Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton emails

Hillary Clinton and the FBI, by Andrew P. Napolitano

One thing Colin Kaepernick got right: if anyone other than Hillary Clinton had done what she has done, they’d be looking at jail time. From Andrew P. Napolitano at antiwar.com:

On Sept. 2, the FBI released a lengthy explanation of its investigation of Hillary Clinton and a summary of the evidence amassed against her. It also released a summary of Clinton’s July FBI interrogation.

The interrogation was in some respects standard and in others very troubling. It was standard in that she was confronted with emails she had sent or received and was asked whether she recalled them, and her judgment about them was challenged. The FBI was looking for gross negligence in her behavior about securing state secrets.

The failure to secure state secrets that have been entrusted to one for safekeeping is known as espionage, and espionage is the rare federal crime that does not require prosecutors to prove the defendant’s intent. They need only prove the defendant’s gross negligence.

At one point during the interrogation, FBI agents attempted to trick her, as the law permits them to do. Before the interrogation began, agents took the hard copy of an innocuous email Clinton had sent to an aide and marked it “secret.” Then, at her interrogation, they asked Clinton whether she recognized the email and its contents. She said she did not recognize it, but she questioned the “secret” denomination and pointed out to the agents that nothing remotely secret was in the email.

By examining the contents of the email to see whether it contained state secrets, which it clearly did not, Clinton demonstrated an awareness of the law – namely, that it is the contents of a document or email that cause it to be protected by federal secrecy statutes, not the denomination put on it by the sender.

This added to the case against her because she later told the FBI that she had never paid attention to whether a document contained state secrets or not. In the strange world of espionage prosecution, this denial of intent is an admission of guilt, as it is profoundly the job of the secretary of state to recognize state secrets and to keep them in their secure government-protected venues, and the grossly negligent failure to do so is criminal.

The FBI notes of the interrogation recount that Clinton professed serious memory lapses 39 times. She also professed ignorance over what “C” means in the margin of a government document. “C” in the margin means “confidential,” which is one of the three levels of federal state secrets. The other two levels are “secret” and “top secret.” Under federal law, Clinton was required to keep in secure government venues all documents in those three categories. The FBI found that she had failed to do so hundreds of times.

By denying that she had paid attention to notes in margins designating the presence of secrets, by denying that she recognized a secret when she saw one and by denying that the location of planned drone strikes is secret (an obvious secret with which FBI agents confronted her), she succeeded in avoiding incriminating herself.

But by saving herself from indictment, she may have doomed her campaign for president. In this dangerous world, how can a person seeking the presidency be so dumb or ignorant or indifferent or reckless or deceptive about what is a secret and what is not?

The records released last week also reveal that the FBI must have been restrained from the outset from conducting an aggressive investigation. It did not present any evidence to a grand jury. It did not ask a grand jury for any subpoenas, and hence it didn’t serve any. It did not ask a judge for any search warrants, and hence it didn’t serve any. The data and hardware it gathered in the case were given to it in response to simple requests it made.

To continue reading: Hillary Clinton and the FBI

 

Hillary Clinton Short-Circuited? by Andrew Napolitano

SLL will be on vacation 8/12-8/18 and resume posting 8/19.

Andrew Napolitano thought the FBI would recommend an indictment of Hillary Clinton. His view was based on his reading of the law and a belief that the FBI would follow it. He’s older, wiser, and undoubtedly more cynical now. From Napolitano at antiwar.com:

When former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked last week if she has misled the American people on the issue of her failure to safeguard state secrets contained in her emails, she told my Fox News colleague, Chris Wallace, that the FBI had exonerated her. When pressed by Wallace, she argued that FBI Director James Comey said that her answers to the American people were truthful.

After Clinton recognized that even her strongest supporters doubted her statement, she attempted to walk it back. In doing so, she repeatedly lied again, but offered as an excuse a bizarre claim that she had “short-circuited” her answer.

