Hillary Clinton

Watch Obama Mildly Throw the Palest of Shade at Comey's Clinton Letter!

There's a norm, people! A norm!

|

Watch this brief clip of an interview with President Barack Obama from NowThisNews and decide for yourself if he's, as a Daily Beast headline suggests, "smacking down" FBI Director James Comey for his letter to members of Congress that his agency was investigating newly discovered emails connected to Hillary Clinton's private email servers:

Granted, Obama is not one to allow anger or frustration to creep into his pedantic tone except in very particularly calculated cases (being upset over mass shootings, for example). Even so, his response here seems relatively mild and doesn't really justify the Daily Beast's "Look who is destroying somebody else!" headlines. I wouldn't even describe him as "sharply" criticizing Comey as The New York Times does.

It's clear Obama doesn't agree with the decision but that's about it. He says about the timing of Comey's letter, "There is a norm that when we are investigating, we don't operate on innuendo. We don't operate on incomplete information. We don't operate on leaks."

Yeah, I would love Politifact to go through eight years of either The Washington Post or The New York Times (or both) and count the number of unnamed sources from somewhere within the Department of Justice who have talked about an investigation or case (here's one that took me about 30 seconds to find via Google).

And, of course, the further irony here is that Comey's letter makes it clear he has no plans to "operate" on innuendo, incomplete information, or leaks. "Leaks" is a particularly odd choice because this whole part of the scandal is because Comey went public about the state of the investigation, probably because of the administration's problems with containing leaks.

This brief clip of the interview also ends oddly, with Obama saying, "When this was investigated thoroughly the last time, the conclusion of the FBI, the conclusion of the Justice Department, the conclusion of repeated congressional investigations, was that she had made some mistakes, but that there wasn't a thing there that was prosecutable."

Er … yes … but … the entire point of Comey's letter is to let Congress know that after all those investigations and those conclusions, they discovered additional information that may end up being relevant. One does not have to agree or disagree with the investigation's conclusion to understand precisely why they now have to take a second look.

I do think there is a genuine, honest concern about the FBI in general talking publicly about the state of investigations. But the transparency here is pretty much justified by exactly how relentlessly political the entire fight has become. And Clinton didn't just make a mistake on how she handled her emails. Her responses have been misleading every step of the way. I really don't think Comey had the option of keeping his mouth shut that there would have to be additional investigations.

I am absolutely no fan of Comey's, whatsoever. He is completely dismissive (and insulting, even) in regards to the needs of citizens to protect their data from both governments and private hackers. But this is a mess entirely of Clinton's making, not Comey's, not the GOP cashing in on it politically, and not the media pursuing page views off it (don't judge me!).

Advertisement

NEXT: Obama Criticizes FBI for 'Innuendo,' Gawker Settles With Hulk Hogan, World Series Ends Tonight in Cleveland: P.M. Links

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. Lamest Between Two Ferns episode yet. Considering Obama himself was implicated in knowing she was skirting record archiving and intelligence security laws, his assurances aren’t worth much here. But by all means let’s suppress information that might be helpful for voters in making their choice next week. It’s not like transparency has been a huge concern up until now.

    1. Zach galifianakis sure has let himself go

      1. He’s trying a new hairstyle before he throws a pre-election party for Hillary.

        Nobody will be excited to throw Hillary her concession party the night of Nov 8. Hillary probably won’t even call Trump to congratulate him for winning.

        1. But she already paid for the fireworks and scheduled the FDNY for the event (which pissed off the firefighters)

        2. She’ll have Huma do it, just to stick the knife in. Huma will go to her grave knowing how badly she fucked up, and wishing like Winston for the bullet to put her out of her misery. But Hillary is an unforgiving bitch, and will deny Huma the peace.

          (Joking aside, I still think Trump’s gonna lose.)

      2. I knew you well.

      3. “Zach galifianakis sure has let himself go”

        Daddy bods are the new in thing.

  2. Wouldn’t, would.

    Has anyone asked how they reconcile this with Monday’s WH statement about Comey being a man of integrity?

