State of the World

[HarleyFatboy]

So true!

[blue is the colour]

Not every body is religious.. Live Long and Prosper is my favourite saying.

 

 

[Thestarider]

 

Of course, the news cycle is completely dominated by FBI Director James Comey’s announcement yesterday recommending no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. And my response is GREAT! I can’t thank Director Comey enough for coming to this decision.

 

My concern has always been that Barack Obama would release the hounds on Mrs. Clinton and then push for his vice president, Joe Biden, to be the Democrat nominee. And then, to placate the far lefty socialists, who own the Democrat party, Obama would position Sen. Elizabeth Warren as Biden’s VP. That would be a really tough ticket to beat, since Joe Biden’s favorables, regardless of gaffes and such, are extremely high.

However, James Comey just delivered a gift wrapped with a bow. Why do I say that?

Simple, here’s what FBI Director Comey said regarding Hillary Clinton and this email server episode:

 

• He concluded Hillary was “extremely careless” in handling our nation’s secrets.
• He admitted no reasonable person could have believed putting these emails on a private server was at all appropriate or acceptable.
• He admitted 110 emails on the server were classified at the time they were sent — showing Hillary not only lied, but knowingly endangered national security as secretary of state.
• He admitted Hillary deleted work-related emails before turning them over to the State Department, despite her claims otherwise.
• And, most shocking, Mr. Comey even admitted it’s likely foreign governments hacked her emails — and our adversaries could know critical secrets about the U.S. government because of Hillary’s actions.

Here’s a simple Southern summation. Hillary Clinton was extremely careless with our not just classified, but highly classified, information — why not just term this gross negligence? I can tell you, if I were a member of our Armed Services who’s been punished for misuse or mishandling of classified information, I would be filing an appeal. See, in the military, at a minimum, you’ll lose your security clearance; maximum, you’ll face courts-martial punishment.

Comey has said Hillary Clinton is not reasonable — is that who you want as president and commander in chief? And Mrs. Clinton’s actions were not appropriate or acceptable. That follows with Mrs. Clinton’s blatant lie about not having any classified material on her private server — her unclassified, private, personal server. Hillary Clinton stated there was no classified correspondence she emailed — wrong, a lie. Lastly, Comey confirmed Hillary Clinton inappropriately deleted the property of the American people — State Department, work-related emails. We know from the deposition of her closest aide, the daughter of Muslim Brotherhood associates Huma Abedin, that she admitted to burning emails.

And yes, Hillary Clinton lied about not having any of her emails “hacked.”

Andrew McCarthy, in his article at the National Review, stated:

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States. 

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

Marcus Tullius Cicero referred to this as “the arrogance of officialdom.” Consider that just last week, there was a secret, private meeting between former President Bill Clinton and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The attorney general told us they talked about golf vacations and grandkids. Over the weekend, quietly, Hillary Clinton visited FBI headquarters and then came out to give an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd — who stated he had inside information there would be no charges. Then the morning after our 240th Independence Day, Director Comey announces a press conference — as the pre-flight checks were being conducted on Air Force One, preparing to fly President Obama and Hillary Clinton on a campaign ride to North Carolina. The optics of this rivals any episode of “Game of Thrones” or “House of Cards.”

Comey announces no charges, and Air Force One takes off. Barack Obama is flying, on taxpayer dollar, not with someone under criminal investigation — but a recently-exonerated Hillary Clinton. This, Ladies and Gents, is the “policy of political corruption” on full display. And it’s offensive to me, and should be to you, that these chuckleheads think so little of the American people.

Well, not all. Certainly the Kool-Aid drinking sycophants are rejoicing — and so am I. Why, because we see who these progressive socialists truly are and how they’ll use any means in order to achieve their ends. It’s obvious that somewhere there are emails involving Barack Obama, so the Clintons got the drop on him and Valerie Jarrett. Loretta Lynch paid her homage to the Clintons, not the Obamas.

So, is this the “new normal?” Have we decided there are political elites who are indeed above the law? It appears that is the case…but I believe the final vote will be cast by the American people. James Comey gave us every reason to look upon that stage in Charlotte, North Carolina, with abject disdain toward two of the biggest liars in U.S. political history. When Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton stood together on that stage, you saw two people who abandoned Americans to die and lied about it. We saw on that stage that the new American socialist party resembles the old Soviet politburo where there are no rules for the few — but rules, laws and edicts for others.