Who knows what that means? She claimed that she and Wallace were talking over each other and her answer had been misunderstood and misconstrued. Yet, Clinton said that Comey exonerated her as being “truthful” to the public when in fact he stated that she had been truthful during her three-hour, closed-door, unrecorded interview with the FBI.

Clinton told a group of largely pro-Clinton journalists that she had short-circuited her remarks. Then, she acknowledged that Comey had only referred to whatever she told the FBI as being truthful. Then, she lied again, by insisting that she told the FBI the same things she has told the press and the public since this scandal erupted in March 2015.

But that cannot be so, because she has issued a litany of lies to the press and to the public, which the FBI would have caught. In her so-called clarifying remarks, she again told journalists her oft-stated lie about returning all work-related emails to the State Department. She could not have told that to the FBI because Director Comey revealed in July that the FBI found “thousands” of unreturned work-related emails on her servers, some of which she attempted to destroy.

On the state secrets issue, she has told the public countless times that she never sent or received anything marked classified. She could not have said that to the FBI, because even a novice FBI agent would have recognized such a statement as a trick answer. Nothing is marked “classified.” The markings used by the federal government are “confidential” or “secret” or “top secret.” When Director Comey announced last month that the FBI was recommending against indictment, he revealed nevertheless that his agents found 110 emails in 52 email threads containing materials that were confidential, secret or top secret.

The agents also found seven email chains on her servers that were select access privilege, or SAP. SAP emails cannot be received, opened or sent without knowing what they are, as a special alphanumeric code, one that changes continually, must be requested and employed in order to do so. SAP is so secret that the FBI agents investigating Clinton lacked access to the code.

Could Clinton have legally received, opened, stored or sent a secret or top secret email without knowing it, as she has claimed? In a word: NO.

To continue reading: Hillary Clinton Short-Circuited? 

 

Lit and Sputtering, by Jim Kunstler

There’s trouble brewing. From Jim Kunstler at kunstler.com:

You can see where the trajectory of events is leading. The country will be distracted by racial strife this summer while the global banking system implodes, disabling trade relations and the super-long supply chains we depend on for all common goods from oil to fresh food. Unless the remnants of the Republican Party act responsibly and find a way to replace Trump with a capable candidate, the nation will get what it deserves: a clown in the white house at the climax of the Fourth Turning.

The racial events of recent days resonate in a fog of cognitive dissonance. What really happened in those two incidents involving Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, and Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge Louisiana? Too many people pretend to know exactly why these two men were shot by cops. The video recordings of the incidents are ambiguous. In the Castile case, the recording doesn’t start until just after the deed is done.

Given the universal hyper-awareness of the current mood around the country, I doubt that policemen would throw away their livelihoods for a few thrilling seconds of malice. They know exactly what happens after the gun comes out: suspension, investigation, end-of-career, possibly civil prosecution, lawyers and more lawyers, a special hell of lawyers, and no way to make a living in the meantime. In a word: ruin.

These two incidents were followed by the shootings in Dallas by one Micah Johnson of twelve cops, five of whom died. That matter was not so ambiguous. The authorities quickly determined what happened and why. It is likely to lead to more assassinations and bushwhackings of police because a peculiar social mechanism gives people permission to re-enact atrocities once certain lines are crossed. We saw that in the political assassinations that commenced in the 1960s. The Jihadi beheadings and other monstrosities work similarly.

The possibilities for mayhem around the upcoming party conventions (Philadelphia and Cleveland) now look much darker than just a few weeks ago. Hillary took advantage of last week’s racial strife to deflect the blows she took from FBI Director James Comey in his public remarks about Hillary’s email problem. She went into full pander mode, blaming “white privilege” for the recent enormities involving guns and police. Of course, that will only fuel the “narrative” that whites are wholly responsible for black dysfunction, a false story that will lead to more conflict.

