Tag Archives: 2016 election

Bernie Sanders, Another Beltway Phony, by Will Tippens

From Will Tippens at LewRockwell.com via davidstockmanscontracorner.com:

I get why people like Bernie Sanders.

He seems like a genuine person. Most of his funding comes from grassroots donors and he has a mostly-deserved outsider status. He’s honest about his political beliefs, and isn’t afraid to call himself a socialist. He has all the rancorous charm of Peter Finch in the 1976 film, Network:

He’s mad as hell and he’s not going to take it anymore!

There’s only one problem: he really wants to start a revolution, but forgot to bring any revolutionary ideas to the rally. His policy prescriptions–far from fresh, radical, or different–have long comprised the political status quo in Washington. While it’s true he often diagnoses real issues, he almost always suggests solutions that are a contributing or root cause of the problems in the first place.

He rightly sees student loan debt as an issue, yet he wants to flood the market with even more worthless college degrees by making public colleges “free”, ignoring the existing Federal loan subsidies and their market distortions. He rightly sees Wall Street and bank bailouts as a symptom of cronyism, yet flip-flopped away from supporting a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. He rightly sees unemployment as an issue, yet he is crusading for a $15 minimum wage which would create mandatory unemployment for perhaps millions of unskilled workers. He rightly calls out Big Pharma, insisting they have also fallen victim to the regulatory capture of Washington lobbyists, yet offers the solution of…even more regulations.

Bernie Sanders is the type of man who can point out specific grants of government privilege to private companies, then turn around and say “Unfettered free trade has been a disaster for the American people” without a hint of irony. All too often the “cure” to any given issue is to intensify the disease. After fifty years and $20,000,000,000,000 spent waging the War on Poverty without any appreciable alleviation of poverty, Bernie’s solution is riveting: spend more money on the same old programs.

To continue reading: Bernie Sanders, Another Beltway Phony

The Revolt Against ‘Democracy’ by Justin Raimondo

The peasants are revolting. From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:

It’s election time in the US, and people are talking about subjects generally ignored in the woof and warp of everyday life. The role of government, trade policy, immigration, foreign policy – but none of these subjects dominated the stage in the latest installment of the seemingly endless GOP debates. Instead, the assembled candidates were pilloried by the moderators with a series of condescending and openly hostile “questions.” As Ted Cruz put it: “Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?”

Cruz received a roar of approval from the crowd, which by that time was sick unto death of the CNBC panel’s arrogant hectoring – and that’s really the story of this election in a nutshell: what we’re witnessing is a populist rebellion against the political class, of which the media is an essential part.

Insulated from the public, smugly ensconced in their own certitude, the “mainstream” media has routinely set the narrative of every election in modern times – but not anymore. Their reign effectively ended with the rise of the Internet and the explosion of independent outlets, like the Drudge Report – and, yes, Antiwar.com – which have left them in the dust.

Yet the “legacy media” has stubbornly clung to their privileged position, mostly by their dominance of television – their last redoubt. But the time has passed when they could set the agenda, as Fox News and now CNBC have discovered. The rise of the GOP outsiders – Trump and Carson, who together have nearly half of the GOP electorate’s support in the polls – is in large part a revolt against the media, as well as the Republican Establishment. As in the last days of the old Soviet Union, people are tired of being lied to and told what to think. As many Russians said of the two principal Soviet mouthpieces, Pravda and Izvestia – in English, “the truth” and “the news” – “v Pravde net izvestiy, v Izvestiyakh net pravdy” (“In the Truth there is no news, and in the News there is no truth”). Today the same goes for NBC and Fox News.

I seem to recall a time when the news media was respected, and seen as the people’s shield against government abuse and corruption. Those days are long gone, as the revolving door between official Washington and the press corps keeps swinging and the two sectors meet and merge socially and ideologically.

The Iraq war was the final nail in the legacy media’s coffin, as the New York Times and other major outlets played a key role in ginning up that disaster, acting as a transmission belt for the Bush administration’s lies about Saddam’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction. When the public becomes convinced that the “news” is simply propaganda, then trust goes out the window and all bets are off.