    1. “palest of shade”

      Well, he’s only half-African.

      #MulattoLivesMatter

        1. Twice.

  3. The Democrats are in full on pants shitting mode.

    1. It is definitely leaking out the bottom of their pants.

      Obama is supposed to be the voice of reason to deflect the political disaster that cannot be contained but most people don’t like him, including young people.

    2. The fact that Obama is even commenting on (and being asked about yet another) scandal within his own administration suggests that they are in full pants-shitting mode.

      Obama has been one of the most aloof presidents in my lifetime– and yes, partially because he’s allowed to be aloof– and the fact that he’s come out of the woodwork on this latest email situation suggests that shit’s real and can no longer be ignored or deflected.

      1. I think Obama believes he has a good legacy. He cannot throw Hillary under the bus because she will take every down. He cannot ignore the issue because she has to win or Trump will appoint a new Attorney General and FBI Director who will indict Hillary. Obama is too closely tied to Hillary, so he is openly trying to save her.

        In the end, Hillary will lose and Obama will pardon her before he leaves office in January 2017. This will destroy and already bad legacy for Obama but he cannot risk Hillary being arrested. Hillary being arrested would cause millions of people to hold it against Democratic politicians around the country. I personally don’t think the Democratic Party would survive.

        1. Can she be pardoned before she is convicted ?

          Is that like qualified immunity for cops ?

          1. I believe she can be pardoned any time once she is indicted. Don’t need to wait for conviction. I’m not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

      2. The fact that he is visible on this one tells me that he’s worried about what’s on that laptop that will implicate him, personally.

        1. Yes, this angle also can’t be ignored.

          Maybe I have stars in my eyes… but can you imagine the media not demanding answers directly from say, a President Reagan in a similar situation? Or issuing public statements and editorials that they’re not interested in any new information from a possible criminal probe into former state department officials because it might affect the outcome of an election? Can you imagine that?

          1. The media went after Nixon for Watergate. The media went after Reagan for Iran-Contra. Rightly so.

            The media covers for Hillary this time. Brian Williams cannot get caught lying again. NBC might have to fire him.

          2. Let’s not forget that Casper Weinberg was indited the very weekend before the election between Bush I and Bill Clinton.

            The charges were dropped within a couple of weeks because of the statute of limitations.

        2. I doubt Obama has much to worry about personally. I think he just senses that the dynasty is in trouble, and unlike Hillary, I think he’s a true believer, so he doesn’t need self interest to be motivated to step in.

      3. Speaking of the anointed one, has anyone else seen that article (I’ll try to find the link) where Obama is all wee-weed up and telling blacks that Trump is threatening his legacy? Ok, here it is:

        Muh legacy, it’s all that matters!

        This guy is an insufferable horse’s ass. American citizens are not important, only your fucking legacy. I mean I’m sure that most blacks just sit around all day worrying about your fucking legacy. What a fucking asshole.

        1. Obama to black America: Picture me rollin’.

          1. President Poindexter

        2. Personally, I’m wondering if CNN could find two whiter guys to tell us how much this message is affecting the African American community.

          I mean, jesus, Butterfield is a white suit, white cadillac, and a white palm leaf hat away from having an R next to his name.

    3. Thing is, I don’t think that Comey’s letter did anything at all to drive Clinton’s numbers south. Proggies gonna prog.

      I think they underestimated the rabidity of Trump fans. What we’re seeing is a brainless lot of partisan lever-pulling zombies combined with a faction who will pull his lever simply because it pisses the establishment off. If it can get screeching out of the White House and Hillary’s own cultists and sycophants, all the better in their minds.

      Our country’s fever-pitch stupidity is an awesome (original sense of the word) thing to behold. No wonder the rest of the fucking world is terrified of us.

      1. Polls had started to slip for Clinton before Comey’s letter.

        I think it coincided with other news.

        I’ll give you a hint. It starts with “Obama”, ends with “care” and everyone hates it.

        1. Yeah, the drop in polls for hillary was far more closely timed to the announcement of huge increase in ACA premiums

          People aren’t as stupid as you might think

          1. They’re still pretty dumb. They trusted Obumbles.

      2. Like I’ve said too many times, when people are confronted with a situation where they start to realize they are being fucked over, they start to react. People are starting to realize that they are being lied to and fucked over by a government that has forgotten about the people in favor of their own personal gain. And when this happens, instead of rational and logical thought about how to fix what is wrong, people mostly tend more towards smashing store windows and setting stuff on fire. That’s just sadly the way it is. So instead of electing Rand Paul president, we get Donald Trump.

        1. Yeah, where has rational got us.
          Somebody on here recently made a post to the effect of ….do you want to be 80 years old and hoping for 5% of the vote for the LP.
          That kind of hit home, and I came to the realization that a trump win will blow everything up and finally wake everybody the fuck up.

          1. A Hillary win might do the same, just in a different way, and with the Middle East on fire with gasoline being dumped on it.

            1. Nah she’s just more of the same to most of the people who don’t spend much time paying attention to politics. She’s status quote same old same old it’s her turn vagina.
              Trump has never held office and is hated by the elites on both sides. If you took a George will quote and a maddow quote re: trump, you couldn’t tell who was who.

          2. To what end, though? So in 2020 team blue ousts him easily and establishes a permanent lock on the office?

            Is the hope for it all to get so bad that the second American civil war begins? It already appears that peaceful secession is impossible. Teem blue is especially violent in its rhetoric against that path. The Republic is already unable to do anything legal to put the federal government in check, it’s simply gotten too big. We theoretically could decide, en masse, to rework our Constitution to change voting such that we get sane candidates or pluralistic outcomes. That would take power away from the entrenched, and they know it, so it would never happen. Government never, ever cedes any power it has gotten.

            What options are left after the wake-everybody-the-fuck-up moment?

            1. Maybe the American public really isn’t done roasting itself and our Constitution yet.

              This seems just as plausible an outcome as any.

            2. There’s no way out. The USA will simply break up into several different countries. We’re now hopelessly divided thanks to our all so wonderful political class pitting us against each other for their own gain, for decades.

              After that our only hope is that the new leftists states do not have nukes after they fail, or that they cannot actually figure out how to make them work, which is a good possibility.

              1. Nukes in the hands of the Republic of Calizuela. *shudders*

                Nothing Lovecraft ever dreamed up could be as frightening as that.

              2. There’s no way out. The USA will simply break up into several different countries. We’re now hopelessly divided thanks to our all so wonderful political class pitting us against each other for their own gain, for decades.

                This can’t really happen. The ‘blues’ don’t really control anyplace that produces food or goods. They don’t have the guns. They don’t have the STEM folk. They’re all concentrated in places that can be pretty easily besieged.

                And nukes? There are no nukes in San Francisco or NYC. We don’t store nukes in cities.

                There are plenty in Kansas

            3. If you basically have a nice, comfortable life with lots of shit and kids to worry about, you’re better off with dame old dame hillary.
              If you’ve had it with the lies and hypocrisy and corruption and want to go full joker in the dark Knight, trump is your guy.

              1. And why can’t I have both ?

                I’m willing and prepared for the latter even though I have the former, more or less.

            4. The thing is that, people are awake. Those who woke up are put into cages made of all the things they least want to hurt. Their families, their jobs, their friends, their homes. Any move to escape your cage will result in hurting them. And they will make sure you feel at fault for the loss of everything you ever cared about. Greed doesn’t keep me trapped. I don’t want more shit, I just don’t want to lose the shit I have.

          3. ” trump win will blow everything up and finally wake everybody the fuck up.”

            Trump is a political defibrillator. Normally, you wouldn’t run 300 joules through your heart, but sometimes it’s the only thing that will work.

  4. Isn’t Obama kinda the boss of the whole operation?

    He’s got a pen and a phone last I heard.

    1. He learns about stuff in the papers just like the rest of us.

    2. That’s what necessitated this exact response. It’s his FBI, but it’s also his party hurt by his FBI. HRC, as usual, is putting democrats in untenable positions. So Obama is going to do as little as possible to help her so long as his own legacy remains intact.

    3. He has meddled in stuff that is not the President’s prerogative on numerous occasions.

      1. To wit, every sanctimonious speech about “common sense gun control” with teary-eyed resignation after every single fucking shooting, as if his proposal would save a single life anywhere at any time and wasn’t purely politically motivated.

    4. Obama only just heard from the news that he communicated classified information to Hillary’s server under an alias!

  5. “This brief clip of the interview also ends oddly, with Obama saying, “When this was investigated thoroughly the last time, the conclusion of the FBI, the conclusion of the Justice Department, the conclusion of repeated congressional investigations, was that she had made some mistakes, but that there wasn’t a thing there that was prosecutable.”

    There was plenty that was prosecutable, Mr Constitutional scholar, but Comey rewrote the statute to ensure that none of it would be.

    1. Yes, no reasonable prosecutor would take the case is what Comey said. In other words, no US Attorney in the Department of Justice, which is highly politicized by every President including Obama, would dare risk their political future prosecuting Hillary. Who cares what the laws says or that a federal Grand Jury would probably indict Hillary.

      1. What reasonable prosecutor could expect to get a DC jury to convict Hillary of anything ?

    2. I personally don’t blame Comey. The DOJ wouldn’t allow the FBI to convene a grand jury. Which meant they couldn’t really investigate it. I personally believe that is why he released all the investigation notes. To show everyone that the investigation was hobbled from the start. I also believe that the DOJ wasn’t willing to issue a warrant on the new emails discovered on Mr. Dangers computer. So, the director went public with the discovery to force a warrant. Of course this is all just a theory. But, it makes sense to me based on what has been published in the press.

      1. Comey should have done his job and publicly announced that there was probable cause to indict Hillary. Drop that corrupt sandwich on Lynch’s lap for Obama and Hillary to try and make disappear.

        Comey did not do his job and should resign. That would mean that the deputy director would totally cover for Hillary but these bureaucrats make me sick. They get paid great money to not do there jobs when it’s hard.

        Hillary brought this on herself and she has corrupt hacks covering for her.

        Drain the cesspool!

        1. “Comey should have done his job and publicly announced that there was probable cause to indict Hillary.”

          That’s pretty much what he did, minus the probable cause for indictment part. Honestly, He was probably correct in saying that no federal prosecutor would bring the case, as it was, to trial. Since the DOJ wouldn’t empanel a grand jury so they could issue subpoenas to gather evidence and compel testimony, there really wasn’t anything the FBI could do to further the investigation. So, he made his announcement and released all the investigation notes to show WHY they weren’t able to find enough evidence for a conviction. In doing that press conference and releasing the investigation notes (something that never happens BTW). He helped to expose the kid gloves the DOJ prosecutors used during the investigation. And, quite possibly, kept the investigation alive. But, like I said, that’s just my theory.

        2. Yeah, he took the heat protecting Hillary with his “no reasonable prosecutor” speech but she has no qualms about turning around and completely destroying him now that he poses a threat.

    3. the conclusion of the FBI,

      True

      the conclusion of the Justice Department,

      False. The DoJ reached no conclusions whatsoever on the email indictment. Lynch specifically stated that the DoJ would not make its own decision, but would go with whatever the FBI said.

      the conclusion of repeated congressional investigations,

      I was not aware that any Congressional investigation into this had reached the conclusion that it was all legal.

      1. ,

      2. Conducting official State Department business on a privately held server and destroying that data is absolutely a crime. There’s no question here that Hillary committed federal crimes, none.

        1. No, there isn’t. I was pointing out the Obama lied twice in one sentence.

          1. He’s just pacing himself.

      3. Forget it, he’s rolling.

  6. Is the girl giving the interview the one Anthony Weiner was sexting?

    1. Monica 2.0

    2. A Wiener is every where.

      1. Anthony can get Cubans legal now, so look out Monica 2.0

  7. I don’t really get it. The Democrats know full well how scandalous the Clintons are. Letting these people anywhere near the Whitehouse is insanity. There’s no way all of this is going anywhere if Hillary wins or not. It’s only going to get worse, and once in the Whitehouse, the Clintons will immediately start getting themselves into even more trouble. They just cannot help it, it’s who they are. Everyone is always talking about what Trump is doing to Republicans, but that’s nothing compared to what the Clintons will do to the Democrats. Hillary would enter the Whitehouse as the most unpopular president elected in modern history and there’s no way those approval ratings will ever go up. I can see her at below 20% approval rating by the end of 4 years.