To continue reading: Lit and Sputtering

Hillary’s Seven Biggest Lies Refuted By The FBI, And The “Smoking Gun” by Tyler Durden

How did Tyler Durden decide which of Hillary Clinton’s many lies were her seven biggest? From Durden at zerohedge.com:

When FBI director James Comey stunned America last week by exonerating Hillary Clinton for being “grossly negligent” in her abuse of professional duties, but not criminal, he opened up a whole new can of worms for the presidential candidate, namely that she had repeatedly perjured herself and lied to both Congress and the American people.

As a result, House Republicans said Thursday they would seek a new FBI probe whether Clinton lied to Congress about her handling of classified information, as well as whether she perjured herself under oath during an 11-hour testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, That referral could lead to a new investigation, once again putting Clinton under the glare of the Justice Department.

It will hardly be difficult for an objective investigation to refute that Hillary lied: here is a brief summary of points which Hillary has made both on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, which the FBI report officially refuted:

“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email”

As the Hill reminds us, this was one of first claims that Clinton made about her email setup, in a press conference at the United Nations shortly after it was revealed last year. We now know that more than 2,000 emails now contain information considered classified, but most of that was upgraded after it was sent. According to Comey, a total of 113 emails contained information that was classified at the time the messages were sent or received. Among those are eight threads containing 22 emails classified as top secret — the highest tier of classification. “There was classified material emailed,” Comey told the House Oversight Committee on Thursday.
“It was allowed, but it was not a good choice”

Clinton has repeatedly described her email setup as permitted under the letter of the rules, though perhaps “unwise” as she put it in the middle of her Benghazi Committee testimony. Both the State Department’s inspector general and the FBI disagree with that claim. The department’s internal watchdog released a harshly critical report earlier this year saying that the setup “would not” have been approved, had Clinton sought permission. Had employees within the FBI had a similar system, Comey testified this week, they might have been subject to a range of punishments up to and including being fired. “You could be walked out or, depending on the nature of the facts, you could be reprimanded,” the FBI director testified in the House.However, the bureau would not have been able to prosecute them for federal crimes, he added. And there would be no punishments that could be handed down after the official had left office.

“I provided the department with all of my work-related emails, all that I had”

Hillary also claimed repeatedly that all of her work-related messages were contained within the roughly 30,000 messages given to the State Department in 2014. Another batch of a similar size was purely personal, she has said, and those messages destroyed. This quote also came from the hearing in the Select Committee on Benghazi. The FBI managed to recover some of those deleted emails, through inboxes of her colleagues and from electronic breadcrumbs on decommissioned severs that Clinton used. According to Comey, “thousands” of those allegedly personal emails pertained to her work at the State Department. At least [some] of them contained classified information.

To continue reading: Hillary’s Seven Biggest Lies Refuted By The FBI, And The “Smoking Gun”

 

Is Hillary Morally Unfit to Be President? by Patrick Buchanan

The answer is yes, but thanks to James Comey, the voters now get to answer that question in their own way. From Patrick Buchanan at buchanan.org:

Does Hillary Clinton possess the integrity and honesty to be president of the United States? Or are those quaint and irrelevant considerations in electing a head of state in 21st-century America?

These are the questions put on the table by the report from FBI Director James Comey on what his agents unearthed in their criminal investigation of the Clinton email scandal.

Clinton dodged an FBI recommendation that she be indicted for gross negligence in handling U.S. security secrets, a recommendation that would have aborted her campaign. But Director Comey dynamited the defense she has been offering the country.

Comey all but declared that Clinton lied when she said she had State Department approval for the email server in her home.

He all but declared that she lied when she said she had only one server, and that no classified or secret material was transmitted. He also implied that she lied when she said she had used only one device and had turned over all of her work-related emails to State. The FBI found “several thousand” more.

Clinton said her emails were stored in a secure area. This, too, was false. Hostile actors and hostile regimes, said Comey, had access to email systems of those with whom she communicated.

Comey said he found no criminal “intent” in what Clinton did.

Yet, he charged her with having been “extremely careless” with U.S. national security secrets, a phrase that seems synonymous with the gross negligence needed to indict and convict.