To continue reading: The Revolt Against ‘Democracy’

The Fix Is In, by Robert Gore

On the front page of today’s Wall Street Journal was this above-the-fold headline: “Clinton Bucks Biden Threat.” Biden’s announcement that he’s not running confirms the headline. The Journal is the most reliable barometer of Republican establishment thinking. Back in December, before Donald Trump was on the radar, a front page headline: “Bush’s Ties to Donors Put Rivals in a Bind,” anointed Jeb Bush the establishment’s candidate (“Can’t Wait For That Next Election,” SLL, 12/22/14). Unfortunately for the establishment, significant numbers of Republicans aren’t buying what they’re selling, and have turned to outsiders Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina. The hope has been that these voters will return to the fold, but it is dimming as the outsiders maintain their poll numbers and the reliable apparatchiks falter or drop out. The establishment is hindered by its open condescension towards grassroots voters and the widespread belief among them that the establishment is full of shit, which happens to be true.

It is bad enough that Trump has questioned orthodoxy on immigration and trade agreements, two causes near and dear to the establishment’s heart. Recently, he has also challenged neoconservative dogma on foreign interventionism, saying that the US should let Vladimir Putin take out ISIS. He elicited a flummoxed non sequitur from Jeb Bush when he noted that 9/11 occurred on his brother’s watch, and his opposition to the subsequent Iraq invasion is well-known. Perhaps most threatening to the neoconservatives, Trump’s book, The America We Deserve, published over a year before 9/11, warns of blowback: American interventionism producing unforeseen and negative consequences, including increasing terrorism against America.

The military-industrial-intelligence complex is the heart of the Republican party (it is well-represented among the Democrats, too). It has derived its power and funding from American interventionism since the Spanish-American war. It figures prominently in every discussion of the the shadowy deep state that rules behind the scenes regardless of who is nominally in power on Capitol Hill and the White House. Before his foreign intervention apostasy, there had been a few trial balloons floated about the establishment and Trump making peace. Today’s Journal headline, especially its placement on the front page, serves as announcement that if renegade Republicans go off the reservation and select apostate Trump, the establishment will line up for reliable interventionist Hillary Clinton.

Her scandals, libidinous husband, vicious attacks on his female victims, political ineptitude, lack of substantive accomplishment, Benghazi and Libya, emails and all the rest are now…irrelevant. Relevant: her strong ties to Wall Street and most importantly, that she’s never met a US foreign intervention she didn’t like (as a senator she voted for the Iraq invasion). She’s John McCain in drag. Being a supporter of intervention naturally entails support of big defense and intelligence budgets, continuing expansion of the national security state, and continuing erosion of what remains of individual liberty. She ticks all the right boxes for the Republican establishment, and now they’re in her corner.

The fix is already in. Republican Representative Trey Gowdy’s work as chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi has reportedly been judicious. However, he’s been undermined by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s bizarre and inexplicable—in light of his run for the House speakership—remark that the Benghazi investigation had hurt Clinton in the polls. A former Republican investigator has also alleged that the committee is out to destroy Clinton’s reputation. Now the talking point will be that the committee is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt, no matter how well or poorly Clinton testifies before it. It’s a variation on the “vast right-wing conspiracy” strategy: avoid the accusations and attack the accusers.

If you think the corrupt media is servile towards the Clintons now, you ain’t seen nothing yet. With Bernie Sanders rolling over on emails, she’s been declared the hands-down winner of last week’s debate by the punditry, although the Drudge Report and other online polls said Sanders was the clear winner. Hillary’s shape-shifting and complete lack of principles will redound to her benefit, and she’ll call on a public relations machine that will be envy of America’s corporate advertisers. By next November, she will be Joan of Arc, Florence Nightingale, Mother Theresa, and Susan B. Anthony all rolled into one. Don’t expect the “loyal opposition,” Fox News and the Journal, to come up with any earth-shattering exposes, unless they’re of Trump. Judicial Watch and the judges who are giving her fits about her emails will be muzzled until after the election. She can count on automatic support from a majority of women, the government-teat sucking 47 percent (now 49 or 50 percent), and Wall Street’s expedient whores.

Once and for all voters will learn their lesson: they will vote for the candidates the uni-party establishment chooses for it. At least in Hong Kong voters are told up front that the only permissible candidates are those chosen by the Chinese government and nobody pretends otherwise.

GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN A RACKET FOR A LONG, LONG TIME

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

Is Hillary Clinton Above the Law? by Justin Raimondo

The title asks a stupid question. Of course Hillary Clinton is above the law. So is her husband and so are a lot of people on the inside, the “connected” (and yes, the term is used in the same way as it is used referring to the Mafia’s made men). That’s what happens in corrupt, collapsing empires. SLL begrudgingly features one, and only one, article on the Democratic debate. It is about the same coverage that SLL has given to the Republican debates. SLL is nonpartisan in its detestation of pointless wastes of time. From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:

What did we learn from the Democratic presidential debates? We learned that Hillary Clinton hates Edward Snowden, loves the Patriot Act, and considers “the Iranians” among her biggest enemies. In short, we learned that she may very well be Lindsey Graham in drag.

And we also learned what many already knew: that she considers herself above the law. What we didn’t know, however, but do now, is that Bernie Sanders agrees with her. Or, as he put it:

“Let me say — let me say something that may not be great politics. But I think the secretary is right, and that is that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails.”

To begin with, it is not true that the American people don’t care about this issue: a whopping 58 percent tell pollsters that Mrs. Clinton “knowingly lied” when she said there was no classified information on her private email server. Does Bernie think Americans want to be ruled by liars? Her popularity has plummeted ever since the existence of her secret server was revealed: voters don’t think she’s trustworthy. Sixty-six percent believe her lax practices endangered national security, and majority of voters want a criminal probe of her actions.

Bernie is right about one thing, though: the American people are sick and tired – although their weariness isn’t due to hearing about the email scandal. What they’re sick and tired of is the Clintons’ belief that they are above the law. Because several laws were broken by Mrs. Clinton when she decided to keep her official correspondence as Secretary of State secret, the two biggies being the Freedom of Information Act and the Federal Records Act. The former requires public access to the doings of government officials: the latter specifically forbids officials from maintaining a private email server or account to do government business. Yet that is precisely what Mrs. Clinton did.

Aside from the whole issue of the rule of law, and the Clintonian view that it doesn’t apply to Hillary, the issue here is one of transparency vs. secrecy. A government whose officials operate in the shadows, and conduct the people’s business off-the-record, is a rogue operation. And one has to ask: why was this elaborate private server system set up the day she took over the State Department? The answer can only be that the then Secretary of State believed she had something to hide.

To continue reading: Is Hillary Clinton Above the Law?

Meet “Groundwork” – Google Chairman Eric Schmidt’s Stealth Startup Working to Make Hillary Clinton President, by Michael Krieger

From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

An under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt has become a major technology vendor for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, underscoring the bonds between Silicon Valley and Democratic politics.

The Groundwork, according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists, is part of efforts by Schmidt—the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet—to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election. And it is one of a series of quiet investments by Schmidt that recognize how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs.

There is also another gap in play: The shrinking distance between Google and the Democratic Party. Former Google executive Stephanie Hannon is the Clinton campaign’s chief technology officer, and a host of ex-Googlers are currently employed as high-ranking technical staff at the Obama White House. Schmidt, for his part, is one of the most powerful donors in the Democratic Party—and his influence does not stem only from his wealth, estimated by Forbes at more than $10 billion.

According to campaign finance disclosures, Clinton’s campaign is the Groundwork’s only political client. Its employees are mostly back-end software developers with experience at blue-chip tech firms like Netflix, Dreamhost, and Google.

– From the excellent Quartz article: The Stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed Startup that’s Working to Put Hillary Clinton in the White House

The following article from Quartz is fascinating, important and extremely troubling. It zeros in on a company you’ve probably never heard of called “Groundwork,” a startup backed by Google’s executive chairman Eric Schmidt. The sole purpose of the company appears to be to get Hillary Clinton elected President. What is so concerning about the company is that it appears to be little more than a clever way to get around the already extraordinarily loose campaign finance rules.