If you looked upon Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on that stage yesterday and cheered, the day after our 240th American Independence Day — you are no Patriot and citizen of this Republic. You are nothing more than, as Vladimir Lenin stated, a “useful idiot” — and a supporter of liars. We can ill afford the mindless lemmings to take this nation further down the road to perdition. Thanks, Director Comey, you may have just become the one person who will end the corrupt reign of the Clinton Family, and terminate any chance for an honorable legacy for Barack Obama.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

 

 

[Thestarider]

Ther stop Trumpers really need to open their eyes and make sure and stop HILLERY 

 

[Timewarp]

On 7/3/2016 at 8:30 AM, woodworker said:

It's painful, just too painful.  

A man who can't even speak our language is going to tell us what Trump has said.

 

 

Fortunately, in this day and age there is video to back up the claims of what people have said. The claim was made here for instance that Trump never said he was for baring all Muslims from entering the country when he most certainly did. My relatives here go back to the 16th century and I speak English quite well. Trump is a buffoon. I am grateful he will never get near the White House.

[StnCld316]

48 minutes ago, Timewarp said:

Fortunately, in this day and age there is video to back up the claims of what people have said. The claim was made here for instance that Trump never said he was for baring all Muslims from entering the country when he most certainly did. My relatives here go back to the 16th century and I speak English quite well. Trump is a buffoon. I am grateful he will never get near the White House.

At least you hope he doesn't get near the White House.

[Timewarp]

People keep quoting popularity polls and that's fine because most of the more independent polls show him losing by double digits but they forget that the election is not based on popular vote. It is based on the Electoral College and that picture is even MORE dismal for DT.

[StnCld316]

8 hours ago, Thestarider said:

 

Of course, the news cycle is completely dominated by FBI Director James Comey’s announcement yesterday recommending no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. And my response is GREAT! I can’t thank Director Comey enough for coming to this decision.

 

My concern has always been that Barack Obama would release the hounds on Mrs. Clinton and then push for his vice president, Joe Biden, to be the Democrat nominee. And then, to placate the far lefty socialists, who own the Democrat party, Obama would position Sen. Elizabeth Warren as Biden’s VP. That would be a really tough ticket to beat, since Joe Biden’s favorables, regardless of gaffes and such, are extremely high.

However, James Comey just delivered a gift wrapped with a bow. Why do I say that?

Simple, here’s what FBI Director Comey said regarding Hillary Clinton and this email server episode:

 

• He concluded Hillary was “extremely careless” in handling our nation’s secrets.
• He admitted no reasonable person could have believed putting these emails on a private server was at all appropriate or acceptable.
• He admitted 110 emails on the server were classified at the time they were sent — showing Hillary not only lied, but knowingly endangered national security as secretary of state.
• He admitted Hillary deleted work-related emails before turning them over to the State Department, despite her claims otherwise.
• And, most shocking, Mr. Comey even admitted it’s likely foreign governments hacked her emails — and our adversaries could know critical secrets about the U.S. government because of Hillary’s actions.

Here’s a simple Southern summation. Hillary Clinton was extremely careless with our not just classified, but highly classified, information — why not just term this gross negligence? I can tell you, if I were a member of our Armed Services who’s been punished for misuse or mishandling of classified information, I would be filing an appeal. See, in the military, at a minimum, you’ll lose your security clearance; maximum, you’ll face courts-martial punishment.

Comey has said Hillary Clinton is not reasonable — is that who you want as president and commander in chief? And Mrs. Clinton’s actions were not appropriate or acceptable. That follows with Mrs. Clinton’s blatant lie about not having any classified material on her private server — her unclassified, private, personal server. Hillary Clinton stated there was no classified correspondence she emailed — wrong, a lie. Lastly, Comey confirmed Hillary Clinton inappropriately deleted the property of the American people — State Department, work-related emails. We know from the deposition of her closest aide, the daughter of Muslim Brotherhood associates Huma Abedin, that she admitted to burning emails.

And yes, Hillary Clinton lied about not having any of her emails “hacked.”

Andrew McCarthy, in his article at the National Review, stated:

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States. 

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

Marcus Tullius Cicero referred to this as “the arrogance of officialdom.” Consider that just last week, there was a secret, private meeting between former President Bill Clinton and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The attorney general told us they talked about golf vacations and grandkids. Over the weekend, quietly, Hillary Clinton visited FBI headquarters and then came out to give an interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd — who stated he had inside information there would be no charges. Then the morning after our 240th Independence Day, Director Comey announces a press conference — as the pre-flight checks were being conducted on Air Force One, preparing to fly President Obama and Hillary Clinton on a campaign ride to North Carolina. The optics of this rivals any episode of “Game of Thrones” or “House of Cards.”

Comey announces no charges, and Air Force One takes off. Barack Obama is flying, on taxpayer dollar, not with someone under criminal investigation — but a recently-exonerated Hillary Clinton. This, Ladies and Gents, is the “policy of political corruption” on full display. And it’s offensive to me, and should be to you, that these chuckleheads think so little of the American people.

Well, not all. Certainly the Kool-Aid drinking sycophants are rejoicing — and so am I. Why, because we see who these progressive socialists truly are and how they’ll use any means in order to achieve their ends. It’s obvious that somewhere there are emails involving Barack Obama, so the Clintons got the drop on him and Valerie Jarrett. Loretta Lynch paid her homage to the Clintons, not the Obamas.

So, is this the “new normal?” Have we decided there are political elites who are indeed above the law? It appears that is the case…but I believe the final vote will be cast by the American people. James Comey gave us every reason to look upon that stage in Charlotte, North Carolina, with abject disdain toward two of the biggest liars in U.S. political history. When Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton stood together on that stage, you saw two people who abandoned Americans to die and lied about it. We saw on that stage that the new American socialist party resembles the old Soviet politburo where there are no rules for the few — but rules, laws and edicts for others.

If you looked upon Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on that stage yesterday and cheered, the day after our 240th American Independence Day — you are no Patriot and citizen of this Republic. You are nothing more than, as Vladimir Lenin stated, a “useful idiot” — and a supporter of liars. We can ill afford the mindless lemmings to take this nation further down the road to perdition. Thanks, Director Comey, you may have just become the one person who will end the corrupt reign of the Clinton Family, and terminate any chance for an honorable legacy for Barack Obama.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

 

 

Any other person would have done this, they would have hung the person out to dry and sitting in Prison for a very long time.

Hillary had to get her knees dirty and blow someone to not be charged. And it wouldn't be blowing her husband.

Americans would have to be complete fools if they trust this woman to look after America's needs.

[Timewarp]

...and then, later that day/

[woodworker]

8 hours ago, Timewarp said:

Fortunately, in this day and age there is video to back up the claims of what people have said. The claim was made here for instance that Trump never said he was for baring all Muslims from entering the country when he most certainly did. My relatives here go back to the 16th century and I speak English quite well. Trump is a buffoon. I am grateful he will never get near the White House.

The sixteenth century means the fifteen hundreds.    Wow, your family must have been here since before the first Plymouth settlement.

Perhaps they were Vikings.   But then that would have been more around the eleventh century.  

Either way, The man you call a buffoon is someone who has managed to accomplice quite a lot.  

Incidentally, do you happen to have any videos of Hillary lying through her teeth, as she has done so many times.

And as far as the Muslims go.   I would think that a good place for them to settle in over here would be possibly Death Valley, or some other arid, dry, desert region.    That way the miserable bastards will feel right at home. 

[woodworker]

As most people know.  The Muslim fanatics, of which there are many, hate all of which makes up for our Western heritage.

And France, along with other liberally lead countries are now facing some real problems with the great influx of those western hating savages.

Which leads me to a question.    At the Louvre Museum there in France;.. Which western painting do you think those bastards will first rip to shreds?   

I think it will probably be that Delacroix painting known as "Liberty leading the people."   Unless someone can quickly paint a burly black beard over Lady Liberties face making her look more like a Muslim Emon before they come storming through the doors. 

Come to think of it,.. They may also need to add a burka in order to cover up her rather sinful nakedness.   

And then there's that flag?   Something has got to be done about that flag.  

But I think that they are currently working on that.   Even as we speak.

[Timewarp]

2 hours ago, woodworker said:

The sixteenth century means the fifteen hundreds.    Wow, your family must have been here since before the first Plymouth settlement.

Perhaps they were Vikings.   But then that would have been more around the eleventh century.  

Either way, The man you call a buffoon is someone who has managed to accomplice quite a lot.  

Incidentally, do you happen to have any videos of Hillary lying through her teeth, as she has done so many times.

And as far as the Muslims go.   I would think that a good place for them to settle in over here would be possibly Death Valley, or some other arid, dry, desert region.    That way the miserable bastards will feel right at home. 

Actually I had a very rich great Uncle (my mother's side) who had the family tree done at great expense. I had it at one time. The last entry in the USA was for a Claudius Boatman. He married a native American woman. It becomes untraceable after that but clearly these ancestors were here for many,many years before 1600. So no -- not vikings. Wow, so much is a far cry from reasonable debate and just angry rhetoric. I get the whole I need someone to feel better than philosophy. If it wasn't Muslims it would be and had been someone else.