While recommending against prosecution, Comey added, “This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequence. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”

Translation: Were Clinton still the secretary of state and were such recklessness with secrets to be discovered, she could have been forced to resign and stripped of her security clearance forever.

Yet if Clinton is elected president, our commander in chief for the next four years, and her confidantes Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, will all be individuals the FBI has found to be reckless and unreliable in the handling of national security secrets.

We will have security risks running the armed forces of the USA.

Nor is this the first time Clinton’s truthfulness has been called into question. Twenty years ago, she fabricated a tale about crossing a tarmac in Bosnia “under sniper fire,” and running with “our heads down.” Photos showed a peaceful arrival featuring a smiling little girl.

Family members of the dead heroes of Benghazi’s “13 Hours” say Clinton told them she would see to it that the creator of the anti-Islamic video that incited the mob that killed their sons would be run down, all the while knowing it had been a planned terrorist attack.

In 1996, The New York Times’ William Safire went over all of the statements Clinton had made in Whitewater and related scandals of Bill Clinton’s first term, compared them with subsequently revealed truth, and pronounced Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar.”

She has claimed she tried to join the Marines in 1975, and long contended she was named for famed mountaineer Edmund Hillary, who conquered Mount Everest. Only Sir Edmund climbed Everest when Hillary was 6 years old. The perfect running mate for this serial fabricator would be the Cherokee lass Elizabeth Warren.

To continue reading: Is Hillary Morally Unfit to Be President?

FBI: Hillary Clinton Broke the Law, But Don’t Prosecute Her, by Eric Schuler

Here is an exhaustive chapter-and-verse analysis of FBI Director James Comey’s decision to recommend that no charges be filed against Hillary Clinton concerning her handling of emails. From Eric Shuler at antiwar.com:

The latest in shocking but not surprising news came yesterday as FBI Director Jim Comey formally recommended not indicting Hillary Clinton for her alleged mishandling of classified information.

Given America’s less-than-stellar track record of prosecuting the powerful, this outcome has been a virtual certainty for some time. Even so, the event is still important. It offers the clearest evidence to date that the rule of law does not exist. One set of rules applies to the politically connected, and an entirely different set applies to everyone else. Nothing could illustrate this fact better than the Clinton email scandal.

Invalid Defenses

Before getting into the details on this issue, it’s worth addressing a few of the common counterarguments that are offered in defense of the good Secretary.

Overclassification

The idea here is that a lot of information in government is classified for no reason. Thus, some defenders of Hillary Clinton – including President Obama himself – implicitly acknowledge that Hillary may have mishandled classified information. But, to borrow Obama’s phrase, “There’s classified and then there’s classified.” In other words, since almost everything in government is classified at one level or another, it’s not really that big of a deal that Hillary may have sent and received a few emails on an insecure server. Would-be hackers might have been able to access the lunch menu on Capitol Hill, but that’s about it.

Of course, it is true that too much information in government is classified. However, this is beside the point. The relevant question here is whether there is evidence that Hillary Clinton broke the laws as they are, including whatever system of classification exists. And if those laws are found to be absurd and unjust and her conduct is deemed harmless, then a jury could find her not guilty on those grounds. That is not a decision for the FBI, or the Department of Justice.

It could be argued that not indicting Clinton is just, if it marked a shift towards leniency in the government’s handling of these cases. That is, maybe the Clinton scandal drew so much attention to the absurdly aggressive prosecution of others who have mishandled (questionably) classified information that the government has discovered the error in its ways. If this were really true and were accompanied by an imminent pardon of Chelsea Manning and/or a lifting of threats against Edward Snowden, the Clinton recommendation could almost be cause for celebration. But there’s no reason to believe this is going to happen. As we’ll see later, the FBI’s decision was not based on a reevaluation of the justice of these laws. The laws are just as bad as ever; the FBI simply determined that Clinton did not violate them.