To continue reading: Eric Schmidt-backed Stealth Startup for Hillary Clinton

Clueless Carly———Crony Capitalist Warmonger With Flash Cards, by David Stockman

Carly Fiorina did a lousy job at Hewlett Packard (if you bought HP stock when she became CEO you’re still waiting to get back to even) and judged by some of the idiocy she spouted in the last Republican debate, her tenure as president of the US would be even more disastrous. David Stockman deconstructs Ms. Fiorina and her policies at davidstockmanscontracorner.com:

Carly Fiorina proved at least one thing last week. Namely, you don’t have to be a career GOP politician to come across as a war-mongering neocon and abortion-bashing statist demagogue. She took the stage fully formed as a frightul modern-day Torquemada, threatening to bring fire and brimstone down on anyone running afoul of her righteous indignation and crystal clear grasp of the Truth.

That included about everyone on the world stage, save for the presumably sainted Bibi Netanyahu. As for the others, Putin was to be given the silent treatment and a stiff dose of NATO encirclement, while Iran was to be occupied by US inspectors at “every military and every nuclear facility…….. anytime, anywhere……”

In trying to sound like she actually knows something about national security policy there was not a single neocon shibboleth that she didn’t name check, nor any possibility for bolstering Washington’s military might she failed to mention:

Having met Vladimir Putin, I wouldn’t talk to him at all. We’ve talked way too much to him…….What I would do, immediately, is begin rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, I would begin rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland, I would conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic states. I’d probably send a few thousand more troops into Germany. Vladimir Putin would get the message…..We could also, to Senator Rubio’s point, give the Egyptians what they’ve asked for……..We could give the Jordanians what they’ve asked for…bombs and materiel. We have not supplied it…We could arm the Kurds.

Yada yada. If you thought Fiorina was actually running for CEO of the military-industrial complex, you would not necessarily be wrong. After the above riff, she was just getting warmed-up:

We need the strongest military on the face of the planet, and everyone has to know it. And, specifically, what that means is we need about 50 Army brigades, we need about 36 Marine battalions, we need somewhere between 300, and 350 naval ships, we need to upgrade every leg of the nuclear triad…….we need to reform the Department of Defense, we need as well… …to invest in our military technology, and we need to care for our veterans so 307,000 …aren’t dying waiting for health care.

Ok, Carly has a distinct facility for memorizing flash cards. But here’s one she missed. Contrary to her suggestion from the debate transcript below, the Russians did not just show up in Syria last week because Iranian General Suleimani recently flew to Moscow.

Actually, the Russians have been in Syria since the CIA’s abortive coup attempt in 1957. That was less than one year after the General was born and while his own country was being ruled by the brutal tyrant the CIA installed on the Peacock Throne to keep watch on the Persian oilfields:

By the way, the reason it is so critically important that every one of us know General Suleimani’s name is because Russia is in Syria right now, because the head of the Quds force traveled to Russia and talked Vladimir Putin into aligning themselves with Iran and Syria to prop up Bashar al- Assad……….Russia is a bad actor……. the only way (Putin) will stop is to sense strength and resolve on the other side, and we have all of that within our control……We could rebuild the Sixth Fleet. I will. We haven’t.

Had enough? It’s not just that Fiorina didn’t get the memo that the Cold War ended 25 years ago, and that the massive military build-up she name checked would blow the current generous $523 billion sequester caps on Pentagon spending sky high. By my estimate, Fiorina’s senseless armada and new force deployments would cost at least $800 billion per year.

To continue reading: Crony Capitalist Warmonger With Flash Cards

The Parties Crawl Off to Die, by James Howard Kunstler

From James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:

I‘ve alluded to being a registered Democrat now and again, a disclosure that makes some readers go feral with wrath. For years I could only justify it as formal opposition to the cretinous brand of Republicanism that washed over the country like a septic wave with the reign of that sainted pompadour-in-search-of-a-brain, Ronald Reagan, whose “morning in America” bromide was among the biggest whoppers of my lifetime. With Reagan, we got the officially-sanctioned marriage of right wing politics and the most moronic strains of Southland evangelical religiosity. (Ronnie stated more than once his belief that Biblical “end times” were close at hand, which should have raised the question of his actual concern for the nation’s future — did he think it had one? — but nobody ever asked him about it.) George H. W. Bush expressed a similar view, perhaps merely pandering to the dolts of Dixie.

