Hillary Clinton

If Hillary is Elected President and Indicted, Can She Pardon Herself?

It's not not illegal.

|

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay stirred rumors last Monday when he told Newsmax his friends at the FBI are ready to indict presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information over a private insecure server while Secretary of State.

Whether the FBI is going to indict her—or if Delay even has friends—isn't known for sure. What we do know is that the State Department is withholding seven email chains from public release due to "top secret" content.

The email scandal has been weighing down Clinton's campaign for months. If you didn't catch Remy's DC Matic ad back in March of last year check it out below:

NEXT: Bernie Sanders Seeks to Repeal Gun Law He Once Voted for

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. LEAVE HILLARY CLINTON ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Sure. Got a spare oubliette?

      1. I’d have to shift some orphans around. Do you know how difficult that can be?

        1. Technically, you can’t leave food in those, so you better move the orphans first.

        2. Just throw some bread rolls, they chase them.

      2. Wouldn’t a gibbet be better? We could watch crows pluck out her blue contact lenses.

  2. OT –

    Think Progress article, January 15:

    “Last year, North Carolina made it nearly impossible for citizens to legally gather evidence on and report instances of wrongdoing ? animals being mistreated by farm workers, for instance, or pollution being dumped into a stream. Now, a group of organizations is suing over the law, saying it tramples on North Carolinians’ constitutional rights.

    “…The law in question allows business owners to sue people who take photos, video, or any other data from their property without their consent….

    “…Most of the laws are centered around the agriculture industry, and are aimed largely at keeping employees or outside groups from photographing or videotaping animal abuse at large farming operations.”

    Think Progress article, January 25:

    “A Texas-based grand jury…is moving to indict the videographers who targeted Planned Parenthood….

    “The activists behind the multi-part video series, who posed as employees at a fake fetal tissue procurement company and secretly filmed their conversations with Planned Parenthood staff, have been widely criticized for the deceptive tactics underpinning the smear campaign.”

    1. Liberals aren’t the only ones who put animals ahead of people. Your standard-issue dog owner falls into this category, particularly the ones with little dogs.

    2. It’s different when you’re a *real* whistle blower speaking truth to power.

    3. Can I be a free-lance private videographer, offer to buy nukes or bombs from undercover Fed agents (on secret camera of course), and then claim free-speech rights, since / as I wanted to “whistle-blow” on the Fed agents?

  3. “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Seriously, haven’t we well moved into the rule of man with just some formalities remaining from our history?

    1. “What difference, at this point, does it make?”?

      FTFY

  4. “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Seriously, haven’t we well moved into the rule of man with just some formalities remaining from our history?

    1. Why does the double comment happen?? Let me delete or change one so I don’t look like a fool!!!!

      1. Too late, fool!

        1. I pity the fool!

          /Mr. T

          1. I pity da fool!

            /Mr. T

      2. Bitten by squirrels, yo. Second sign of madness.

        1. I resemble that remark!

          I do ***NOT*** bite! I just suck!

      3. Just remember: online, in a browser window, there’s no such thing as a double-click.

        1. Also remember: in space, no one can hear you scream.

      4. It is a sign from the server squirrels that you are accepted as one of us. You may or may not find this appealing.

        1. “One of us! One of us!”

          1. Freak!!!

  5. “his friends at the FBI are ready to indict”

    Grand juries issue indictments, FBI agents don’t issue indictments.

    1. Perhaps his friends are ready to present their investigation to a grand jury so an indictment can happen. It’s the same as a cop spokesman saying they are ready to charge someone with a crime. It’s the same thing.

      1. I was being a bit picky, but that’s because it makes the grand jury invisible.

      2. There’s also the possibility DeLay is just talking out of his ass. Wouldn’t be the first time.

        1. Well, he learned it from Harry.

  6. So…it turns out that Obama emailed Clinton directly and vice versa. Which means he stood before the American people and told a lie.

    Which makes me wonder will he:
    A. Push for Lynch to prosecute her for making him a liar.
    B. Push Lynch to sweep it under the rug to avoid being called as a witness and either perjure himself or live with the consequences of the truth.
    C. Preemptively pardon Clinton and probably completely fuck both his legacy and her candidacy.

    I don’t see a fourth option that doesn’t involve a debilitating “aneurysm” or a bunch of FBI or State Dept “suicides”.

    1. B is easiest and scummiest so that’s the most likely choice.

      1. The trouble with that one is that it ticks off the FBI. In that case, someone there will speak up or leak.

        1. I kind of doubt that. I imagine the Snowden leaks motivated Obama and the people around him to tighten up in general and much more so where leaks could hurt them.

          1. I doubt if Obama “tightened up” the entire FBI.

            1. No, but Hillary/someone who wants to be simpatico with Hillary might have done more or less that.

    2. We don’t know they exchanged emails. The State Dept’s claims only mean that there was advice from somebody to Obama present in some of the emails on Hillary’s server. There are lots of ways that could happen other than Obama and Hillary exchanging emails. For example, if somebody else forwarded a conversation with Obama.

      Exchanging emails with someone also does not mean you know the details of their network and email server setup. If Obama examined the message headers, he would have discovered the non-State Department email address, but nothing about Obama suggests he’s a person who inspects message headers.

      1. The NYT article I read said that 18 emails were withheld because they were correspondence to and directly from the president and that they exercised the privilege to withhold them until later.

        So did the WaPo article. The AP article. The Reuters article.

        1. I was going off what I heard on the radio about the nature of the emails. All the papers are paraphrasing what the State Dept said so that may be so.

          But, you don’t necessarily know the email address of the person you’re exchanging emails with unless you’re actively looking for it.

          1. The NYT story

            FTA: The department announced that 18 emails exchanged between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would also be withheld, citing the longstanding practice of preserving presidential communications for future release. The department’s spokesman, John Kirby, said that exchanges did not involve classified information.

            And I’m sick of the “I didn’t look to see who it was” bullshit excuse. If I’m sending something the least bit sensitive, I verify the address of the person I’m sending it to. If I’m originating the email, that means I have their address stored in my address book and it shows up when I type their name in. If I’m replying, the address shows up next to the name in the email chain. That excuse is a load of shit.