A final strike against the overclassification defense is that it appears that some of the classified information in Clinton’s private email really was supposed to be classified. This is why the State Department refused to publicly release 22 of the Clinton emails because the underlying information was determined to be Top Secret. Even if overclassification accounted for most of the classified information in Clinton’s private email, it would not excuse these. And obviously, since the Democrats are still in power in the Executive Branch, it would make no sense for the non-release of these 22 emails to be politically motivated.

To continue reading: FBI: Hillary Clinton Broke the Law, But Don’t Prosecute Her

Judicial Watch: “FBI’s Comey Is Complicit In Clinton Email Scandal” by Chris Farrell

Refusing to recommend charges when it is clearly warranted makes the FBI complicit, perhaps not in the original email scandal, but certainly in the subsequent obstruction of justice. Full disclosure: I have donated to Judicial Watch, I think their work in uncovering Hillary Clinton’s most recent depredations has been remarkable, and I would urge readers who are not familiar with Judicial Watch to look into it and consider a donation. From Judicial Watch’s Chris Farrell via zerohedge.com:

By Chris Farrell is the Director of Investigations & Research for Judicial Watch and a member of the organization’s Board of Directors. He is a former Military Intelligence officer and Special Agent of US Army Counterintelligence. Farrell is also an Adjunct Professor in the Journalism Program of the Department of Communications at George Mason University.

FBI’s Comey Is Complicit In Clinton Email Scandal

Should James B. Comey, Jr. continue as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation? Is he professionally compromised? Does Mr. Comey continue to enjoy the “special trust and confidence” of the American people, the rank-and-file of the FBI, and the thousands of government employees holding security clearances and access to classified information?

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016, Mr. Comey conducted a fifteen-minute press briefing detailing the elements of the crime of mishandling national defense information, specifically Title 18 U.S.C. §793(f) and the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s use of an outlaw email server.

Comey provided the following detailed examples of how Mrs. Clinton violated the law: “110 e-mails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information.”

Comey charged that former Secretary of State Clinton (and her colleagues), “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” And he confirmed that, “any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

With respect to Mrs. Clinton’s culpability in the compromise of national defense information to hostile actors, Mr. Comey stated: “We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.

She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

Unbelievably, having defined the elements of a national security crime and given specific examples of Mrs. Clinton’s reckless, dangerous conduct in each case, Mr. Comey concluded that “no charges are appropriate in this case” and that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Mr. Comey did not tell the truth. Many people, in and out of government, know Mr. Comey’s blatant falsehood.

Exhibit A is the July 2015 prosecution of Bryan H. Nishimura, a Navy reservist in Sacramento, California, who plead guilty to charges – developed by Mr. Comey’s FBI – that represent a mere fraction of what Mr. Comey says Mrs. Clinton was involved in doing at the State Department.

To continue reading: Judicial Watch: “FBI’s Comey Is Complicit In Clinton Email Scandal”

They Said That? 7/6/16

Straight from the front page of today’s Wall Street Journal:

‘I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material…’

Hillary Clinton, 3/10/15

‘Seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails.’

James Comey, 7/5/16


‘Nothing I sent was marked classified or that I received was marked classified.’

Hillary Clinton, 3/7/16

‘Even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.’

Jame Comey, 7/1/16


‘I take classified information seriously.’

Hillary Clinton, 2/1/16

‘…There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.’

James Comey, 7/5/16

Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — until Hillary Clinton, by Glenn Greenwald

Contrast the zeal with which the government has gone after those who have disclosed its secrets in the past with the pass issued to Hillary Clinton yesterday. From Glenn Greenwald at the intercept.com:

Secrecy is a virtual religion in Washington. Those who violate its dogma have been punished in the harshest and most excessive manner – at least when they possess little political power or influence. As has been widely noted, the Obama administration has prosecuted more leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined. Secrecy in DC is so revered that even the most banal documents are reflexively marked classified, making their disclosure or mishandling a felony. As former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden said back in 2000, “Everything’s secret. I mean, I got an email saying ‘Merry Christmas.’ It carried a top secret NSA classification marking.”