So, who in his right mind could have subscribed to that load of bullshit?

Meanwhile, the youthful and magnetic Clintons came on in 1992. They put on a good show of national stewardship in the early going. Bill could speak English fluently, unlike his two predecessors. Hillary’s committee to tackle health care reform came to grief, but the effort at least implied a recognition that medicine was turning into a shameless racket (now fully metastasized). Bill managed to shove through a species of welfare reform — remarkable for a Democrat — that has since deliquesced back into a swamp of disability fraud. But the Clinton turning point was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which opened the door to an orgy of financial mischief so arrant and awful, and to a plague of corruption so broad and deep, that American life is now pitching into a long emergency.

Add to that now the signal failures of Barack Obama: 1) no prosecution or attempted regulation of widespread financial misdeeds 2) no effort to counter the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to buy elections; 3) no end to dubious military operations in distant lands, and 4) healthcare “reform” that only fortified the existing rackets — take all that together and you can only recoil from whatever it means to be a Democrat.

And now the return of Hillary, gliding above the election arena like Rodan the Flying Reptile — caw! caw! Get me outa here! It’s not just her, of course. It’s the whole disgusting circus parade of identity politics, and PC witch-hunting, and trans-sex drum-beating, and girl-lugging-a-mattress-around-campus idiocy, and blame-it-all-on-Whitey whinging, and drone-strike-du-jour warfare, and out-of-control NSA surveillance monkey business, plus throw in the outrageous scams of “civil forfeiture” under a president who was supposedly a professor of constitutional law — the list of Democratic-sponsored absurdities and turpitudes gives me the vapors.

To continue reading: The Parties Crawl Off to Die

He Said That? 8/5/15

From William Shakespeare, English actor, poet, and playwright, The Tragedy of Macbeth (1606):

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Substitute the words “2016’s election is,” for the opening “Life’s” and you’d have the best analysis yet of next year’s election.

Keep It Simple, by Robert Gore

Donald Trump has been a godsend to the punditry. Articles from all angles have analyzed his appeal, from: he’s a demagogue who appeals to the worst impulses of his supporters; to: he gives an honest voice to deep angst about America’s politics, politicians, and government. Most of the analyses say more about the analyzer than the analyzed, and this article will not be another addition to the pile. Rather, the Trump phenomenon exemplifies a dangerous and destructive proclivity to ignore the obvious, to pump in intellectual fog to obscure what should be clear, and to turn the straightforward into an incomprehensible jumble of complexity.

Trump’s slogan is: “Make America Great Again.” That means that America is no longer great, which is simply the truth. The US has gone heavily into debt and faces a demographic and fiscal nightmare as the baby boom generation retires and demands the benefits it has promised itself. Robbing Peter to pay Paul has destroyed Paul’s ability to provide for himself, and eroded Peter’s incentives to produce. Never-ending wars on poverty, drugs, and terrorism have promoted social pathologies, the growth of violent gangs, and blowback chaos and mass migration without putting a dent in poverty, drug use, or terrorism. A string of military forays stretching back to the Korean war have wasted US treasure and lives and have been at best, inconclusive, and at worst, outright defeats. The government has become a massive honeypot for the politically astute and connected. Race relations have reached a fifty-year low during the tenure of the first black president. The list goes on and on, but you get the idea. It has made matters far worse that the elite habitually lies about its incompetence and corruption.

Will Trump make America great again? Not a chance; his policies are more of the same statist snake oil that got us into this mess. However, unlike the mainstream Republican candidates favored by the party’s power brokers—or Hillary Clinton—he has not held public office, so he can claim that he does not share responsibility for making America not great. He has no viable solutions, but at least he isn’t perceived as part of the problem (although he has certainly benefited from munificences bestowed by various governments). This stance outside the existing power structure is the source of much of his, and the other outsiders’, appeal.

Now unfolding is a financial crisis that was foreordained when the world’s governments and central banks addressed the previous crisis—caused by debt expansion far in excess of economic growth, debt monetization, and interest rate suppression—with debt expansion far in excess of economic growth, debt monetization, and interest rate suppression. This crisis will be worse than the last one, because debt is larger and so-called remedies have already been virtually exhausted. It took no clairvoyance to foresee eventual failure, but Washington and Wall street, most of the economic priesthood, and financial market punters professed their faith (Don’t Fight the Fed!) and acted accordingly. How can anyone with a two-digit or better IQ believe that one agency of a government buying another agency of the government’s debt instruments with imaginary money will lead to anything but disaster? The kind of “economics” that embraces such nostrums is not akin to an abstruse branch of physics or mathematics, comprehensible only by those gifted with extraordinary intelligence; it’s a reprise of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”

The belief that governments can make things all better by passing laws and forcing people to do things is simple-minded and ignores a simple truth. Governments are coercive, and humans, especially the most brilliant, inventive, original, and productive, flourish in an environment of freedom and incentives, not coercion. Force a stuck mechanism on a gadget and you usually end up breaking the gadget. When governments apply force for other than narrowly circumscribed purposes—the protection of life, liberty, property, and inalienable rights—they invariably make problems worse. Their solutions are incompatible with the nature of the humans they’re trying to force. With enough force, the government can “break” the country and its populace; countless governments have.

And so the candidates this election will propose solutions grounded in forcible interference and intervention to problems created by previous interference and intervention. Simply put, that makes voting a waste of time. A choice among the same evils is not a choice. As economic, political, and social structures of needless and counterproductive complexity collapse in on themselves, remember one simple truism: nobody but you is going to protect and sustain you and yours. If you believe complex and convoluted formulations and rationalizations to the contrary, you’ll deservedly end up as roadkill.

SIMPLY PUT, A GREAT BOOK

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

The Deceptions of Hillary Clinton, by Andrew P. Napolitano

The article should probably be titled “The Crimes of Hillary Clinton.” What she has so far admitted doing would have garnered a criminal prosecution for anyone else. From Andrew P. Napolitano, at antiwar.org:

While the scandal surrounding the emails sent and received by Hillary Clinton during her time as U.S. secretary of state continues to grow, Clinton has resorted to laughing it off. This past weekend she told an audience of Iowa Democrats that she loves her Snapchat account because the messages automatically disappear. No one in the audience laughed.

Clinton admits deleting 30,000 government emails from her time in office. She claims they were personal, and that because they were also on a personal server, she was free to destroy them. Yet, federal law defines emails used during the course of one’s work for the federal government as the property of the federal government.

She could have designated which of the government’s emails were personal and then asked the government to send them to her and delete them from government servers. Instead she did the reverse. She decided which of her emails were governmental and sent them on to the State Department. Under federal law, that is not a determination she may lawfully make.

Yet, the 55,000 emails she sent to the feds were printed emails. By doing so, she stole from the government the metadata it owns, which accompanies all digital emails but is missing on the paper copies, and she denied the government the opportunity to trace those emails.

When asked why she chose to divert government emails through her own server, Clinton stated she believed it would enable her to carry just one mobile device for both personal and governmental emails. She later admitted she carried four such devices.

Then the scandal got more serious, as Clinton’s lawyers revealed that after she deleted the 30,000 emails, and printed the 55,000 she surrendered to the feds, she had the server that carried and stored them professionally wiped clean.

She had already denied routing classified materials through her server: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. … (I) did not send classified material.”

Then, the inspector general of the State Department and the inspector general of the intelligence community, each independent of the other, found four classified emails from among a random sample of 40.

Then the State Department inspector general concluded that one of the four was in fact top secret. Since it discussed satellite imagery of a foreign country and since it revealed intercepts of communications among foreign agents, it received additional legal protections that were intended to assure that it was only discussed in a secure location and never shared with a foreign government, not even an ally.

When Clinton was confronted with these facts, she changed her explanation from “I did not send classified material” to “I never sent or never received any email marked classified.” Not only is she continually changing her story, but she is being deceptive again. Emails are not “marked classified.” They are marked “top secret” or “secret” or “confidential.” Her explanations remind one of her husband’s word-splitting playbook.

Last weekend the State Department located 305 of her undeleted emails that likely are in the top secret or secret or classified categories.

What should be the consequence of her behavior with the nation’s most sensitive secrets?

To continue reading: The Deceptions of Hillary Clinton