            1. so if I see this correctly, we’re to believe that President Blackberry never noticed the lack of a govt email address in corresponding with Hillary. To their supporters, doesn’t matter; it’s all a fake scandal. Whether Cruz filed a loan to his campaign, however, is akin to child molestation.

              1. Yeah, pretty much.

                I almost hope Trump or Cruz get the GOP nod now. Because they won’t pussyfoot around the scandalous behavior like Romney did. They’ll savage her in te media and drag Obama in with her. It’ll be hilarious.

                1. The one redeeming factor of a Trump nomination is that he might actually say something outrageous enough to give the bitch another stroke.

                2. I gotta say, that would be nice. Popcorn futures are looking real good right now.
                  Maybe I should ask Playa for his advice.

                  1. In reply to Sloopy

                  2. I can’t help you earn more popcorn, but I can help you avoid losing all of the popcorn you already have.

                    1. Popcorn *created OR saved*!

              2. Obama never noticed the Constitution so why would he notice a non-government email address?

            2. I’m not trying to make excuses for Obama. There are about 9,472 reasons to impeach that creep that are stronger than this one would be. But it’s not as open and shut as the right and other foes of Obama think it is. I couldn’t tell you the email address of most of the people I’ve emailed and gotten emails from today.

              1. are you going to tell me that in business emails, you don’t notice when someone has a yahoo or gmail account as opposed to one with the organizational name? That seems unlikely unless the person is a solo-preneur.

              2. Every time I type a persons name into the address field, that means I have verified their address prior to the email I am typing. It’s the only way they made their way to my address book unless they have a company-issued address and out global address book autofills it.

                But either way, the actual address shows up in any reply or forward. And it’s the senders or receivers responsibility to verify the address of the other party. Period. Full Stop. There is no excuse whatsoever for any government employee to not do so when dealing with communications.

                I never said he should be impeached for it either. Shamed, ridiculed, etc. That would be sufficient.

                1. Thunderbird automatically stores the emails of people I receive/respond to. If I type their name it usually finds them, and I never pay attention to the actual email address. There have been plenty of times that I didn’t know if I was sending an email to a Gmail account or a work account.

                  Does the sender have a responsibility to verify the address? Sure. But in practice most people are probably pretty lax about it, and understandably so. If you are expecting any kind of popular backlash against Obama for not checking the domain name when he started typing “Hill…” into his email client, then you’re going to be sorely disappointed.

              3. The email system my company uses tells me, every time I write an email, “The following recipient is outside your organization:

          2. “But, you don’t necessarily know the email address of the person you’re exchanging emails with unless you’re actively looking for it.”

            Prosecutor – I have here an email you sent to that person over there.

            You – I didn’t know I was sending to them, I didn’t look at the address.

            *Jury members all look around at each other to see if it was just them or if everyone heard that*

            1. Also, I remember that the WH warned Hillary about her private server and told her to cut that shit out. He knew damned well what he was doing.

            2. Also, I remember that the WH warned Hillary about her private server and told her to cut that shit out. He knew damned well what he was doing.

              1. Seems like he could have solved that problem by blocking her private address.

          3. I’m at work, and connected to my Verizon email account thru their web portal.

            I have a message in my inbox which says “Joe Blow….GENEALOGY STUFF…Today 11:42 AM”

            I click on it to open the message, and right at the top is says “Blow, Joe | blowjoe@cox.net | Edit Contact”

            That wasn’t very hard.

      2. “Exchanging emails with someone also does not mean you know the details of their network and email server setup. If Obama examined the message headers, he would have discovered the non-State Department email address, but nothing about Obama suggests he’s a person who inspects message headers.”

        You think there’s no filters protecting his in-box?
        That addy was approved by someone, or it never would have gotten to his screen.

        1. That’s a good point. It could still have been whitelisted without his knowledge.

          1. Yeah, and I hear some pigs could fly.

          2. Someone’s cognitive has definitely been interrupted.

        2. I thought the only way that the Lightworker received information was from reading newspapers.

    3. Which means he stood before the American people and told a lie.

      not to nitpick, but this has happened more than just that time.

      1. I’m not going to sugarcoat it…politicians have been known to stray from the truth.

        1. Let me be clear; some say it’s okay to prevaricate but I reject the false choice between total transparency and absolute opaqueness.

          Or something like that.

    4. Obama’s been a known liar for a long time. This doesn’t change that.

      The web is incredibly complex that it’s hard to guess what will happen. For a budding Democrat apparatchik like Lynch, the consequences of pissing of the Clintons are far more severe than those of pissing off the FBI rank and file, even if they really do leak details of the investigation in response to no indictment (for which they would certainly be prosecuted).

      Where Valerie Jarrett stands in all this is hard to tell. Pissing her off isn’t a good idea for Lynch either. It depends on whether allowing this investigation was done as an act of spite, or a way of getting leverage against the future president, to make sure all of Valerie’s people are taken care of under Clinton II.

    5. How could a “preemptive pardon” even be a thing?

      “If Secretary Clinton were guilty of committing multiple felonies — and, let me be clear, there is no proof of that — I hereby pardon her.”

      1. See Ford/Nixon.

        1. See Hillary run. 8-(

        2. Yeah. He could say “in the name of national security and fairness since the policies regarding email retention have been clarified since she left office, I pardon Hillary Clinton for any investigation into her email practices while she was SoS.”

          The left would applaud it. The right and most independents would go apeshit.

          1. But if Hillary loses independents that way, she loses.

            1. Yeah, that would be a last ditch Orange Suit avoidance move.

      2. Didn’t Slick Willy pardon people that had not yet been prosecuted on his way out the door?

        1. Yep — Rule of Law.

        2. Most notably – Former CIA director John Deutch…. who was being investigated for (super rare and never prosecuted crime of) mis-handling confidential materials on his home computers and stuff…

          “Deutch left the CIA on December 15, 1996[1] and soon after it was revealed that several of his laptop computers contained classified materials designated as unclassified.[clarification needed] In January 1997, the CIA began a formal security investigation of the matter. Senior management at CIA declined to fully pursue the security breach. Over two years after his departure, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, where Attorney General Janet Reno declined prosecution. She did, however, recommend an investigation to determine whether Deutch should retain his security clearance.[7] President Clinton pardoned Deutch on his last day in office.[8] Deutch had agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor for mishandling government secrets, but President Clinton pardoned him before the Justice Department could file the case against him.[9]”

          1. I looked into this the other day, btw.

            and there are very very few high-profile examples of “Pre-emptive presidential pardons”. namely =

            1 – the aforementioned Nixon/Ford thing
            2 – Carter’s declaration of Amnesty for any Vietnam war draft-dodgers
            3 – GHWB’s absolvement of perjury cases in the Iran-Contra scandal
            4 – Clinton’s lifting of the investigation of John Deutch.. for doing exactly what Hillary did.

            1. Clinton’s lifting of the investigation of John Deutch.. for doing exactly what Hillary did

              NUH UH! PHAKE SKANDULLLL!!!!!!!!11!!one!!eleventy

              1. the rebuttal there depends on the following =

                “he Associated Press’ Ken Dilanian wrote on August 31 that contrary to Deutch’s improper handling of highly classified material, “there is no evidence of emails stored in Hillary Clinton’s private server bearing classified markings” or being self-evidently classified “whether marked or not”

                this is directly contradicted by the IG findings last summer, not to mention the headline news of the last 2 days’

                The very ‘expert’ quoted in that piece notes

                “A case would be possible if material emerges that is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was highly classified, whether marked or not, McAdoo said. But no such email has surfaced. ‘

                Of course, just yesterday =

                ” the State Department announced that it, too, had found “top secret” information on Clinton’s server ? 22 emails across seven separate emails chains. The information, the State Department said, was so secret that those emails would never be released to the public.”

                Yet what he said was false even when he said it last August. IG noted that even material ‘not labeled’ was classified at the time and was not a case of being ‘upgraded’ as the hacks insist

                1. Yet what he said was false even when he said it last August.

                  That’s more what I was getting at. They’d be parroting the same shit while she’s been hauled off in cuffs.

                2. This rabbit hole misses the whole point. By setting up a private server, she put herself at the mercy of everyone who might accidentally email a classified document to her email address.

                  It seems ridiculous that this investigation hinges on whether or not a third party did, or did not, send her something. How could she possibly predict whether someone might accidentally send an email to the wrong SoS email account?

                  That is why you don’t do this.

                  If I were to start emailing my clients on my private gmail account, out of the reach of my corporate IT department, and future FDA discovery, I would get fired.

            2. No, having classified info on an insecure server is much worse than having it on a laptop.

              1. No. Shit.

                1. There is also the additional problem with Clinton that these cases didn’t share.

                  Clinton seems to have sold the influence of her office to forgein entities including governments for donations to the Clinton Family slush Fund in the tens of millions.

                  When the State Dept. was the only agency that approved Keystone while all others under Obama vetoed it I felt that was strange. Now I know the reason why.

                  According to so called leaks a few weeks ago, the FBI is looking for the links to this activity in the forensic work done on her server after she wiped it off with a cloth. this is beside the investigation of the released emails which she claims is the total of her work related emails.

                  1. I hope they have people reading the Clinton Cash book….

                  2. So, something good came of all this after all?

                    As someone who can be bought relatively cheaply, she is a tool of the free market?

    6. D. Stall until after the election, whereupon Clinton’s new AG maybe doesn’t make this a real big priority.

    7. “Which means he stood before the American people and told a lie again.”

      1. Obama telling a lie AGAIN was a trueism long before the Clinton email FAKE SCANDAl ever came to public attention.

      2. Obama telling a lie AGAIN was a trueism long before the Clinton email FAKE SCANDAl ever came to public attention.

  7. Good catch – Delay has no friends. I like how that dip shit started this.

    1. I was thinking the mention of Tom DeLay was in preparation for his announcing his own candidacy.

      Why not? Every other scumbag/moron seems to be doing incredibly well.

      1. To me it looks like the only two doing well are Trump and Sanders.

        1. That’s what i said

          1. “every other scumbag/moron” includes like ten more people, all of whom are not trump or sanders.

  8. There’s no restrictions on the pardon power in the Constitution, so she could pardon herself. She would probably just kill the investigation upon taking office, though.

    Even a pardon wouldn’t protect her from impeachment and removal from office, though. However, 34 Senators on her side would block that.

    1. Oh, but imagine both presidents Clinton getting impeached. That would be a historical marker that would certainly muddy the legacy of the Clinton political juggernaut.

      1. That doesn’t help the country much after the fact anymore than reading about the TEAPOT DOME scandal does.

        1. Good point. Prevention is most always better. But the Clintons represent a significant political illness and I’d like for them to go down in history as the scumbags they are.

  9. You know what else Hillary can go and do to herself?

    1. Dodge snipers?…

    2. Does it involve cigars?

      1. Daniel San, left hand make circle. Right hand make circle. See?

      2. You may unseat Nikki from her title yet.

    3. Faint and sustain a serious concussion?

    4. Cut her speaking fees.

      1. She’s supposedly to be in the Bay Area in a week or so, fund-raising. If SF voters had their way, she’d be elected by now.
        Bubba was here last week, and (according to a news columnist) someone handed him a boxed doll of himself for an autograph; the doll was a talking doll and it questioned the meaning of “is”. It didn’t get signed, Bubba was well familiar with it.

    5. Nobody took the obvious “fuck”. You all win a liver and onion dinner.

  10. OT: any other Iowans here? Curious on caucus thoughts, participate?

    1. yes.

      I caucused for Ron Paul in 08 and 12. I maintained a registration as a Republican to be able to caucus for Rand Paul.

      I probably will not caucus this year, because the caucus will be overrun by dumbfucks voting for Trump.

      1. In years past, the straw poll on caucus night had absolutely nothing to do with the delegates awarded at the state convention in late summer. People would come and vote, then take off before the boring business of electing precinct members of the county party and “electing” delegates to the county convention.

        In reality, no one ever fills the quota of seats for the county, district, and state conventions. So anyone that was willing to pay the entrance fee would be seated as a delegate to the county, district, and state conventions. In a normal year, only the party regulars pays the fees to get into the conventions. So the party regulars decide in late summer to elect delegates that will vote for the candidate that has pretty much wrapped up the party nomination by late summer.

        So the system is set up to allow a small number of party regulars decide who the delegates are to the national convention.

