Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

She Said That? 9/16/17

Probing, honest, thoughtful, introspective, and self-critical quotes from Hillary Clinton’s latest tome, What Happened:

Advertisements

Hillary Happened, by Jeffrey St. Clair

This a good review and the only one SLL will publish on Hillary Clinton’s loathsome latest. From Jeffrey St. Clair at counterpunch.org:

So someone has ghost-written another Hillary Clinton memoir. My biggest question when I picked it up was: Did Hillary stiff the writer out of the final payment as she did Barbara Feinman, the real author of It Takes a Village?

You don’t have to read any further than the cover of the book to answer the question posed by its title: What Happened: Hillary Clinton. Glutton for punishment, I took a masochistic dive into its dark pages anyway.

It soon became apparent that Hillary shouldn’t have treated Feinman so churlishly. What Happened would have greatly benefited from her stylistic enhancements. The prose in this book is as brittle as the mind behind it. Notice the lack of a question mark in the title. This is a telling punctuational elision. It signals that this text will not be an investigation into the dynamics behind the most perplexing election in American history.   Don’t skim these pages in search of a self-lacerating confession or an apologia. What Happened reads more like a drive-by shooting rampage. The book is a score-settling scattershot rant, enfilading anyone who stood in Clinton’s way, from Bernie Sanders to James Comey. Amid Hillary’s hitlist of villains, even toothless Joe Biden gets gut-shot.

There are, naturally, two ways of interpreting the results of the 2016 elections pitting the two most unappetizing candidates in American history against each: either Trump found some way to defeat Hillary or, more probably, Hillary managed to lose to Trump. But Hillary’s psyche can’t swallow either scenario. So, she endeavors to create a mystery where there is none. The outcome was so inexplicable, she reasons, that there must be some hidden mechanism at work: Russian hacking, press bias, left betrayal, FBI sabotage. Clinton summons a lineup of the possible suspects: Bernie Sanders, Vladimir Putin, Julian Assange, Jill Stein, the New York Times, CNN, and Jim Comey. Alas, Hillary and her ghost-writer are not John LeCarré. She can’t spin a coherent and plausible cyber-spy yarn, in part because Clinton keeps getting sidetracked by a compulsion to wash her own hands of any culpability in blowing the election.

To continue reading: Hillary Happened

It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s, by Andrew McCarthy

Back in April of 2016, Obama designed the legal framework for former FBI Director James Comey’s subsequent exoneration of Hillary Clinton. From Andrew McCarthy at nationalreview.com:

The thing to understand, what has always been the most important thing to understand, is that Jim Comey was out in front, but he was not calling the shots.

On the right, the commentariat is in full-throttle outrage over the revelation that former FBI Director Comey began drafting his statement exonerating Hillary Clinton in April 2016 – more than two months before he delivered the statement at his now famous July 5 press conference.

The news appears in a letter written to new FBI Director Christopher Wray by two senior Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham. Pundits and the Trump administration are shrieking because this indicates the decision to give the Democrats’ nominee a pass was clearly made long before the investigation was over, and even long before key witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed.

It shows, they cry, that the fix was in!

News Flash: This is not news.

Let’s think about what else was going on in April 2016. I’ve written about it a number of times over the last year-plus, such as in a column a few months back:

On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the [criminal statutes relevant to her e-mail scandal]). The president acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated.

This is precisely the reasoning that Comey relied on in ultimately absolving Clinton, as I recounted in the same column:

On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey publicly stated that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute). The director acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved.

Obama’s April statements are the significant ones. They told us how this was going to go. The rest is just details.

To continue reading: It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s

What Happened, by Jim Quinn

Jim Quinn reviews Hillary Clinton’s newest book. From Quinn at theburningplatform.com:

What kind of brain dead pajama wearing pussified excuse for a man or low IQ gender confused feminazi would pay $30 for this worthless piece of drivel? You will find this tome of lies in the bargain bin for $1.99 in three months. Even then it would only be good for a door stop or lining a bird cage. I wonder if there is a chapter on how she had Seth Rich murdered?

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/09/03/what-happened/

New Evidence Reveals Comey Exonerated Hillary Before Key Witness Interviews, by Tyler Durden

Experts in legal procedure say that an investigative authority shouldn’t reach a conclusion about the innocence or guilt of a suspect before the authority has interviewed witnesses in the case. Evidently, former FBI director James Comey had his mind made up before he investigated Hillary Clinton. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

A new letter from Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham reveal testimony from new witnesses suggesting that former FBI Director James Comey had already started drafting documentation exonerating Hillary Clinton long before interviewing key witnesses, including Hillary herself. 

According to the letter, which is based on testimony from James Rybicki, Comey’s Chief of Staff, and Trisha Anderson, the Principal Deputy General Counsel of National Security and Cyberlaw, Comey began drafting a statement to announce the conclusion of the Hillary investigation in April or May 2016, well before he had interviewed up to 17 key witnesses. 

