Similar for good interrogators.

Good analysis,

Steve57 Says:
July 9th, 2016 at 7:21 pm

Thanks.

“The Comey history raises a sadly cynical question: Why was this person praised to us by so many public conservatives as ‘a man of unimpeachable integrity’?”

Because Comey is a member of the club. What Cruz calls the Washington cartel. It’s what they call the Combine in Illinois. It doesn’t matter if you have a D or an R after your name; club members look out for each other.

The club members of both parties vouched up and down for Eric Holder, too, at his confirmation hearing. And the club members of both parties on the committee let Holder get away with obvious lies. For instance, they asked him about his role in the sleazy Marc Rich pardon. The real story was that Rich’s lawyers contacted Holder directly, and Holder helped them go directly to Bill Clinton and all three argued Rich should get the pardon. Because Holder believed on of Rich’s attorneys could talk Al Gore into promoting him to AG.

That’s not how they do it, unless you’re in the club. The process for everyone else involves going through the DoJ and getting recommendations from the prosecutors in the case. And since Rich had fled prosecution and was a fugitive living the good life in Europe there’s no way the prosecutors, and consequently the DoJ, would have recommended anything of the sort. Back when this country expected a modicum of integrity from a President that would have been a deal breaker, and the President would deny the application. But then Rich’s wife had contributed a lot of money to Clinton. So they did an end run around the process and, well, you get what you pay for.

When the committee asked Holder about his role, Holder claimed he didn’t really know who Marc Rich was at the time. That was his story when Congress first investigated the Rich pardon back in 2001 and he was sticking with it. His story was that he had made an honest mistake, and if he had known more about Marc Rich and his case he wouldn’t have advised the President to pardon him.

Just one problem with that story. Eric Holder was the lead attorney back in the mid-90s when DoJ sued one of Marc Rich’s companies that had gotten government contracts but failed to disclose it’s relationship with Marc Rich. Since Rich was a fugitive then the company was legally barred from getting any deals from the government.

And Holder is such a attention prostitute he couldn’t resist getting in front of cameras and holding press conferences about the case or talking to newspaper reporters. In which he revealed he knew a lot about Marc Rich, including not just his business interests but also the details of his original tax fraud case. So he lied to the committee, they let him get away with it, and they confirmed Holder with bipartisan support. This isn’t too hard to find out, though. Nobody did any homework in Holder’s background and familiarity with Rich. So why even have the hearing if you’re not going to have basic information, such as knowing the real answer to questions you’re going to ask. I’m not an attorney, but they say a good trial attorney never asks a question unless he already knows the answer.

By “public conservatives” I take it you’re not buying the act. Neither am I. My operating principle is that they’re all a bunch of sleazeballs. If you’re going to ask the cynical question, why did they vouch for Comey? Remember they also vouched for and voted to confirm Holder and Lynch. It’s rigged, and these hearings and investigations are just a big show.

Just so everyone knows, the FBi sub director and other bureaucrats, engineered Nixon’s bloodless coup.

I’d like to comment on Comey’s comment about Hillary not being “sophisticated enough” to recognize the internal classification markings.

Having read a LOT of classified documents — mostly telegrams of the sort Hillary would have had on her email system — during a career in the Foreign Service, I have some insight into what he was talking about.

Telegrams that are sent and received through the Diplomatic Telegraphic Service start with a large and obvious classification header — SECRET or whatever. And this is repeated at the top and bottom of each page.

But if someone’s staff were to purposely remove that header, say by printing a document and physically snipping off the header, the page would lack those classification markings.

Nevertheless, (at least when I was in the service) telegrams and intelligence reports have internal paragraph markings as follows:

(C) for confidential,
(S) for secret,
(TS) for top secret,
and various distribution restrictions that indicate they are not to be shared with certain categories of people, like contract employees, for example.

I suppose it is possible the staff could have snipped off the internal markings, but that would be quite time-consuming. So it is possible one could have read State traffic for four years and not wondered about those letters at the beginning and end of each paragraph, and I suppose that is what Comey was suggesting. I think that is possible, but it does not speak well for the reader, especially when applied to restricted distribution intelligence material, which she handled, and for which she would have had a special “read in” briefing before and after getting the clearance.

Of course my experience is dated — I retired in 1997 — and formats might have changed since when I was in the Service, but I think internal headers are still in use.

Guess the date and time of it’s quadrennial arrival! Win something (I’m still deciding). Lighten up your gloomy lives with FUN!

http://rightasusual.blogspot.com/2016/07/guess-launch-date-for-october-surprise.html

Hillary made most of her enemies herself. By all accounts she is an absolute terror to deal with unless you’re in her inner circle, uncompromising, rude, crude, insanely ambitious, and vindictive. Add in that she has been a fangirl of St Saul of Alinsky and his tactics since the ’60s, and we’ll get Barack II without the phony charm after January.

BTW, your sig is familiar from long ago. Volokh? Althouse?

What is odd also is that this is the kind of mistake the anti-Trump people (including me) would have thought “The Donald” would make: use a private email server due to arrogance or incompetence or both and lie. But he didn’t do it. She did.

Hillary’s largest criticism against Trump is his not being suited for public office due to his character flaws and his lack of competence in government but again, she’s the one who make this mistake not Trump.

I guess it is also possible that the woman is paranoid for some reason, not clinically, but like Nixon. She’s the agent of her own destruction here and maybe it comes out of paranoia. Now, Hillary has had many enemies in the past, but still — this is a just a huge screw-up and put national security at risk. Her job was not to put our security at risk, if nothing else. So…

NOT GOOD

I am not a Trump person but this is making me think again.

A whole other crime… it’s spin from the FBI to not be investigating that as a criminal conspiracy.

I agree regards to neo’s research. With no disrespect intended, the surface sometimes tells all with no need for shovels. Which is not to say shovels and shovel weilders are not valued. Neoneocon is a resource that I cherish. Would I be POTUS I would want her as AG. Principled new brooms sweep clean and are on the extinction list.

Sick-making.