People who leak to media outlets for the selfless purpose of informing the public – Daniel Ellsberg, Tom Drake, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden – face decades in prison. Those who leak for more ignoble and self-serving ends – such as enabling hagiography (Leon Panetta, David Petreaus) or ingratiating oneself to one’s mistress (Petraeus) – face career destruction, though they are usually spared if they are sufficiently Important-in-DC. For low-level, powerless Nobodies-in-DC, even the mere mishandling of classified information – without any intent to leak but merely to, say, work from home – has resulted in criminal prosecution, career destruction and the permanent loss of security clearance.

This extreme, unforgiving, unreasonable, excessive posture toward classified information came to an instant halt in Washington today – just in time to save Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations. FBI Director James Comey, an Obama appointee who served in the Bush DOJ, held a press conference earlier this afternoon in which he condemned Clinton on the ground that she and her colleagues were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” including Top Secret material.

Comey also detailed that her key public statements defending her conduct – i.e., she never sent classified information over her personal email account and that she had turned over all “work-related” emails to the State Department – were utterly false; insisted “that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position . . . should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation”; and argued that she endangered national security because of the possibility “that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.” Comey also noted that others who have done what Clinton did “are often subject to security or administrative sanctions” – such as demotion, career harm, or loss of security clearance.

Despite all of these highly incriminating findings, Comey explained, the FBI is recommending to the Justice Department that Clinton not be charged with any crime. “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” he said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” To justify this claim, Comey cited “the context of a person’s actions” and her “intent.” In other words, there is evidence that she did exactly what the criminal law prohibits, but it was more negligent and careless than malicious and deliberate.

To continue reading: Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — until Hillary Clinton

What Are You Going To Do About It? by Robert Gore

Even small children recognize injustice, especially when they are its victims. “No fair” is the common schoolyard refrain. A sense of justice undoubtedly serves a host of evolutionary purposes. Imagine a world where the unjust, the wrong, always triumphed. Thieves prospered as crime went unpunished, the few stalwarts hewing to honesty and rectitude were marginalized or eliminated, and this social order evoked commendation rather than condemnation. How long would such a society survive? Cynics will say we are there now. That’s overblown, but they have a point.

A desire for political change that becomes an actual movement drip-feeds on perceived injustices. No political movement of consequence fails either to wrap its objectives in the mantle of justice or portray its opponents as evil. The Declaration of Independence is a transcendently important work of political philosophy, but it’s also a laundry list of grievances against King George. The aggrieved, not the political theorists, propel revolutions. The straw that breaks the camel’s back is often relatively minor, even trivial. However, it generally has disproportionate symbolic importance. The tea tax exacted on the colonists was a pittance, but it inspired the Boston Tea Party and the revolutionaries’ “No taxation without representation” slogan.

Eric Hoffer noted that: “What starts out here as a mass movement ends up as a racket, a cult, or a corporation” (The Temper of Our Time, 1967). The government birthed after the revolution has indeed degenerated into a racket, and those not in on it increasing recognize its injustices. It still tries to wrap its objectives in the mantle of justice, but the sole objective of government has become more government.

When the American welfare state got started during the Depression, it was sold as a humanitarian response to that crisis. That sentiment may have animated some of those who paid for the New Deal back then; those who pay now know they’re getting fleeced. The government is a giant redistributive mechanism (with a substantial portion redistributed to the government), and most of those on the receiving end are not “needy.” They are, however, desirable sources of votes and payola.

Between the low-class grifts of phony disability and unemployment and the high-class swindles of government contracting, labor racketeering, influence peddling, subsidies, tax breaks, regulatory machinations, spurious litigation, and all the other ways the denizens of America’s richest metropolitan area line their and their cronies’ pockets, those stout souls who still engage in honest and productive labor know they’re being robbed blind. Beneath the shrugs and resignation, fires of anger burn, and cauldrons of resentment bubble.

