The Clintons, and the Democratic Party as a whole, are learning a brutal lesson about trying to commit 20th century crimes (as well as "ethical lapses") in the 21st century. Bad behavior leaves a trail.
Case in point:
Zero Hedge:
In [yesterday's] 25th, Wikileaks release of hacked Podesta emails, one of the notable highlights is a March 2, 2015 exchange between John Podesta and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills in which the Clinton Campaign Chair says "On another matter....and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have to dump all those emails."Tyler Durden nailed it when he said the email indicates intent. People don't talk about dumping emails unless they are trying to cover up something. If someone is cleaning up their inbox, they would more likely call it "erasing" or "deleting".
The email, which may indicate intent, was sent at the same time as the NYT story "Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules" - which for the first time revealed the existence of Hillary's email server - hit, and just days before Hillary's press conference addressing what was at the time, the stunning revelation that she had a personal email account, and server, in her home.
The proposed "dumping" on March 2 takes place two days before the House Select Committee on Benghazi sent Hillary Clinton a document retention subpoena on March 4, 2015, with some hinting the NYT report may have served to tip off the Clinton campaign about the upcoming subpoena.
On top of this, even old "ethical lapses" get new life after awhile:
Zero Hedge:
As reported moments ago, in what appears to have been a surprise release, the FBI's Vault twitter account released 129 pages of files related to the FBI's 2001 probe into Bill Clinton's 2001 pardon of Marc Rich.But the meat of the story is here:
And while NBC reported that the files were released as part of a normal subpoena, the increasingly paranoid (not without reason) Clinton campaign - and many others - immediately had questions. According to Politico, "Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign raised questions about the timing of the FBI’s release Tuesday of records on a 15-year-old investigation into President Bill Clinton’s pardon to fugitive financier Marc Rich."
The FBI posted the 129 pages of records in its online Freedom of Information Act reading room in apparent response to a FOIA request seeking information on FBI inquiries into the Clinton Foundation. On the website, the release was dated Monday, but an FBI Twitter account flagged the new posting at noon on Tuesday.
Despite the lack of major revelations in the documents, which constitute only a part of the FBI’s files on the inquiry, the atmospherics in the records are unhelpful to the Clinton campaign. The records repeatedly refer to the probe being handled by the “Public Corruption Unit” and make clear that the FBI was examining claims that Denise Rich’s Democratic Party “donations may have been intended to influence the fugitive’s pardon.”So instead of a normal investigation, Bill Clinton decided to pardon Marc Rich based on campaign donations. While not illegal, it is proof of the scumbag that Bill Clinton is/was.
“It appears that the required pardon standards and procedures were not followed,” the internal FBI memos said.
And a final note on this: The name of the prosecutor who decided not to file any charges in the Marc Rich case? James Comey, who is currently the FBI Director.
But there is a point to all this:
The Hill:
Heather Higgins provides a brilliant piece of analysis to one aspect of this news:
The latest revelation — that the town hall moderator overseeing a Democratic primary debate gave CNN contributor Donna Brazile a peak at expected questions, and Brazile then fed Hillary Clinton's campaign staff a question expected to come up in the primary debate against Bernie Sanders — confirms the too cozy relationships between the politicians and the so-called journalists and officials who are supposed to be helping Americans get unbiased information about candidates.Fortunately, Americans seem to be getting the message:
...Americans now have reason to wonder about the other debates and who else in the so-called unbiased media world was seeking to assist the Clinton campaign by sneaking her a preview of questions or tilting the news in her favor. Such thinking is no longer cynical; it's just realistic as we've seen just how widespread the corruption and bias goes.
And if people are willing to cheat in the debates, what else wouldn’t they justify cheating on to accomplish their ends?
It is precisely the repeated revelations that of cheating at debates, inciting violence at rallies, and collusion between the DNC and their dirty tricksters, that lead many Americans to believe — not unreasonably — that, given just a whiff of deniability, these same people would unhesitatingly attempt to rig the election.
Count on Hillary Clinton to respond as she always does: Deny any knowledge of the wrong doing, (because you see, you can’t actually prove that she actually saw fill-in-the-blank), blame someone else, (the Russians have become the Democrat’s iteration of “the dog ate my homework”), and distract the American people with the idea that there is a vast conspiracy out to get her (projection, anyone?)
CNN:
A dip in African-American turnout has knocked Democratic early voting numbers off their 2012 pace in key battleground states like North Carolina.
The trend is also evident in early vote data from other swing states that could play key roles in deciding the election, including Florida and Georgia.This is the black version of "voting third party". Since blacks will only vote for Democrats, their only way to object to a Democrat is to not vote. This is definitely a bad sign for Clinton.
No comments:
Post a Comment