        1. In 2012, Ron Paul’s followers showed how the system can be hijacked by a fairly small set of dedicated people. They all paid to get into the county, district, and state conventions. They took over the state party apparatus (nearly every state-level office was filled by a Paul-follower), and they every seat to the national convention that wasn’t reserved for the sitting governor (Branstad) and senior senator (Grassely).

          Even though Paul came in 3rd in the Straw Poll on caucus night, he “won” the state nominating process. The Republican National Convention shit themselves and have since imposed rules on the state party that require delegate counts to match the straw poll results.

          Since there is no way for a Paul support (like myself) to actually stop Trump or Cruz from taking most of the delegates at the state convention, I see little reason to participate this time around.

          1. You should participate to advance Rand and his ideas as far as possible.

            1. Rand needs to go home and focus on being a really good Senator.

              1. That will come but right now you should be supporting him.

          2. So, *clutches pearls* the system really is rigged for those with money against those without money and only their vote ?

            1. Could be worse. It could be a winner-take-all primary.

            2. The old system rewarded organization.

          3. i was thinking about this earlier, and while i really dont want to break my perfect not ever voting record on donald trump’s account, I realized writing myself in would actually be more like voting against everyone than staying home. the difference my vote would make still probably is not worth the half hour drive to the high school, but now i came up with a reason to feel bad about it. great.

    2. Yes, participating in Ames and will caucus for Rand. Although – divided household as the spouse will caucus for Christie.

      1. Although – divided household as the spouse will caucus for Christie.

        If the caucus location is near the courthouse you could always file the divorce papers while you’re out.

        1. In all fairness, we resided in NJ during the McGreevey/Corzine era…

      2. You should kick your spouse’s ass unless he is bigger than you and if so just don’t rinse the detergent out of his shorts before you iron them for him.

  11. “Have you Googled yourself?” sounds like the start of an anti-onanism commercial.

  12. Its certain Hillary isn’t going to go on any Sunday pundit-fest; she might get stuck with an embarrassing question live. Any of her supporters on tomorrow, with a chance that someone would have the nerve to question this shit?

    1. Dude, she’s going to hide in her bunker and let Robot Hillary do the public-appearances. no freaking way is she doing any interviews.

      1. “and let Robot Hillary do the public-appearances”

        So, we can expect to see Debbie Wasserman Schultz all over the TV tomorrow morning then?

  13. Regarding the Clinton (and her supporters) assertions that all this confidential stuff was all either – ‘declared secret after the fact’, or that ‘nothing was labeled ‘classified’ when it was sent’, i point you to the actual findings of the inspector general when they decided that this shit deserved a full-blown FBI investigation last summer =

    These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system

    that paragraph opens with the note that “These emails…. did not contain classification markings or dissemination controls”.

    Which naturally leads to the Clinton team defense that these things “were not marked when they were sent”.

    At the heart of the matter is not whether they were marked, but whether they should have been. we’ve already seen evidence that she instructed subordinates on how to strip said markings from communications.

    1. Both the inspector general and the intelligence community are waging a slanderous campaign against Hillary Clinton. Therefore, everything they say has already been either dismissed or is without merit. It is so obvious.

      1. This campaign is vast.

        1. That’s their strategy. It’s not like it hasn’t been effective.

      2. They are also secret extreme right wing republicans

        1. And they’re all on our payroll.

  14. From personal experience, I know that at least one ‘foreign’ country has sophisticated IT folks and the will to use them; I’m gonna presume that most all do.
    Further, I’m gonna guess that every one has at least one nerd tracking the comm of the SoS/FM/Whatever of every major power, and when that nerd found out Hillary was using a non-secure server, whatever data was on that server quickly found its way to the files of that power. There is nothing on that server that isn’t now in files in Moscow, Beijing, Paris, London, Bonn, Rome, etc.
    Put shortly, she might as well have arranged to have in printed on, well, maybe the inside pages of WaPo.

    1. Who reads that rag?

      1. Would have been way more secure there.

        “I figured I would put in the place where no one would look”

        *jury nods in agreement*

    2. This^

      They own her ass. Her selling of visas and SoS services, laundering money, etc etc. was all on that server.
      Putting her in the Oval Office is insanity.
      I dont understand the appeal. She is a run-of-the-mill, mediocre con artist that rode Bills coat tails into the white house. She is talentless, unappealing, can’t think on her feet…

      The only reason I can think of for anyone to want her in there is that they DO own her ass.

      1. all those donations to the Foundation were not charitable. For others, she has a D next to her name and a vagina, so Go Team! And if she wins and a lot shit falls down, those same folks will make excuses just like Obama’s dogwashers do.

        1. “she has a … vagina”

          [citation needed]

        2. Spend 30 seconds on reddit/twoxchromosomes and receive a horrifying insight into the minds of Hillary voters.

      2. ‘That they do own her ass”

        SHUT THE FUCKING INTERNET DOWN

        The debate is over.

      3. It’s pretty simple, actually. Mainstream Dem politicians are terrified of pissing off the Clinton machine, which is fully capable of destroying anybody who crosses them. So she was guaranteed only token opposition from Comrade Bernie and a couple of pathetic dweebs in O’Malley and Chaffee. Bernie’s probable win in NH is going to do nothing but prove once and for all how irrelevant NH is.

        From there they follow Obama’s playbook from the 2012 general. Base your campaign on scaring the shit out of Democrats, Hispanics, and younger women so they turn out in droves. Bonus points if the GOP nominates a candidate with obvious flaws, such as being Mormon and rich, that the lapdog media can hammer 24/7 for six months. It really doesn’t matter if come January, the American people let out a collective gasp of “who the fuck did we just vote for?”. Deal is done.

        She’s creaming her pantsuit over the possibility of facing Trump.

        1. “If elected, I will put that bitch in jail” should rally any of the base that hesitates to support Trump.

    3. It’s an absolute certainty that multiple foreign intelligence services have Hillary’s emails, and were in a position to blackmail her as Secretary of State (though they probably preferred to keep collecting data at that point), and would be in position to blackmail her as POTUS.

      Has Ms. Most Experienced Candidate ever done anything in her official capacities that wasn’t a complete cluster fuck?

      1. It’s hard to blackmail somebody with something that’s already public knowledge.

        1. It’s hard to blackmail somebody with something that’s already public knowledge.

          It’s hard, but not impossible. If it wasn’t given much attention when it originally became “public knowledge” then hay can still be made out of it later.

          Not that it matters too much, since a good many emails have not been made public anyway.

  15. At this point, what difference does it make?

  16. 18 U.S.C. ? 793(d)(e)(f)
    (d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
    (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States…

  17. or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
    (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer? Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both

    1. “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,”

      Pretty sure knowingly running your comm through a non-secure server, especially after you have been warned against it, goes far beyond ‘gross negligence’.

      1. I’ve actually had people argue that negligence wasn’t actually criminal. As soon as I pointed that very section out, they moved the goalposts.

        1. In the case of HRC, I’m sure we’ll find those who argue whatever she could possibly do ‘isn’t criminal’, ’cause HRC!
          My hope is that they constitute the same 25% who never accepted that Nixon was a criminal.

          1. “It’s not illegal when the president does it.”

    2. Perhaps I should have provided some context for this post.

      This is my response to the inevitable hand waving by certain individuals who will regurgitate the talking point of ignorance is innocence and downplay the almost concrete fact that foreign intelligence agencies gained access to her server.

      As Sevo said below, gross negligence is just the beginning, there’s truly no telling the amount of uncertainty and complications our intelligence agencies have in store for them. Had such and act been perpetrated by somebody even a few steps below the SoS security clearance they wouldn’t see the light of day for a decade.

  18. What’s up Peanuts?

    I’ve been busy lately. I know you fucking grommets missed me!

    1. Have you made your donation yet?

      1. Not yet.

        My hypothetical options made a big comeback Friday.

        I bet on O&G a tad early.

        So I will kick in $20 to Reason? There is no shame in that.

        1. My hypothetical options made a big comeback Friday.

          And I am still the king of Norway.

          1. things don’t “come back” after becoming worthless and expiring. he’s still suffering from the delusion he knows how this stuff even works. its sad to watch. Its like late-stage syphilis.

            1. you see, the expiration dates for options in January aren’t what he’s pretending they were

              http://www.marketwatch.com/optionscenter/calendar/

            2. What, you don’t believe I’m still the King of Norway. I shake a fjord at you, sir!

            3. “…he’s still suffering from the delusion he knows how this stuff even works….”

              I think you’re too kind. He’s a not-very-good con-man; the sort who slicks your tip money off the bar when you turn around to see the football score and then acts like it disappeared.
              Slimy and dumb.

            4. he’s still suffering from the delusion he knows how this stuff even works.

              The level of denial here is just unbelievable. It posts incoherent gibberish, and you guys act as if it is sentient.

          2. King, can I get a deal on some reindeer?

            1. We shall refer you to our cousin, Jesper Sami of Crazy Sami’s Discount Livestock Emporium.

        2. Palin’s Buttplug|1.1.16 @ 5:07PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

          I do own these positions you dickhead.

          My purchase price was different but we have a bet as of today’s prices. I totally expect you to welch on it though.

        3. Investment fanfic is so captivating, I keep coming back for more!

        4. “So I will kick in $20 to Reason?”

          You say that like its a question, when it shouldn’t be.

          1. Anyway, I thought Playa upped to a c-note.

            If that’s too much for you, go with $20, and, next time, play at the kiddie table.

          2. Hey, I kicked in twenty kroner last fund drive.

    2. I’ve been busy lately.

      Counting up your market gains?

    3. Stay lost, turd.

  19. I continue to believe that Hillary will never be elected, for a dozen reasons. The email scandal seems like the final nail in the coffin, though. The first rule of scandals is to get it all out there, and get it over with. The fact that she hasn’t done that, that the drip-drip-drip just keeps getting worse, tells me that it’s very, very serious. Having 150 ticked-off FBI agents looking at her emails and everything else? And during an election campaign? I can’t imagine how she gets out of that looking good.

    1. Like she should have confessed to murdering Vince Foster?

      Do you wingnuts ever get out of your jerk circle?

      1. A-a-a-a-nd, here come the non sequiturs….

      2. Butthead, link to the receipt that shows you paid Reason. Until then, fuck off.

    2. i agree she won’t win.

      what’s sort-of shocking is that the ‘blatantly criminal behavior’ really has almost nothing to do with why she won’t win. She won’t win because she can’t motivate voters and because she’s “old-car-stinky”. No one believes a word of her bullshit, and the best reason they can come up with is that she’s “Not a Republican”

      Comments on the NYT endorsement of her? was 80% negative.. Bernie supporters who think she’s barely better than electing one of the Koch brothers in drag.

      1. “She won’t win because she can’t motivate voters and because she’s “old-car-stinky”. No one believes a word of her bullshit, and the best reason they can come up with is that she’s “Not a Republican””

        Against Trump that can actually work.

    3. Wouldn’t the murder of Vince Foster DOOM her chances?

      C’mon! Let’s get all the Wingnut CT out at once! You all will feel better for sure!!!

      1. The nonsensical meme so nice he posted it twice.

        1. Who are you?

          And why are you here?

          1. Name’s Ash, housewares.

            1. *sustained applause*

            2. Shop Smart!

          2. Turd we haven’t seen you around lately.

            Did you just get out on bail ?

            1. Can we hope it gets revoked?

    4. “The first rule of scandals is to get it all out there, and get it over with. ”

      The Clinton’s discovered a new rule. Lie, Deny, and Cover Up for years, then claim “That’s all old news, fabricated by the vast wright wing conspiracy. I’ve answered these questions long ago”.

      Anyone on the Left is basically immune to scandal because the Left has never believed in the rule of law in the first place. That the Clinton’s break it with impunity is a feature, not a bug. Power for their side, by any means necessary.

    5. I think you are right Papaya. It is bad, and I am thinking when and if all the info comes out she is directly responsible for Ambassador Stevens being dragged through the street, raped, and murdered. To make it worse she tried to hang the blame on some poor shlub who had nothing whatsoever to do with it, consoled all of the family of the dead with lies and did it all without blinking or shedding a tear. She really is a vile creature and is desperate to keep everyone from seeing the seething black pit of shit that is her soul.

      1. “…Ambassador Stevens being dragged through the street, raped, and murdered.”

        Snopes says maybe not…

        http://www.snopes.com/politics…..tevens.asp

        A Libyan doctor who treated Stevens said he died of severe asphyxiation, apparently from smoke. In a sign of the chaos of during the attack, Stevens was brought alone by Libyans to the Benghazi Medical Center with no other Americans, and no one at the facility knew who he was, the doctor, Ziad Abu Zeid, told The Associated Press.

        Stevens was practically dead when he arrived close to 1 a.m., but “we tried to revive him for an hour and a half but with no success,” Abu Zeid said. The ambassador had bleeding in his stomach because of the asphyxiation but no other injuries, he said.

        1. Snopes has been known to blow it, but in this case, I’m hoping they are correct.

          1. They do list this as “undetermined”.

          2. Why? No offense, but it looks as if Stevens was in charge of a Libya-to-Syria gunrunning operation and was involved in aren’t people that have done innocents harm and plan to keep doing so.

            I have no sympathy for him or the way he died if that’s true. And I’ve been pretty damn certain it is since the Benghazi hearings when the gun deal wasn’t even mentioned (deliberately) because it’s both a covert CIA op and highly illegal.

            1. Aren’t = arming.

            2. sloopyinTEXAS|1.30.16 @ 11:26PM|#
              “…it looks as if Stevens was in charge of a Libya-to-Syria gunrunning operation and was involved in aren’t people that have done innocents harm and plan to keep doing so.”

              I did not know that. If so, I withdraw my comment.

          3. Maybe he died of smoke inhilation.?

            Today we are told that gun manufacturers are responsible for what their customers do with their products.

            Who is responsible for the gun running facilitated through Benghazi ?

            So then who is ultimately responsible for the fire at the annex ?

          4. I thought it was established that the picture was of him being taken to a doctor, not being dragged through the streets as a trophy.

            I think it was members of Gaddafi’s family that were raped and murdered.

    6. I’ll believe it when I see it. If scandal could kill her shouldn’t it have done so eons ago?

      1. She has won two elections in New York, and that’s it. Getting elected president is a whole ‘nother thing.

        1. Obama did less and got there. Granted he was a blank slate, but he did it again in 2012. Like I said, I’ll believe Hillary is not scandal-immune when one actually takes her down.

          1. Do you think she’s gonna secure 95% of the black vote? And run against two peopole that are afraid to point out her total lack of character or qualifications?

            I don’t think the dynamic is the same as it was in 08 and 12.

            1. Yes and she might end up running against someone even worse. Not that those questions have anything to do with the ‘scandal immunity’ issue.

            2. Correct. Plus, one party rarely holds the White House for three elections, and it’s not as if everyone is clamoring for another four years like the last eight… which turns out to be Hillary’s platform.

              1. This. A republican is practically guaranteed the white house, which is why I think Trump chose to run as one even though he’s a Democrat.

                1. based solely on the history of two term presidencies, yeah. but based solely on history one would have said in 2008 that obama had a 0% chance. at least most of the republicans seem like they’re trying awfully hard to blow their own chances. .

    7. The first rule of scandals is to get it all out there, and get it over with. The fact that she hasn’t done that, that the drip-drip-drip just keeps getting worse, tells me that it’s very, very serious.

      It depends. With a simple, easy to understand scandal (like Weiner’s underwear selfies) the public recoils at each drop of information. You want to get those out of the way quick, if only to avoid having your initial response proven to be a lie by the next piece of evidence to drop.

      With a complicated scandal like this, the drip-drip has the effect of boring the public. Little bits of the story, which most people don’t understand, have been dribbling out for almost a year, and if you try to explain to the average person how what we’ve found out now is different from what we found out last spring their eyes will gloss over. Hillary’s excuses and responses make absolutely no sense to somebody who knows the first thing about IT and/or handling classified material, but they are perfectly honed to leverage the misperceptions of laypeople.

  20. If Hillary is Elected President and Indicted, Can She Pardon Herself?

    Don’t you pardon people who are convicted?

    1. Well, never mind… now that I think about it, no.

  21. CBS just now doing a riff on Petreaus (sp?), and drawing comparison to Clinton, flat out admitting that no one will touch her; she’s above the law.

    1. What the fuck is a “CBS”?

      -person under 60 with cable

      1. It’s a television network Mark Harmon owns.

        1. YOU LEAVE NCIS ALONE!!!!

          1. “YOU LEAVE NCIS ALONE!!!!”

            Oooh! That explains why wife had it on!

          2. You’re looking to get Gibbs slapped.

            1. Nobody will slap Gibbs.

                1. She’s so quirky and fun! And her character is so believable!!!

                  1. This is the black-haired, pony-tailed gal? If so, she’s close to as stereotyped as Flo the Progressive; forget it, sweety, you’ll never get another role!
                    But I just caught the ‘one-man-band’, My Perona! (no youtube yet) FUNNY!

  22. Outstanding job, commentariat. Outstanding.

    I WANT TO SEE THE GOD DAMN CHECK. Memo: “I lost”.

    1. OT: I made 10 lbs of pastrami today. I pulled it from the brine after 7 days…couldn’t wait any longer.

      I still have 5 more lbs in a brine though and I will take one the full 10 days. I think we should put a plan together to swap some out next time you make it.

      BTW, both of them were fantastic. Did two different final rubs for the cook and there were subtle differences. But both came out wonderfully.

        1. I oven smoked with hickory.

          I was gonna sous vide with liquid smoke but I had a hard time finding a recipe and I didn’t know how liquid smoke would react to a cured meat.

          1. Yeah, especially for that length of time.

      1. And which recipe? Did you go with Chef Steps?

        1. One I did the Alton Brown recipe. One I did from Chowhound. The third one I’m doing the Chef Steps recipe.

          1. I’m doing it soon, half with short ribs, half with beef plate.

            1. I’m doing all brisket. It was on sale super cheap and Kara bought a whole one that made three five pounders when trimmed. So it just made sense.

              Pretty sure it was grass-fed too. Which is probably why it tasted so good. (I keed! I keed!)

      2. Did two different final rubs for the cook”

        Did the cook appreciate them both ?

        1. I survived with that comment a lot longer than I expected.

      3. “Did two different final rubs for the cook”

        I bet that made the cook happy.

  23. OT: Black man receives probation after he and two other black men nearly beat white vet to death in random attack.

    None of them was charged with a hate crime, of course, though, judging by the video, I think this obviously was one.

    1. Ugh…

      *places ice pack on nutsack*

      I can’t take any more today. I will click that in the morning.

    2. A hate crime is defined much as racism is defined: an act of the evil white enpenised oppressor overlord class.

      Therefore, by definition blacks cannot be guilty of a hate crime.

      \SJW

    3. OK so a black “man” can’t be guilty of a hate crime. I get that.

      But the last sentence of the article that gets no attention is this:

      “A driver who was at the gas station then ran over the veteran”

      Whaaat ? That’s all the mention this important fact gets ?

  24. The Dems really should consider nominating someone who isn’t a geriatric math-challenged socialist or a venally corrupt hag. They’d be smart to draft in Bloomberg, or…someone.

    That being said, it seems to me a lot of commenters are running a ways ahead of the chickens before they’ve hatched. Hillary did something plainly illegal but there’s no proof she was blackmailed or that she was directly responsible for the Benghazi fiasco. Positing such as truth before it is proven damages the case against her.

    1. This is a textbook case of not looking for conspiracies because plain old corruption works just fine.

      1. also known as occam’s razor

    2. Hey, they had their chance to get Jim Webb. But it wasn’t “his turn”.

      1. True fucking that. He would have been a fine choice. Worse than it not being his ‘turn’, he wasn’t batshit insane enough on various issues for the Dem base to like him.

        What’s the name of that guy who’s running against Rand? He seems sane. Pension reformer. Should nominate him.

    3. but there’s no proof she was blackmailed’

      The blackmail comes after she gets elected.

      That’s kinda the nature of blackmail.
      .

      1. That doesn’t change how burden of proof works.

    4. oooh baltimores got this bright young democratic mayor named martin o’malley who could be the next national democratic rising star!

  25. So the Plug shows up after getting humiliated and pretends nothing happened. I’m beginning to love that guy.

    1. He’s the Donald Trump of HnR.

      1. Nonsense. Trump has money and pussy.

        1. Way more than Tucker Carlson if rumors are to be believed.

  26. If her unsecured e-mails exposed classified information of another nation could that nation indict her?

    1. I don’t believe she had security clearance from any other nation.

      1. There might be agreements though. Such as “If one of your people screw us over we can do X.”

        1. They’re never going to get that evidence.

        2. Maybe Iran can come through for us. They do have a history of imprisoning sharks and vultures as Israeli spies.

        3. “There might be agreements though. Such as “If one of your people screw us over we can do X.””

          If she’s protected by the Obo Admin in the US, you think they’ll let another country get at here?
          The best we could hope for is a warrant for her arrest if she ever stepped off a plane in X, but then that country’s FM is in deep trouble in the US

    2. Ooh, I want Canada to do the arrest and perpwalk.

      1. You people are no fun.

    3. As a diplomat, wouldn’t she have prosecutorial immunity? They could PNG her but that’s about it.

      1. Is sending people to Papua New Guinea a form of punishment?

        1. Well, there’s a lot of old Ozzies who would agree. And some US Marines.

        2. Persona Non Grata. So they could say that she is not welcome in their country again but that’s about it.

          1. Legally.

            There’s a lot a covert operative could do?

            1. I wouldn’t complain one bit if Mossad or some other similar foreign agency did a hit on her. I could understand them doing it – she’s an intel loose cannon, no idea when intel she gets will end up in the wrong hands for no reason other than pure incompetence.

      2. sloopyinTEXAS|1.30.16 @ 10:57PM|#
        “As a diplomat, wouldn’t she have prosecutorial immunity?”

        I think you’re right. As ‘picky’ as states are about state secrets, only rank dictatorships ever broke the diplomatic immunity rule.

      3. Convert her to an image file format, and cast her into space? Sign me up!

        1. She wouldn’t survive five minutes in the Phantom Zone without kneeling before General Zod.

          1. Well that’s the general idea, isn’t it?

      4. Perhaps she and Merkel could sit around and compare corns and badmouth men?

      5. I’d rather JPEG her (with the crime, that is.)

  27. Outlaw biker gang made up of cops and feds involved in fatal fight:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..abbed.html

    Professional courtesy and the legal right to carry firearms in gun free zones and while intoxicated must come in handy for an outlaw biker gang.

    1. http://www.agingrebel.com/13879

      The Iron Order is the preferred MC of ATF and Secret Service agents

      1. I’ve seen them at a couple of bars around west Columbus.

  28. Progs like the way they do shit in Sweden, right?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..t-children

    1. Peasants.

    2. They were doing so well when they were racially and culturally homogenous. What happened? Oh that’s right, they’re human beings, just like Americans.

        1. + under glass

    3. In which ZeroHedge covers for racist thugs.

      1. What about the disaster of a “refugee” policy that gave these racist thugs the opportunity to win ordinary people to their side by stepping in as protectors of women’s safety?

        BTW, if that Somalian “15 year old” who stabbed the woman is a day under 20, I’ll eat my long form birth certificate.

  29. Dogs better than cats

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..think.html

    1. I like both, dogs are more affectionate but also needy. Cats don’t act like overacting little drama queens when you’ve been away for half an hour. That said, my dog is the best thing on four legs.

      1. I dunno.

        My dog stays outside probably 15 hours a day. Meanwhile my cat harasses me constantly, wanting to get petted, wanting treats, wanting to sit in my lap.

        And if I go outside, does my dog harass me? No, but the stray cat that sleeps on my porch wants to sleep in my lap.

  30. Most of this stuff about Hillary is wishful thinking.

    Obama isn’t about to let anybody at the FBI indict a Democrat front runner in an election year, and nobody at the FBI is about to stick their neck out to go after a vindictive politician like Hillary when she may turn out to be their boss a year from now.

    The other thing that people are getting wrong is that accepting donations to her private foundation from foreign governments, UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others–while she was the Secretary of State–is far worse than anything she did with her email. . . . and she did that in broad daylight.

    But the most ridiculous assumption of all about the idea that Hillary is going to be indicted before the election . . .

    1. So? expect an indictment on 9 November?

      1. I’d like to believe that, too.

        Whomever wins, and it doesn’t matter which party, is likely not to want a distraction like that in the news. You want to move on to your own agenda, not squander political capital on issues from the past that have nothing to do with your own agenda.

        A Republican might go after her if he or she thought it would help keep her from running against him in his reelection campaign. Even then, though, people are going to think that what Hillary did five years prior with her email is ancient history.

    2. Can they pawn this off on a careerist?

  31. I was thinking about this while watching the first episode of the new X-Files last week. I was thinking about why the new episode didn’t work. It’s the same show it was before, but there was a basic assumption that ran through the show in its original run–going all the way back to 1992–that really doesn’t resonate anymore. And that assumption is that if the American people knew what was really going on, there would be a huge public outcry and things would change. The whole show is about Mulder looking for that evidence so he can finally go public. The whole show is about the people in the government working against him to hide the truth from the American people. To hide the truth, distract the American people from what’s really going on. The byline of the whole series is “The Truth is Out There”.

    What we’ve learned since X-Files went off the air is that the American people don’t give a shit about the truth.

    1. The 1st episode was awful.

      The 2nd episode was quite good though.

      1. I haven’t seen it yet. I suspect people who believe that the American people still care about the truth liked it better than others.

  32. Saddam Hussein was not personally complicit in 9/11 or the anthrax attack. There was no WMD in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was not in cahoots with Al Qaeda. The federal government was tracking all of our phone calls. The President ordered the assassination of an American citizen. The IRS was discriminating against political organizations from one side. You may like your insurance plan, but you cannot keep your insurance plan. You may like your doctor, but you cannot keep your doctor. Hillary Clinton was keeping a private email server to escape scrutiny, and she was accepting donations to her private foundation from foreign countries while she was the sitting Secretary of State. Last I checked, Hillary Clinton is still accepting donations to her private foundation–even while she’s running for President!

    No one has been held accountable for any of this stuff–even after it became public–and the American people don’t give a shit.

    Before 2001, X-Files worked because we lived in a world where a scandal could bring down the Nixon Administration.

    We don’t live in that world anymore. Conspiracy theories only work if people believe that if they became public and could be exposed as true, there would be real consequences. There’s no reason to believe that anymore.

    1. Hillary Clinton isn’t going to be held accountable for anything she’s done. And whether what she did was illegal or the stories are true doesn’t have anything to do with the reason why. The reason why is because the American people don’t give a shit.

      1. Even a month ago, I’d have agreed. Now, she’s been fingered by the Obo administration, and I’m sure not because they wanted to; they had no choice.
        Did you watch Nixon getting slowly hung by his own petard? I think we are seeing the ‘grind slowly but exceedingly fine’ here and perhaps the Clinton name is not enough.

        1. I want to believe.

    2. There actually was quite a bit of WMD in Iraq. Was it the ongoing programs that we thought? No. But WMD existed.

      Somewhat ironically, we learned that from Wikileaks

      1. “WASHINGTON (AP) ? Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists’ strike against this country.

        Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it’s likely Saddam was involved.

        http://usatoday30.usatoday.com…..iraq_x.htm

        That poll was taken six months after we invaded Iraq.

        That persistent belief that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11 was about the anthrax attack and Bush Administration lies 1) that Saddam Hussein had mobile WMD labs (of which they produced bogus photos) and 2) that Saddam Hussein was collaborating with Al Qaeda.

        If the Iraqis had remnants of old munitions lying around from when their program was active, it was probably as big a surprise to Saddam Hussein as anyone.

        Saddam Hussein did not have an active WMD program. The Bush Administration Insisting otherwise was pure horseshit–and the American people know it.

        1. In fact, Colin Powell was so incensed about being bamboozled into presenting those bogus photos of mobile WMD labs, that he was instrumental in making sure that John Bolton wouldn’t be confirmed by Republicans in the Senate as the Bush Administration’s ambassador to the UN.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..Apr21.html

        2. Read the actual poll
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..082303.htm

          was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks – Very Like 32 Somewhat Likely 37

          “Yeah, maybe he could of…” 32%

  33. Regardless of the NYT and PBS attempts at spinning the latest info, we seem to be missing the Hill-apologist troop that usually shows up in a couple of hours after the key words hit the web.
    I watched Nixon slowly sink in the west; we may be fortunate enough to watch the Hil-bag sink in the east.

    1. Wonder who will be the left’s Goldwater to go to Hillary and tell her it’s over? Joe is poring over his Amtrak schedules about now.

    2. 300 tons yellowcake, a few scuds, and some expired chemicals. Not exactly frightening.

      Was there more?

  34. THE VENTURE BROTHERS ARE COMING BACK!!!!!!!!!!

    Season 6 midnight on JAN 31st.

  35. Clinton Camp and MSNBC (probably)

    “Clinton has no control over the secret nature of the emails. They just become classified all by themselves once they sneak into her private computer and / or email. For all we know, the emails with state secrets started out as a list of toppings for the Obama pizza”.

    ISIS

    “Oh no, America is too well guarded.”

  36. Proof that our country is disintegrating before our very eyes: EVEN OUR TRASHCANS ARE PRODUCED WITH THE “DISTRESSED” LOOK!

    http://www.theatlantic.com/ent…..99/424413/

  37. Yes, it’s like political masturbation

  38. Sometimes dude you jsut have to roll with it.

    http://www.Full-VPN.tk

    1. my roomate’s step-sister makes $68 an hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for five months but last month her pay was $12476 just working on the laptop for a few hours. read this post here

      ???????? http://www.netjoin10.com

  39. How often does a normal person get off scott free by just shrugging his shoulders and saying “eh, how am I supposed to know what I was doing?”

    1. In the government?

      When’s the last time someone in the federal government was held accountable?

  40. I have this vision where Hillary is the protagonist in that scene from Zoolander, being interviewed in her makeup chair:

    “Of course, being a Top Politician, I have a variety of looks I employ when the cameras are on. This one is called ‘The Philanderer.’ I use it when I’m being questioned about my husband’s affairs. It suggests a quiet dignity with subtle notes of disdain.”
    (whirls around in her chair to flash a bland, bitchy look at the interviewer, turns away)
    “…and this one is called ‘Maternity.’ I use it when I’m being questioned about emails. It’s at once warm and dismissive, it screams matriarchy.”
    (flashes exact same bland, bitchy look at interviewer)

  41. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  42. If you ask a question in a headline, you have a moral duty as a writer to attempt to answer it. The subhead does not count.

  43. There is no constitutional barrier to Presidential pardons other than those involving impeachment/removal penalties, so as far as federal criminal penalties, yes, a President has the power to self-pardon.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.