Friday, September 2, 2016

Clinton told FBI she relied on others' judgment on classified material - POLITICO

    The steady drip of email and foundation scandal is taking its toll...Some polls have the race tight and some key states like Florida slipping from Hillary Clinton's grasp.
     What was being touted by pro Clinton media as a rout two weeks ago is no longer and perhaps Mika's shopping for an inaugural gown should wait a while.
      Of course, few people are left who would change their Clinton vote over emails, Benghazi,or the foundation.
       Clinton told FBI she relied on others' judgment on classified material - POLITICO


Anonymous said...

It will make no difference and we all know it Jeff. Hillary is a ringer, like it or not...

Anonymous said...

There are lots of Hillary supporters who won't find the energy to get out of bed and go vote for her before the polls close.

Anonymous said...

Put another way: The customs officer discovers the false bottom in the suitcase and asks the drug smuggler, "Did you pack your own bag".

"Why, no", she said. "It's not even mine! My friend Hank gave me the bag".

Anonymous said...

Mr. Graham, I know times have changed, times always change...

But when I was in uniform 30+ years ago, I knew people, good people, who were 'burned' because of actions of their subordinates.

Why my neighbors allow favored politicians to escape the fates that would be meted out to their children or friends is beyond my understanding.

Anonymous said...

I can understand her doing that. After all, there's just so much a skank can do for herself. Keeping track of the bribe money alone was a full time job.

dajeep said...

Mika might be wearing an inaugural frown instead of a gown.

Anonymous said...

Huh! Just like Bush Jr., Colin Powell and Condi Rice? Now this is some big news!

Danny M. Francis (Eyepublius) said...

What she said is true ... and not criminal. Then consider this from the USSC - sure to drive the GOP nuts:

Wanna drive the GOP batty - show them this:

Even if everything the Associated Press has reported so far
Re: the link between donations to the Clinton Foundation and access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is confirmed. — including the most damning allegations — nothing that has been revealed to date is likely ever to be prosecuted.

That is because the current Supreme Court seems to think selling access is not illegal.

This is not to say that the actions of Hillary Clinton or the functionaries she surrounded herself with are on the level. Rather, it is because the high court has all-but-legalized what most people consider to be corruption, especially in the form of pay-to-play.

So even if Clinton’s team put meetings at the State Department on the auction block, or arranged for donors to schmooze with world leaders, or pressed for policy changes that favored donors, at least so far there do not appear to be violations of current anti- corruption laws as the courts now interprets them.

None of what has been reported counts as legally corrupt as far as the Roberts Court is concerned, and thus will likely never be prosecuted.

For decades, political corruption meant what most Americans think it means. The Supreme Court (in Buckley v. Valeo and McConnell v. FEC) embraced this ordinary view of corruption, holding that giving and taking bribes was only the most blatant kind of corruption. Then came a series of cases in which the Supreme Court eviscerated that meaning and replaced it with the free-for-all corruption rules that insulate today’s political candidates.

The process began in Citizens United, where the Court significantly narrowed the definition of corruption.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority (and providing no basis for his opinion), asserted that the appearance of influence or access obtained by campaign contributions “will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”

Then, in 2014, the Court’s majority in McCutcheon v. FEC decided that corruption only counts if it comes in quid pro quo form. In English, the Court decided that only an explicit agreement of an exchange of money for an official action qualifies — anything else is, by definition, not corruption.

According to Chief Justice Roberts and four of his colleagues, “the Government may not seek to limit the appearance of mere influence or access.”

Roberts went on to say: "Government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. Ingratiation and access are not corruption."

In other words, if donors to the Clinton Foundation — or even Clinton’s presidential campaign — were granted meetings with the State Department, nothing in those grants of access would meet the standard of what constitutes illegal corruption according to the Supreme Court.

In fact, in their view, such access and influence merits First Amendment protection.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Francis, not all corruption is illegal. A body dies and then corrupts. But it is corruption all the same.

Anonymous said...

So here goes the hero once again, claiming selling influence is no problem. Dannie, you are now heading into an area of humor. There's no fact that interests you. It's dishonesty at every turn. The few, the proud, the idiot.

Anonymous said...


You are arguing that apples are oranges. The decision not to prosecute will be based on political expediency and nothing else. The Clintons actions are unacceptable on many levels and the court of public opinion will convene in November to decide their fate.

Anonymous said...

After reading Dannies rant I now understand why Justice Scalia was murdered and why his family had him taken and creamated immediately.
Our time has come folks.. Just raise your right hand everytime Hillary is seen our freedom is gone forever. Probably four years of her then Benito then who ever else is chosen will dictate to us. We will pay the way for the black and hispanic to live off our welfare system . We will buy Chinese merchandise the rest of our lives. Christmas will be celebrated on Hillarys birthday from now on... Right Dan

Anonymous said...

Funny, she seemed to know that she didn't send anything classified at the time. She's got to get her lies straight.
And 6:37 PM, apparently you get your news from facebook memes.

Anonymous said...

My favorite Danny phrase that he uses in his above convoluted spiel is: "in other words". Only he forgot to say the rest "in other words, that mean something completely different from what the Court ruled".

BTW...the Court decision was unanimous in the McDonnell decision. Every last Justice agreed. Setting up a single meeting in and of itself is not corruption. But in Hilliary's pay to play meetings, there were obvious kickbacks that resulted from those donations and meetings that followed, including:

"A major political donor to the Clintons and other top Democrats was selected by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to serve on a key State Department intelligence board in 2011, despite having no clear background in the area, according to emails released this week."

Danny M. Francis (Eyepublius) said...

Gawd, do you bashers read anything except each other's crap?


Anonymous said...


I ignore the bashers, as you should, but you ignore factual comments that successfully refute your bias arguments.