Fires and cauldrons dot the landscape. Nobody has forgotten who got bailed out in the last financial crisis—banks, other large financial institutions, and a couple of car companies—and who didn’t—millions of homeowners with underwater homes and foreclosed mortgages. It requires no great perspicacity to recognize who has benefitted from central bank policies since the crisis—leveraged speculators—and who has not—everybody else, with particular harm suffered by savers and those living on fixed incomes. Burn and bubble.

We’re all supposed to be blind to race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, and every other characteristic held to be irrelevant to human worth, except when it comes to government contracting, employment, and admission to institutions of learning. Might that rile those excluded because they didn’t have the right set of irrelevant characteristics? Proponents of such exclusion are invited to make their case directly to the excluded, and are advised to be careful when they do so. Victims don’t like being told they’re being screwed for the greater good.

That would include the victims of Obamacare, who have seen their medical and insurance choices shrink as their premiums and deductibles rise. Trite homilies that they are helping fund insurance and care for those who previously had none do nothing to assuage their anger, and undoubtedly increase it. Access to quality medical care is a significant concern for the nation’s aging population, and the law’s destructive absurdity, blessed by tortured Supreme Court rationalizations, is now obvious. As the quality of the US medical system deteriorates, people will suffer needlessly, or die when they should have lived. Victims and their survivors will be understandably perturbed.

Justice and equality are inseparable. Equality here does not mean the fatuous and impossible equality of outcomes that animates collectivists, but equality before the law. Equality of outcomes in all its collectivist guises obliterates equality before the law, the foundation of which is the concept of individual rights. For that concept to have any meaning, each individual must have the same rights, which receive the same protection from the government. Individual, equal rights must be the basis of the law, and when they are not, no justice is possible.

Law instead becomes a tool wielded by those who control the government against everyone else. Yesterday’s announcement by FBI Director James Comey that the FBI would recommend against charging Hillary Clinton in the email matter is the government wielding the law to protect its own. The fix has been in since at least 1913, when it gave itself permission to steal its constituents’ money (the income tax) and to begin the process of profitably substituting its scrip for gold (the Federal Reserve Act). The Clinton fix is business as usual. The exempt-from-the-law class expect outrage and contemptuously ignore it. Indeed, disclosure of the Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting may have been designed to rub the noses of the not-exempt in it. Yes, it looks terrible, but we run things, you don’t. You don’t like it? Tough shit, what are you going to do about it?

The not-exempt are left with the thin gruel of cynicism and the even thinner gruel of resignation. Are we without recourse? There are those burning fires and boiling cauldrons, fueled by Mt. Saint Helens’ magma-builds of righteous rage. Comey’s decision notches up the temperature. As important, there are the manifest weaknesses of the exempt, not the least of which is their arrogance and inability to even recognize, much less acknowledge, them. A not exhaustive list: debt; their anachronistic command and control philosophy; an imperial, costly, stupidly counterproductive, and unsustainable foreign policy; an economy held together by central bank baling wire and illusion; a hollowed-out industrial base; stagnant incomes; a bought off class of savages that must stay bought off to forestall chaos; immigration; terrorism, and cities on the verge of financial collapse.

King George and cohorts enacted the tea tax with the same insouciance with which the exempt have once again exempted Hillary. They had no idea they were lighting the fuse of revolution. What are we the outraged, the disgusted, the cynical, and yes, even the resigned, to do about this latest depredation? That last, one-too-many evil of the exempt turns ordinary citizens into nothing-to-lose revolutionaries. Don’t say it can’t happen; it has happened, repeatedly throughout history. Power’s inevitable corruption, oppression, and the best of humanity’s refusal to live their lives in chains has extinguished, against daunting odds, many an evil regime… and will continue to do so. Revolutions require revolutionaries. It would be altogether fitting and proper if this travesty—announced one day after Independence Day—was the tea tax to a Boston Harbor-style rebuke of the Clintons and their criminal class come November, and served as a rallying cry for a revolt that doesn’t end until the entire lot of them are overthrown.

A REVOLUTIONARY NOVEL

TGP_photo 2 FB

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK