the civil rights division, but throughout the rest of the dept. The idea was to leave a mark on the govt after Obama, Holder, and Lynch were long gone. Which likely means that 80-90% of the prosecutors in the DoJ are going to vote for Clinton in Nov, and most probably voted for her in the primary. And hence, I think, maybe the root of Dir Comey's statement on intent. Absent provable intent, they had no body, no smoking gun, and thus few DoJ prosecutors who would try the case, given their druthers. She is their candidate, and only if proof of her lawbreaking were so obvious that no one could ignore it, would they do a credible job at prospecting her. On the flip side, of course, there are indications that a number of those at the FBI were convinced both of her guilt, and that she should be prosecuted. If Dir Comey had not laid out the specifics he did, I think massive leaks were likely. As I said above, this all is just my latest theory. We shall see how it fares.
Sorry about some of the obvious misuse of words in my last post - spell check on my iPad is the main culprit. Thus, for example, I was suggesting than few of Dem party operatives working as DoJ prosecutors would "prosecute" her competently, not "prospect" her.
Oh please Clayton. Damikesc most certainly did threaten violence, I merely restated in clearer language. "Nah. There are other, less "pleasant" defenses as well. Elites had best hope that the people they look down on don't decide to use them. We outnumber them handidly and aren't pathetic schmucks."He has included himself in that violent group.
Things I'm learning reading Hillary's emails.1) She can't spell agreement. Spells it AGREMENT.2) Her two favorite words appear to be "plz print" as her subordinates send her glowing articles.3) They love to praise her every chance they get.
Nobody has any standards--that's the Left's real victory.People like the Professor helped them win it!Hippie-dippie types frowned on people making, like, judgments, man--don't be Captain Bringdown with your application of judgement or use of shame to govern human behavior! If it feels good, do it! We're all about love, this is a judgment free zone, everyone is just as good as everyone else, all cultures are equally valid and equally good, all religions are the same, it's all above love. Embrace love! If this were the 1950s, say, and a presidential candidate of either party had received a rebuke from the FBI like the one Clinton just got, does anyone doubt that campaign would be over? Would the public have stood for it if they kept campaigning?! Ok, so what changed between then and now? Oh, right, the Left...the Left won. Our institutions are corrupt. They're working on the military now--I think it's the last one holding out. Not for long, of course. Love is the future, and love doesn't permit standards or judgements or any kind of code...just do what you want, do what makes everyone feel good about themselves, viciously crush anyone who opposes you (since, of course, you're on the side of love), and debase any and all traditional values that stand in the way of your desires. It's all about love, right Professor? It's the future! It's just interpretation, and interpreting things in ways that are harsh or judgmental or make the wrong people feel bad is wrong! It won't be permitted. The united states of love. Thanks.
Gary said..."The FBI director is an unimpeachable man of integrity. That is why he got the job."Right! When Obama goes looking for flunkies to do his dirty work, the first thing he asks about is their integrity. Holder, Lynch, Comey, ...Integrity!
Great rant, HooDoo. Of course, judgement IS allowed for haters and racists... being defined as "anybody who disagrees with the left.
@Bruce Hayden, All that seems far to convoluted. It's seems far more likely to me that Comey simply feared the raw political firestorm that he might have to endure in the event that he recommended indictment. So he tried to have it both ways: heavily imply guilt without actually recommending indictment so he could let himself off the hook. Occam's razor and all.
Why the hell should lying matter? The FBI's findings clearly show that Clinton lied, repeatedly. She's a proven liar. So what? Bill Clinton lied, repeatedly! He did his "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" act in front of a ton of cameras, that was proven to be a lie, and what happened to him in the court of public opinion? Nothing! He remained massively popular."Oh, it was just a lie about sex, that's why it didn't matter." Nope! Hillary Clinton's going to prove it now, but the American people don't care about politicians lying anymore. There's no objective standard for truthfulness that people expect, now. Thanks 60's kids! You won...you taught our children well, didn't you?
The UK has concluded that their Iraq War involvement was a criminal act. Not a last resort. heads are gonna roll.
>>heads are gonna roll.Under Sharia, yes.Also, "getting stoned" will shortly have a new meaning as well.
Unknown said...Oh please Clayton. Damikesc most certainly did threaten violence, I merely restated in clearer language. "Nah. There are other, less "pleasant" defenses as well. Elites had best hope that the people they look down on don't decide to use them. We outnumber them handidly and aren't pathetic schmucks."He has included himself in that violent group.Shall we look at violent disobedience? How about the occupy movement. You don't have a leg to stand on.
American people don't care about Democraticpoliticians lying anymore.
@C.Stanley: Comey is like Pontious Pilate, washing his hands.Excellent parallel. I wonder if Comey's wife had misgivings about the verdict.
I really do feel sorry for all the FBI minions who conscientiously gathered the evidence, all for naught. I'll bet they are really pissed.
The part that makes me angry is the part where he says this does not mean that people in similar circumstances in the future will not be charged. A nation of laws indeed."This person is guilty, but we're not charging her. Don't think for a minute that we won't charge someone else we like less, so stay on your best behavior!"
I believe that with appointed positions the Democrats find the dirt first and make the appointment later, just in case.
@The Drill SGTYou made a number of excellent points about the flawed process used by her lawyers to sort her emails. We are to believe that her lawyers sorted the emails by not reading them! If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. A key word search is a fast way of flagging emails for further review. It will not identify all relevant emails for retention.In essence Comey is telling us that Hillary’s non-work emails were treated as if they had a higher security level than information at the top secret/special access level. The appropriate way to have sorted the email would be for a state department employee to review all of the emails to separate the work from the non-work related ones. Giving her lawyers a clearance does not give them the knowledge to know what is and is not classified information. Also, did they go through the appropriate process to get the clearance? It normally takes many months before you can be properly vetted. Finally, since we are told that the lawyers didn’t read the emails, why did they need security clearances?
I believe that with appointed positions the Democrats find the dirt first and make the appointment later, just in case.That's the Chicago way, baby!(Kerner, Ryan, Blagojevic, etc., and they tried it with Obama, but it looks like someone got wind of it and got him out in time. Or did they?)
Comey is like Pontious Pilate, washing his hands.Except Christ was innocent (as Pilate himself admitted), whereas Hillary ... well, you know.Also, Christ was crucified. If only Hillary would suffer the same fate.
A Politifact analysis also confirmed that Clinton's practices complied with laws and regulations, including support from the former director of a prominent government accountability organization: - HillaryClinton.comShe is still pushing that she was cleared by the left wing "Politifact" who, of course, got it wrong as per usual.
mockturtle (3:55pm):It's only "all for naught" when the statute of limitations runs out, or the suspects all die, whichever comes first. No one's been indicted, so a future administration could indict them all without any double jeopardy attaching (is 'attaching' the word I want here?). Unless of course someone destroys the evidence (likely enough), without missing any (unlikely), and without any patriots in the FBI squirreling away copies of some of it (also unlikely).
complied with laws and regulations...LOL. Is liar Clinton still insisting Colin Powell had a privater server, too? Everyone does it.
Freeman Hunt said...The part that makes me angry is the part where he says this does not mean that people in similar circumstances in the future will not be charged.He quite clearly doesn't say that.
"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."AR, upon a closer reading, I see that you are right. He doesn't say that they would be prosecuted; he says they might receive other sanctions. Thank you
Sorry for being a pedant.
Oh please Clayton. Damikesc most certainly did threaten violence, I merely restated in clearer language."Nah. There are other, less "pleasant" defenses as well. Elites had best hope that the people they look down on don't decide to use them. We outnumber them handidly and aren't pathetic schmucks."He has included himself in that violent group.If damikesc threatened violence, Unknown, you should be able to point to what sort of violence he threatened. Violence isn't available generically, you know, it always takes some specific form. What form or forms of violence did damikesc threaten, Unknown?But of course he didn't threaten violence. He "threatened" greater than a purely passive non-response. You, using "clearer language" lied by converting what he did say into the claim that he threatened violence.Not only are you a liar, Unknown, you have now explained to us one of the techniques you enjoyed when lying - "restating in clearer language" - to put your lie in damikesc's mouth.As a demonstrated liar, Unknown, your words can no longer have any value.
Anyone watch Trump's speech ltonight? Another amazing missed opportunity to hammer the Clinton situation with a rambling, incoherent, stream of consciousness blabberfest. This man sounds unhinged.
Does anybody know why the aides getting those emais aren't being punished?
"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."This is absolute bullshit. Show me another person who has done what Hillary has done and not been jailed. Just one.
@Dr. Weevil mockturtle (3:55pm):It's only "all for naught" when the statute of limitations runs out, or the suspects all die, whichever comes first. No one's been indicted, so a future administration could indict them all without any double jeopardy attaching (is 'attaching' the word I want here?). Unless of course someone destroys the evidence (likely enough), without missing any (unlikely), and without any patriots in the FBI squirreling away copies of some of it (also unlikely).Are you the lesser of two Weevils, Doctor? ;-)I doubt very much we shall ever be able to make use of all this damning evidence and it is naive to even think so.
It's a good start. But clean up the monkey funny carnival music. This is very serious business. Gravely serious. If you're going to use it against her you'd better damn well mean it this time.
"To be clear, this is not to suggest, that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face NO consequences."Can we expound upon this more? Was it just by virtue of her position as SOS that no legal penalties could be applied? I think if underlings could have faced legal penalties for something similar then this needs to be repeated over and over again until the extent of her above-the-law attitude sinks in.
If you're depending on Trump to take advantage of Clinton's mess, think again, he gets distracted by mosquitoes.
Has any intrepid reporter asked Comey whether someone so careless with classified information should be allowed to hold a security clearance?
...he gets distracted by mosquitoes.True, he does. I'm not relying on him.
Because the Clintons told them she was not quitting regardless of what the FBI recommended, and there is no time left for a trial, so they decided to brazen it out and told Comey how it was going to be.The system is dependent on people of good will being elected or appointed to office.
Unknown said...he gets distracted by mosquitoes.Funny line. I have been a bit underwhelmed by the Donald's efforts in his battle with Hillary. He was like kryptonite against the Republican contenders but it's a different audience and he is struggling to adapt. I can't believe we are going to get stuck with Hillary.
Believe it - at least until November.
Or, both of them are 69 years old (remember the worries about Ronald Reagan being that old in 1980?), are well fed, and living hard, so it would not be too surprising if either or both are sidelined with a stroke or heart attack before November. Trump seems to be having fun, and fun is not in Hillary!'s nature, so Hillary! may be the most likely to stress out.But otherwise, yeah, we are stuck with them.
damikesc said...Does anybody know why the aides getting those emais aren't being punished?out of fairness. The laws on government classifications have been nullified.
Who is going to punish them? That would be to admit that Hillary! was guilty after all, but is just not being prosecuted.
Rhythm and Balls said..."To be clear, this is not to suggest, that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face NO consequences.""Can we expound upon this more? Was it just by virtue of her position as SOS that no legal penalties could be applied? I think if underlings could have faced legal penalties for something similar then this needs to be repeated over and over again until the extent of her above-the-law attitude sinks in."I can expound upon it. I had a TS/SCI clearance. If I had moved one file with marked information onto a personal computer all hell would have broken loose. All hell broke loose if you just plugged a thumb drive into a secure side network computer. At minimum I would have been fired and kicked out of the unit and sent to a support company with minimum company grade Article 15.Now if I did it over 100 times? And then I emailed them to people without clearances? And then I deleted most of the emails and lied during the investigation? It is truly unimaginable to contemplate what she did or how she could think it was OK.I would be in jail for life. I dealt mostly with SIGINT. She had SAP materials. Jail for life under those circumstances would be the best outcome. I would expect to disappear if caught.
Concur 100 percent with Achilles' statement above.
This article by Glen Greenwald is a good perspective on this case. Unlike most here, I never thought there should be a criminal prosecution nor do I think that a prosecution could ever be successful. Yet, justice is clearly not applied evenly.Althouse has failed here. She seems more concerned with riling up her right wing audience than actually thinking about the implications of this case.
Does anybody know why the aides getting those emais aren't being punished?Because President Obama got some of them? Naah!
This incident has shown both Hillary's and Trump's glaring weaknesses in stark relief. Trump is no Javert and Hillary is no Jean Valjean.
Jason said...Concur 100 percent with Achilles' statement above. Don't forget her 10-20 minion co-conspirators who are now going to move up at the WH. They should never hold clearances again
AReasonableMan said...This article by Glen Greenwald is a good perspective on this case. Only if the bar you set is low. Which you have. Greenwald. Well I've debated Greenwald. Facts are not his friend. Not yours either, I guess.
I have inferred from Comey's statements both Tuesday and today that Hillary, by her behavior, is unfit to hold public office. The only question is whether she is crooked or incompetent. He considers her incompetent. I believe she is clearly both.
Rusty said...Well I've debated Greenwald. Possibly the funniest thing ever posted here.
AReasonableMan said...Rusty said...Well I've debated Greenwald. "Possibly the funniest thing ever posted here."Actually that would be your defense of the ACA and the lasbor dept. employement figures.
Post a Comment