Meanwhile, as if that weren’t bad enough, the Comey statement was also drafted before immunity deals were struck with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson who seemingly ran point, along with Platte River Networks, to destroy Hillary’s emails after a Congressional subpoena had been issued mandating their preservation.

Here is a summary from the Grassley/Graham letter:
Transcripts reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee reveal that former FBI Director James Comey began drafting an exoneration statement in the Clinton email investigation before the FBI had interviewed key witnesses. Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, requested all records relating to the drafting of the statement as the committee continues to review the circumstances surrounding Comey’s removal from the Bureau.

“Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation.  The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy,” the senators wrote in a letter today to the FBI.

To continue reading: New Evidence Reveals Comey Exonerated Hillary Before Key Witness Interviews

Cliché Series # 3: Dissimulators Dispersing Disingenuous Dangers, by Doug “Uncola” Lynn

This week’s cliché: the boy who cried wolf. Cliché or not, it’s appropriately tagged to the US government and the powers that be. From Doug “Uncola” Lynn at theburningplatform.com:

The 2016 Presidential Election was quite the spectacle. During the primaries we watched Donald Trump go politically-incorrect Rambo on sixteen milquetoast republicans whose names I can’t recall right now.  During the Democratic Primaries, Bernie “Santa Claus” Sanders kept winning state after state; yet the superdelegates all fell into Hillary’s column.  In fact, after Sanders won eight out of nine primary contestsby double digits, Clinton received more superdelegates in an electioneering process that even the Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, admitted was rigged for the politically elite against “grassroots” candidates.  What a con.

Obviously, Hillary Clinton was the Washington D.C. Establishment’s candidate.  In spite of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DoJ) downplaying, and even covering-up, Clinton’s illegal use of private servers as President Obama’s Secretary of State, as well as the obstruction of justice involved with her illegally deleted e-mails; her illicit receipt of presidential debate questions in advance from the media (see Donna Brazille); being endorsed by the sitting president, all other living presidents, and later, even her primary opponents; and, despite  Hollywood, the Corporate Mainstream Media, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley all campaigning for her, she still lost the Electoral College, BIGLY.

To the Military Industrial Complex, the six corporations comprising the Mainstream Media, establishment politicos from both the Democratic and Republican parties, and over fifty percent of the voting American sheeple, Hillary did not lose because of Trump’s promises to place America First and Make America Great Again.  No.  Hillary did not lose because her party sold out the American worker for identity politics, misguided social justice, political correctness, illegal immigration, or the international banking elite’s aspirations for global domination.  No. She did not lose because of her perverted and profligate lies, or due to the alleged racketeering of the Clinton Foundation, her secret Wall Street speeches, or speculations as to how she and Slick Willie became multi-millionaires.  No.  Hillary lost because the Russians hacked the election.

And they expect Trump supporters to fall for that pathetic canard? PUH-lease.

It’s like:  The boy who cried “wolf”.

To continue reading: Cliché Series # 3: Dissimulators Dispersing Disingenuous Dangers

Gauntlet Thrown: House Judiciary Demands Special Counsel To Investigate Comey, Lynch, And Clinton, by Tyler Durden

Here are investigations that should have been pursued long ago, but only now are Republicans mustering the gumption to insist that they be pursued. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Roughly a month ago, we noted that Republicans might be well served to stop sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for the next Russia ‘bombshell’ to drop and actually go on the offensive against an ‘investigation’ that has obviously morphed into mass hysteria courtesy of free-flowing leaks from a conflicted “intelligence community” intent upon bringing down a presidency rather than finding out the truth.  Here’s what we said:

 Of course, until someone within the Trump administration or Republican Party smartens up and calls for the appointment of a ‘Special Counsel’ to look into Hillary’s email scandal, something that should have been done long ago, and not for retaliatory reasons but simply due to Comey’s and AG Lynch’s blatant mishandling of the investigation (a point which Deputy AG Rosenstein obviously agreed with), the Democrats have no reason to calm their mass hysteria.  Then, and only then, do we suspect that Hillary might just be able to ‘convince’ her party to exercise some form of reasonable judgement.

Well, it seems that some folks on the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), seem to agree.  As such, 20 Republican Representatives have sent a letter to Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein demanding the appointment of a Second Special Counsel to look into a laundry list of potential scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Loretta Lynch and many others from the Obama administration.

We are writing to you to request assistance in restoring public confidence in our nation’s justice system and its investigators, specifically the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). While we presume that the FBI’s investigation into Russian influence has been subsumed into Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, we are not confident that other matters related to the 2016 election and aftermath are similarly under investigation by Special Counsel Mueller. The unbalanced, uncertain, and seemingly unlimited focus of the special counsel’s investigation has led many of our constituents to see a dual standard of justice that benefits only the powerful and politically well-connected. For this reason, we call on you to appoint a second special counsel to investigate a plethora of matters connected to the 2016 election and its aftermath, including actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

To continue reading: Gauntlet Thrown: House Judiciary Demands Special Counsel To Investigate Comey, Lynch, And Clinton