Comey: FBI does not recommend bringing charges against Hillary
In announcing that the FBI does not recommend bringing charges against Hillary for matters related to her private email server, Director James Comey said in effect she’s a fool, not a knave.
The complete text of Comey’s statement can be found here, and it basically says there was wrongdoing in nearly every conceivable way but no intent. I plan to write another post analyzing the decision in the legal sense, but the post I’m writing now is going to deal with it in the political and psychological sense.
Those who read this blog regularly know that I’ve said that Hillary would absolutely not be indicted, and that I’ve never wavered in that prediction. That really wasn’t a difficult call either; it simply seemed inevitable that it would not happen under a Democratic administration unless that administration decided it should happen, and despite some enmity between Obama and the Clintons it has long been my conclusion that Obama has decided that Hillary will be just fine for carrying on his legacy, and that he supports her candidacy.
The decision to prosecute in such matters is always completely discretionary—always. Maybe there are some exceptions, but to compel the indictment of a politician against the will of an administration, the smoking gun has to be not only smoking, but held in the perp’s hand and on camera in full view of the public. Even then, I’m not so sure it would matter.
There are some lines in T. S. Eliot’s poem “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock” that popped into my head while thinking about Comey’s decision. In the poem, the decisions are not legal ones about a presumptive nominee for president, of course; nothing of the sort. But portions of the poem seem appropriate nevertheless, because they describe the process of making a risky decision and deciding to punt rather than be bold:
There will be time, there will be time
To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;
There will be time to murder and create,
And time for all the works and days of hands
That lift and drop a question on your plate;
Time for you and time for me,
And time yet for a hundred indecisions,
And for a hundred visions and revisions,
Before the taking of a toast and tea…And indeed there will be time
To wonder, “Do I dare?” and, “Do I dare?”…
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse…Should I, after tea and cakes and ices,
Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis?
But though I have wept and fasted, wept and prayed,
Though I have seen my head (grown slightly bald) brought in upon a platter,
I am no prophet ”” and here’s no great matter;
I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,
And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker,
And in short, I was afraid.And would it have been worth it, after all…
To have indicted Hillary would have been to disturb the universe. It may have even entailed personal danger for Comey; who knows what forces would have been arrayed against him, what pressure was brought to bear already? None was even required, however; the man could probably figure it out for himself, and it there was a way out of doing it, and a reason he could give, he was going to take it and escape the whole problem. And so he did.
[NOTE: As I said, I’m planning to write more. But I just want to add something about Comey’s history. He was originally appointed as Deputy AG by George W. Bush in 2003, after having been US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. In his capacity under Bush in the DOJ, he objected to certain aspects of the NSA surveillance program (it’s not clear exactly which ones). He left for the private sector in mid-2005.
It is not at all clear to me what Comey’s politics are. My guess is that he’s somewhat of a centrist, if that. Being appointed AG by Bush doesn’t tell you much; it’s interesting, for example, that in 2009 he was reported to have been under consideration as SCOTUS justice by Obama. That certainly wouldn’t indicate conservatism, to say the least. In 2013 he signed onto a brief supporting same-sex marriage, and later that year he was nominated by Obama as head of the FBI.
Comey has some other interesting experience involving the Clintons and their various legal issues, including the Whitewater investigation of Hillary and Bill and the look into the pardons Bill issued towards the end of his presidency. You can read some of the details here. With Whitewater, Comey was a deputy special counsel to the investigative committee in the Senate. He was the head of the pardons investigation. In both cases the results were similar: lots and lots of wrongdoing was found, but no charges brought. That is the way the present investigation was always going to end.
By the way, Comey also is the person who prosecuted Martha Stewart, as well as heading the (Valerie Plame) Scooter Libby investigation and prosecution. Both Stewart and Libby were given prison terms, and Stewart actually went to prison.]
[ADDENDUM: You can find some of the Twitter responses here.]
1. Neo correct!
2. Scooter has to be steamed today.
3. Hillary now has sovereign immunity. There is nothing she could do now that would result in her impeachment or indictment. Heck, video of her taking cash from bin Laden wouldn’t do a thing. Complete and total power.
4. Hillary Clinton must be defeated. Carthage must be destroyed.
My cynicism usually would have protected me from being wrong on this but, alas, I partially fell for the “Comey is a straightshooter” routine.
Yeah, the text of Comey’s announcement is literally unexplainable. Intent? I guess that private server/s was/were acts of God.
I suppose that it’s refreshing that they’re being totally up front that Her Highness is above the law. Charles I is envious…
Since the President was ‘in’ on the crime from the outset — there was no way that the AG was going to let the dogs loose.
For he’d be the FIRST fella sitting in the witness box.
This crime is as much Barry’s as it is Hillary’s.
Yet the MSM can’t be heard over the sound of the crickets.
@Yancey – I fell for that too. And it is an object lesson in the “telephone” game from childhood. In the end, what the heck did I know about Comey? What did I really know? Only that people kept writing about what an honorable man he was, that he was a stickler for the rule of law. I think we are coming to the end of this Republic. It will be interesting to see how we enter the next phase. I think it will be one democrat after another as president and a democrat congress, house and senate and a 6-3 liberal court until it is finally all 9 judges. In this way we will become the modern equivalent of Rome.
Does a “reasonable prosecutor” meet secretly with the husband of someone under criminal investigation?
FBI Director Comey had a choice between his oath of office and dishonor. So much for Comey being a man of integrity.
Hillary Clinton: “Guilty as hell, free as a bird”.
There was NO doubt, none whatsoever of Hillary Clinton’s violation of national security laws. No doubt that Obama was aware of it while she was Sec. State.
Comey just lied when he said there was no compelling evidence. And that makes him a co-conspirator in the obstruction of justice.
Under democrat administration’s, they are no longer even pretending that we are a nation under the rule of law.
Under a President Clinton, they will not even pretend that they are not engaged in political persecution and imprisonment. Imprisonment for ‘hate speech’ over the internet will be a favorite ploy.
Vindictiveness is the woman’s defining characteristic.
Trump can just read from Comey’s transcript and hammer Hillary with it.
Yancey Ward; janetoo:
IMHO, Comey’s reputation as a straightshooter came from the fact that he has been appointed by both Republican and Democratic administrations, as well as his very own statements such as this statement of Comey’s when testifying to Congress during the Alberto Gonzalez investigation (he’s referring here to the DOJ, but he could have certainly been talking about the FBI’s need for impartiality, as well):
Talk is cheap. The stakes in the Hillary investigation were very high, however. Very.
Janetoo,
It is not Rome with its fate that awaits but the Soviet and Mao’s “cultural revolution”. Tens of millions, those who ‘cling’ to their bibles, guns and constitution must be ‘purged’ from the body politic. We are a malignancy that cannot be tolerated in the Left’s Brave New World.
Those who have sold their souls and free will to evil for some power and influence, don’t get to disobey orders from their top Authority and King.
This is why using elections is pointless to fight evil. They are light years ahead. Of course, people may think that if they “win” some game from Lucifer, that they can get into the seat of power and punish/prosecute. That’s the idea, but it generally never happens that way.
@ Geoffrey Britain – I agree. Word monitoring will become a form of crime “prevention.” I was recently admonished for saying “oriental.” We aren’t very far from being hauled into court and fined for these infractions. I see the end of all ‘Christian” based federal holidays as well. I do think it will become a conundrum for the left to lock me up or purge me completely. My son in law is a socialist. I am not sure he could easily justify purging me. Not yet. But, the day is coming. I do know that.
If I am speeding on I-80 at 100 mph and I tell the state trooper who pulls me over that it was not my intent to break any traffic laws I would be issued a speeding ticket. If I contest the ticket in traffic court the judge will not be interested in my intentions. So color me simple for failing to understand how intent matters in the case of hrc’s emailgate.
I agree the result of the investigation is not surprising, as Brian notes it is refreshing in a perverse way.
I never thought Hillary would be indicted. But I thought maybe someone would have to take the fall in some way. Someone would be put through the Scooter Libby ringer. Someone would have to resign from her staff. Boy, am I a babe in the woods.
As noted over at Instapundit, the fix was in all along.
Here is Andrew McCarthy’s position:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
Now the next question is what does Trump do with this?
He has already claimed “Crooked Hillary” and that the system is rigged. The FBI has just given the Trump campaign the ammunition for a long and enduring salvo against her candidacy.
And the ultimate question is how does the eelctorate react? Will the stay-at-homers be so irate at this con game that they will come out to vote in droves, or will that dismiss this all with a “there’s nothing I can do about it” attitude?
IMO it now clear that no “checks and balances” issue will stand in the way of a President Hilary doing whatever she damn well pleases (unlike a Republican President Trump) and those who sit on their hands in November, or those Never-Trumpers who will write in a candidate or vote for Gary Johnson (effectively “cutting off their nose to spite their face”) will, by their refusal to oppose Hillary, will be suborning her behavior as accessories before the fact.
If the American people continue to elect such, and they can appoint who they will, this will be the result.
The long, hard solution is 51% of the vote for people who will not act like this, repeated hundreds of times. All victories by people of character in the justice system or government agencies will be temporary, however much we welcome them when they occur.
As Kurt Schlichter writes:
“You Owe Them Nothing—Not Respect, Not Loyalty, Not Obedience”
The Link:
http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/07/04/you-owe-them-nothing–not-respect-not-loyalty-not-obedience-n2186865
and precisely bec its trump shes facing, she will not suffer. a. hes facing a civil suit- yes its not criminal, but all that matters is she wasnt charged. b.trump will not be able to hit her w/o some screw up of his own as witnessed by this past weeks sherrif star/magen dovid
There’s a big difference between finding violations of the law and persuading a jury of those violations. A prosecutor shouldn’t proceed with a case he doesn’t have good-faith belief that he can win. I’ve never been on a jury; I think I could be persuaded that a person should be found guilty for breaking these specific laws even if the prosecution couldn’t demonstrate intent. But I’m not going to say that Comey’s wrong.
As for the question of intent, I think it goes like this: “did she intend to commit the crimes?”. Not, “did she intend to hide her activities and lie about them?”. Again, I agree that there’s nothing in the law that I’ve seen that requires that intent to be demonstrated. I’m just saying fabrication after the fact doesn’t prove intent.
Nick:
There is no question that there was enough evidence here to have good faith that the case could be won, since every element of the crime was present (see this post).
And (as the post I just linked demonstrates) there is no question of intent in this crime. Intent is irrelevant to the crime or to proving it.
LOL Maybe, maybe not. But I learned my own lesson as I have mentioned here before.
After haranguing y’all to be up front and no-nonsense with relatives at gatherings – so that they would be in no doubt as to where you stand, and would therefore consider the personal costs their interpersonally approporiative political schemes impose on (ostensibly related or emotionally close) others, I soon got what should have been a chance to try my theory out at a Christmas season gathering.
Unfortunately, the intended subject of the lesson I had hoped to deliver, got himself so worked up, all on his own, without any aid from me, that he was quaking and declaring his willingness to engage in violence.
I was unaware that there had been a gas leak in the room, and that someone had struck a match, but a mild and neutral utterance by someone provoked in his mind the meme that “Bush lied and people died”; and boom.
It was like there was a little demon hovering somewhere. One who was determined that if an unprecipitated explosion was what was necessary in order to avoid a rational exchange of honest views, then the eruption of a pointless bout of emotional hysteria bringing the evening to an early end, is what it would be.
I remember sitting there with my arm draped over the back of the couch as he launched off, and thinking to myself – “remain impassive, and let’s see how long this plays out” – expecting that at some point there would be a pause, a gap in the wind wherein reason could reach out its hand and grasp the wildly banging shutter.
But he just got more and more wound up listening – as I suppose – to himself rant, as almost no one said anything during the whole process. Except another cousin who made a perceptive rejoinder which should have been calming.
So what is my point in this?
1. We don’t know how seriously to take your remark, nor how seriously you did yourself mean it.
2. We also have no idea of the level of barely suppressed resentment, and ill informed, self-gratifying (possibly near homicidal) rage that simmers below the surface of many of the people we have known for years, and thought we understood to some extent.
It’s only in the last few years that I have come to understand how it could be true, or conceptually coherent at least, that if there were a God, and if that God was all Good, that Hell could still be full to overflowing.
I think Comey gave the Republicans plenty of ammo for an incompetence charge against Hillary as president. That plus the speaking fees may carry some weight with the electorate. But Trump has to keep on message and stop is tweets. I saw a bit of the CNN coverage today, and they spent way too much time talking about his Petraeus tweet instead of Hillary’s incompetence.
Also, I saw a llink yesterday abot Wikileaks posting some of Hillary’s emails. I didn’t have time to read them, but I wonder whether there are going to be more drips. I don’t have Putin’s phone number, so I can’t call and ask him.
If an experienced prosecutor (Comey) tells me that he couldn’t get a conviction without demonstrating intent, I’m going to believe him. If another experienced prosecutor (McCarthy) tells me the opposite, I’m going to say, “huh, I don’t know what to think”.
Nick:
Where does Comey say anything of the sort? I didn’t see that. He never says intent is an element for conviction, and that without it he couldn’t get a conviction. He never addresses those issues at all.
And if an experienced prosecutor were to say he couldn’t get a conviction without demonstrating something that is not an element of the crime, I would say he’s grossly negligent or that the fix is in.
It was like there was a little demon hovering somewhere. One who was determined that if an unprecipitated explosion was what was necessary in order to avoid a rational exchange of honest views, then the eruption of a pointless bout of emotional hysteria bringing the evening to an early end, is what it would be.
I don’t call them Demoncrats for nothing. One religious theory is that, metaphysically, Lucifer and his angels now fallen, aren’t allowed physical bodies, being born as. So they must possess or otherwise influence weak hearted mortals.
That’s why you see so much aggressive self destruction in black communities, gang banger communities, Islamic jihad. Evil formats the human soul to download the demonic spirit, and now they are hijacked and under control, Submission.
expat:
Take a look at my most recent post.
“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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
“In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”
“I do think it will become a conundrum for the left to lock me up or purge me completely. My son in law is a socialist. I am not sure he could easily justify purging me.” Janetoo
Let’s give your son-in-law’s humanity the benefit of the doubt. What makes you think that he’ll be the one to make the determination, as to your fate?
Also, if the Soviet Union’s and Mao’s purges are any guide, he’ll be right there alongside you, as his having continued any relationship with you will have demonstrated a certain lack of commitment to the cause.
“When the Stalinists show up, the Trotskyites are always astonished”. unknown
Nick:
The quote you offer is not evidence to support what you had said, it is evidence that supports what I had said.
As I wrote in my last comment to you, Comey “never says intent is an element for conviction, and that without it he couldn’t get a conviction.” He is talking only about what other prosecutors would do, not whether he could get a conviction in this particular case under this statute. (And by the way, there is no relevant case with anything resembling this fact situation, so his comparisons are irrelevant; there are no “similar situations”).
There are many many many considerations that go to a prosecutor making a decision as to whether or not to try a case. Only one of those considerations is whether he/she is likely to get a conviction. In Comey’s statement, he does not say anything whatsoever about whether the evidence against Hillary would support a conviction, only about whether it would make a prosecutor bring the case. He brings in intent (which is totally irrelevant in terms of a conviction under this statute) only regarding whether to bring the case, not whether a conviction could be obtained.
Plenty of times a prosecutor brings an important case even though it is by no means certain a conviction could be obtained, if the elements of the crime are present. He made it clear that they are present here.
Nick,
If Hillary Clinton directing assistants to manually strip classification headers from official emails on secured servers and then sending them on to her private email server isn’t “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information”. And if receiving and sending highly sensitive information that “any reasonable person” would realize must be classified information isn’t “an inference of intentional misconduct”. And, if Petraeus was held responsible for far lesser violations, while showing no “indications of disloyalty to the United States”… if all of that isn’t grounds for indictment, then only a smoking gun and a voluntary confession will qualify.
“Guilty as hell, free as a bird”
Why else would he be looking at comparable cases, if not to judge the chance of success of prosecuting this one? He said specifically that prosecutors weigh factors including intent, immediately after saying that this case wouldn’t be prosecuted by a reasonable attorney. You can’t ignore the context in which he brought up intent. Either intent is related to what a prosecutor would do with this case or it isn’t. If it is, then he’s correct. If it isn’t, he was using this as an excuse. But you can’t deny that he’s making a link between intent and prosecution.
GB – I agree with you in that I can’t reconcile what appears to be an email telling someone to strip the Classified designation off something and send it via fax with a lack of intent to break laws. Does that email somehow make sense in some other context? Did Comey not investigate it for some other reason? I don’t know.
That Comey says intent is almost certainly unprovable does not make it a fact. Her actions prove intent and only the purposely deceitful or willful blindness can argue otherwise.
In addition, ‘intent’ is a “red herring”, regardless of intent, she’s guilty of hundreds of violations of national security laws. Setting up a private email server and then directing that government emails on a secured server be stripped of their security classifications and then sent to a private email server alone is an unequivocal violation of the law. Case closed. Prison is the only just sentence, anything else a travesty of justice.
Nick:
Let me try to make this crystal clear, if possible (although I thought I had before). This is my last effort on that score, however.
A prosecutor makes a decision whether to bring a case. That decision is based on a host of things. In this case, it is based partly on politics, for example (and not only in this case), although Comey can’t admit that. It’s based on other things, too, such as whether the elements of the crime are present.
Comey has made it crystal clear that the elements of the crime are present here.
If the elements of the crime are present, there is usually no reason to imagine the prosecution wouldn’t have a decent chance of being successful. Sometimes, of course, even with all elements present and provable, the prosecutor still thinks a prosecution would not be successful. Why might that be? Perhaps the climate in a certain jurisdiction is prejudiced, or something of the sort. But that’s not what Comey is alleging here; I just mention it because it’s something that sometimes happens.
Another situation might be where (a) all the elements are present to charge with a crime, and (b) there is reason to believe that a conviction could be obtained, but (c) a prosecutor decides that charges nevertheless won’t be brought. That can be for political reasons. It can be just because the prosecutor just doesn’t want to try the case—prosecutors are given that much discretion. I think we can agree that those reasons (political, personal) are not what most of us would consider to be “good” reasons, but they certainly are sometimes operating. And I believe they are operating here.
Comey does not say the elements of the crime are not present. He does not say that a prosecution could not be successful. His reasons for not prosecuting are actually not all that clearly stated (I believe it’s because he’s searching desperately for ways to justify the decision and is coming up short), but one could summarize them this way: (a) he doesn’t believe most prosecutors would prosecute because in “similar” [sic] cases they have not, and (b) he believes there was no intent on Clinton’s part.
Note that he does not really try to explain how he knows there was no intent on Hillary’s part, or why he even thinks it matters whether there was intent or not, since we all know that intent is not a necessary element of the crime involved and therefore intent would not ordinarily impact on whether a conviction could be obtained on these charges. However, Comey cites the issue of intent as being part of his decision not to prosecute Hillary (not, however, on whether the elements of the crime are present or whether a conviction would be possible or even likely if he did choose to prosecute). And he thinks other prosecutors would agree with his decision not to prosecute, but he never says that without the element of intent he could not get a conviction.
I believe that implicit in what he stated is the following reasoning (which he did not directly state): even though intent is not an element of the crime, I would not prosecute the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in the absence of a hotly smoking gun indicating intent was present, because I fear the uproar in terms of the political repercussions were I to do so. Therefore, even though against ordinary folk this crime is prosecutable (and note that he reserves the right to prosecute something like this in the future), for extraordinary folk like Clinton I feel I have to hold back rather than start a civil war.
Neo – You are a patient hostess.
Nick,
I’m a good cook, too 🙂 .
Nick: the basic fact is that Comey was falsely highly regarded for a long time without any basis in the facts of performance of his duties. He is a lackey.
neo @5:25,
I also thought that fear of political chaos, might have been a factor in Comey’s thinking. It’s a rationalization of course because in difficult situations, refusing to “bite the bullet” and do the wrong thing in the long run, invariably makes things much worse.
sign. I meant “do the
wrongright thing in the long run”sign! sigh… I give up. Does anyone else find themselves falling prey to mistakes like this as they age?
GB@7:01,
Join the club, its usually better than the alternative.
If you’re from Philly, New York, Chicago, Boston, any of the Democratic machine cities, you know how this works: criminal meets with cop/prosecutor/judge in an isolated spot. Big guys in suits with suspicious bulges under their arms stand around to make sure they’re not disturbed. A fat envelope passes from one party to the other. The case goes away. Thus it has always been.
Remember that Comey is the cop here, not the prosecutor. For the cop, the case is “closed” when he (or she) delivers to the prosecutor what he (or she) thinks is sufficient evidence for a conviction. Comey knows he has to take a dive here. So what does he say to assuage his self-respect and save what little reputation he will have left? He says, “Sure, there’s enough evidence to convict, but I know the old fixerino is in, and the prosecutor, my boss, ain’t gonna prosecute, so what’s the point in my making a criminal referral. At least I get to keep my job.”
He coulda been a contender. He coulda been somebody. Now he’s just a bum with a one-way ticket to palooka-ville.
Cornhead – Why should anybody pay me to help them comply with the law, when there is no law? I predict compliance with virtually every area pf law will plummet.
NeverTrumpers — do you get why we’re going to hold our nose and vote for Trump yet?
Richard Saunders
In spite of all contrary evidence you expect djt to be better than hrc. I’d say you were grasping at straws if I were GB.
DNW Says:
July 5th, 2016 at 4:02 pm
…
It’s only in the last few years that I have come to understand how it could be true, or conceptually coherent at least, that if there were a God, and if that God was all Good, that Hell could still be full to overflowing.
* * *
This is a very interesting point, and would lead to a nice theological discussion if we weren’t now faced with a total political meltdown.
* * *
Richard Saunders Says:
July 5th, 2016 at 7:52 pm
NeverTrumpers – do you get why we’re going to hold our nose and vote for Trump yet?
* * *
Even National Review has bitten the bullet.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437487/hillary-clinton-threat-political-legitimacy
“Many of us here at NR think Trump’s election would also be a threat to the Republic, and I can’t disagree. But one of these two is going to be elected president.
So the question is, whose election is more dangerous? Not more dangerous in their character or likely actions, since it might be hard to choose between Hillary’s malevolence and venality versus Trump’s frivolity and Caesarism.
Rather, the issue in November is whose election would do more to undermine the political legitimacy of our current form of government? Whose election would cause more people to reconsider the authority of the law and the routine compliance with the rules that underlies political stability? Before today’s reverse-Watergate, it might have been plausible to judge this as a tie. Not anymore. Punishing Hillary through electoral defeat is a necessary act of civic hygiene if the rule of law is to have any chance of persisting, even in its current attenuated form.
It’s a cruel joke that the beneficiary of such an act of civic hygiene is someone as unworthy as Donald Trump. The election of a sleazy TV pitchman would certainly be an indictment of the way we pick political candidates. But the election of someone who has committed such a profound breach of trust at the highest levels of state — with impunity — calls into question the very foundation of lawful government.”
OM – What contrary evidence? You keep saying that there’s evidence that the Evil Empress will be better than Trump. What evidence? The sniper fire? Libya? Syria? Russia? Benghazi? The video? The e-mails? The Clinton Foundation? The path to citizenship? Putting all the coal miners out of work? Tell me exactly what it is that tells you Hillary will be a better President that the Donald.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Donald Trump is a low, crass, crude, ill-informed, infantile, narcissistic asshole — and compared to Hillary Clinton, he’s a saint.
DNW — because God gave us — or we took — free will. And therefore we have to live with the consequences. It isn’t up to God to stop evil, it’s up to us.
Richard Saunders:
You wrote, “NeverTrumpers – do you get why we’re going to hold our nose and vote for Trump yet?”
That’s a strawman. I don’t think I’ve seen a single NeverTrumper who doesn’t get why people would hold their noses and vote for Trump. What they were angry at is (a) people who supported him when there were plenty of good alternatives among the GOP candidates, and (2) people who “don’t get” why the NeverTrumpers find it hard to “hold their noses and vote for Trump.”
The shoe is actually on the other foot in terms of not understanding.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Donald Trump is a low, crass, crude, ill-informed, infantile, narcissistic asshole – and compared to Hillary Clinton, he’s a saint.c
Ironically, I think that is more true than false. And absolutely, it’s up to humans to stop evil, God merely gives people networking resources and ideas. God doesn’t exist to wipe people’s arses for them.
I’ve been considering evil, since I saw a glimpse of it in 2007, for some time now. I feel pleased that others are seeing the same vision, of hell, which I have seen. Welcome to the party. And no, this isn’t the best attraction. You ain’t seen nothing yet.
Is Nick trying to defend the FBI and cover for HRC? Because if he is, there’ll be consequences for that.
Vote for hrc or djt? No thank you vote for trump or else_________ posters.. I do not accept your ‘argument’ as valid. The donald can not win, he can only lose by double digits. It matters not how I vote, so your admonishments are air coming from the south end of a north bound horse.
Y,
I think you are misreading Nick. Nick is a nice guy who desires a nice solution. That does not make him what you seem to think.
Neo – with all due respect, I beg to differ. With regard to (a), that is not germane to where we are today. Someone who won’t vote for Trump because he’s mad that better candidates didn’t get the nomination is stuck in a time warp. As far as (2) is concerned, OM and Parker have made it perfectly clear that they either don’t see any difference between Hillary and Trump, or they think Hillary will be better than Trump, or they think anyone who would vote for Trump has betrayed the conservative movement and all civility, and is beneath contempt. I think as far as who understands whom, the shoe is on the other foot.
“Those who read this blog regularly know that I’ve said that Hillary would absolutely not be indicted, and that I’ve never wavered in that prediction. That really wasn’t a difficult call either; it simply seemed inevitable that it would not happen under a Democratic administration unless that administration decided it should happen, and despite some enmity between Obama and the Clintons it has long been my conclusion that Obama has decided that Hillary will be just fine for carrying on his legacy, and that he supports her candidacy.”
I tried to hold out hope. But deep down I knew you were right.
Richard Saunders:
Me thinks you doth protest (and project) too much. Willfull blindness personified.
For once I was slightly ahead of the curve …
And …
OK
Little late to the discussion, but I was struck that Nick puts so much weight on Comey’s excuse that they could not find a similar case, so ipso facto this one should not proceed to prosecution.
I mean that is ludicrous on its face. Uniquely imaginative crimes are exempt?
Of course it is consistent with the overall logic.
Quote from Ambrose Bierce in the local rag this morning; “A nation that does not enforce its laws does not deserve allegiance or respect from its citizens.”
Richard Saunders:
For the first point, I wasn’t talking about now, I was talking about people’s opinions about it before Trump became the presumptive nominee, when there were still plenty of alternatives.
As far as the second point goes, I have not seen the anti-Trump people here say much at all about people who are planning at this point to reluctantly vote for Trump. I have not seen a single person berate those people for betraying conservative principles, etc.—they are merely saying they themselves can’t do it because they feel it would be a betrayal of their own conservative principles.
If you can find someone who indicated otherwise, please offer a link. It’s possible there is one, I suppose, but it’s certainly not the usual line from any of the never-Trump commenters on this blog.
As I said, I’m trying to reconcile Comey’s statement with the little I know about law. I put a lot of emphasis on the “similar case” thing because Comey did.
I think you are misreading Nick. Nick is a nice guy who desires a nice solution. That does not make him what you seem to think.
So your answer to my question is that he is a nice guy?
I haven’t make a profile of Nick yet, so I haven’t read him yet. Hence the question, which is a normal probe in assessing sources.
clear that they either don’t see any difference between Hillary and Trump, or they think Hillary will be better than Trump, or they think anyone who would vote for Trump has betrayed the conservative movement and all civility, and is beneath contempt. I think as far as who understands whom, the shoe is on the other foot.
And Trump supporters call conservatives who refuse to support their king, a cuck or cuckservative. What’s your point.
This is not merely a political thing, Trump being a Democrat, makes it about a religion. Sort of like how the English Catholics saw Jean de Arc as a heretic or fearsome enemy, while the French Catholics loyal to Charles and against the English claim to the French throne, saw Jean De Arc as a savior and saint. Who is right?
That depends on who wins the war and who gets the power. Or in this context, it depends on how people react to the evil of the Left and how people react to Trump’s use of power.
I can generalize with the best of them. Evidence and trials require facts and specifics, however. There are at least 4 to 5 factions in the GOP and GOPe.
Which one is Richard Saunders in? Which one is Parker in? Which one am I in? And which one is Trump in?
That’s all that matters for details and specifics. From that foundation, one can begin to discern what the rhetoric is about. But confusing people from the Voting Hussein and Proud of it Noonan faction, and saying that Noonan’s words are proof that Parker or Palin said something, is what normal people fall for.
Ymarsakar – I’m not a source of anything. I’m just a guy on the internet. If I’m a nice guy, it’s because I err on the side of civility. Like above: I’d rather try to reconcile Comey’s statement with my understanding of the law, rather than declare it the end of the Republic. If that means I’m insufficiently upset about 20% of the things I read, well, I’m still angry enough.
I was looking for the “approve” button, but could not find it. Consider yourself up-voted.
I did not think there would be a trial. I did think that Comey would recommend indictment–especially after the first 15 minutes of the speech.
However, the reason I didn’t think Hillary would go down for this is that absent intent, there has to be “gross negligence.” Either the private server was gross negligence that went on for years with a lot of people knowing about it–or it wasn’t. I expect that the general consensus was that it didn’t meet that bar.
Comey don’t play dat…
DNW said:
“2. We also have no idea of the level of barely suppressed resentment, and ill informed, self-gratifying (possibly near homicidal) rage that simmers below the surface of many of the people we have known for years, and thought we understood to some extent.”
I read a post by Selco (he barely survived the Bosnian War as a civilian and had written on societal collapse in his city due to a virtual military seige) on how the masks and gloves come off once we’re returned to a government-less state.
He had his eyes opened when he saw the complete change in neighbors and coworkers once things went south. So much of our civilization is veneer and you really never know people in the way you think you do. That really spooked me. I frequently look at friends, coworkers who are dedicated to the side of liberalism and know that many would turn on me in a moment.
I think we forget we are dealing with fallen people in a broken, sin-filled world.
I think we forget we are dealing with fallen people in a broken, sin-filled world.
The battle between good and evil, Lucifer and Jesus, appears to still be active on this planet, using the human interface to adapt free will to good or evil.
But it’s sort of like a collective punishment, though. Even if half of humanity is good, if the other half has a majority of evil, then the majority is what tips the scales.