    1. Who else do the Democrats have? Uncle Joe?

      The media says the Republicans are imploding but it really is the Democratic Party. The Republicans are being taken over by Libertarians and non-religious conservatives. The Democrats are fracturing and they have no good people nor any good positions, except free shit. The free shit position is wearing off because the people who want that didn’t get what they thought with Obama.

      I predict the Democratic Party will go through serious transformations after Hillary loses. Hillary was one of the last Old Guard Democrats that were tied to the Baby Boomers. Most new candidates in 2020 and after will probably be Gen Xers. Chelsea Clinton will be done in politics once her mom loses.

      1. What gives you any indication that libertarians are taking over the GOP? The libertarian candidate in the primary had to drop out after Iowa and was below 5% in the polls.

        1. The primary is state by state. Rand Paul dropping out after Iowa was on him. Iowa is a farming welfare state, not exactly Libertarianopia.

          Quite a few of Trump’s supporters are anti-establishment. Trump beat out firm statist RINOs in the primary.
          Some of what Trump wants to do is Libertarian other stuff is not.
          Liberty Risen book

          1. Rand dropped out after Iowa because there was no path forward. If it was a matter of Iowa not being the right state, he would have stayed in the race. He was polling under 5% nationally, he actually beat that in Iowa. Trump being anti-establishment doesn’t make him libertarian any more than it makes Bernie Sanders libertarian.

            1. Trump was not polling well either. The polls are skewed. Not that Rand would have won, but Rand was almost 100% different and better than all other Republicans. Trump completely laid waste to the other Republicans and the pundits never saw it coming. My point was that Rand dropped out because he didn’t do as well in Iowa. Iowa is not a strong state for Rand because Rand is against farm subsidies and Iowa is pro-farm subsidies-awkward. Rand might have done better after a few states. Who knows. Shoulda-woulda-coulda

              Notice that I didn’t say Trump was Libertarian. I said that some of what trump wants to do is Libertarian.

              1. The general voting public are politically illiterate. To them, Trump looked more anti-establishment, even though Rand is a lot more anti-establishment than Trump. The public education system in Murika has worked as expected.

                1. Trump looked more anti-establishment

                  That’s because he is. He is very Burlusconi-esque, and despite much of Euro-landia turning up their noses at him, if he were running for MP or for PM in many of these countries, he would be quite competitive, honestly (provided he spoke the native language, ironically enough).

                  even though Rand is a lot more anti-establishment than Trump

                  Troomp is every bit “Anti-establisment” as Rand. Rand’s Nolan score and Venn overlaps are simply much closer to yours than Troomp.

                  Troomp, from where I sit, for good or bad, has rewritten the political campaign rules. Whether they actually stick or normalise to pre-Troomp norms is anyone’s guess.

                  1. “He is very Burlusconi-esque”

                    You can just condense that to “Burlesque”.

              2. “Trump was not polling well either. The polls are skewed.”

                This is revisionist nonsense. The (primary) polls were not why pundits thought Trump had no chance. He led the polls from July until the end of the race, aside from a very brief period in 2015 where Ben Carson essentially tied him.

                http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..=hootsuite

                And in Iowa specifically, Trump underperformed and finished third despite leading the polls. I misremembered something – Rand didn’t get 5% there, though he did finish slightly above his polling average, not that that’s saying much. There’s nothing to suggest Rand would have had any significant success had he stayed in the race longer.

                http://www.realclearpolitics.c…..-3194.html

              3. Iowa is not a strong state for Rand because Rand is against farm subsidies and Iowa is pro-farm subsidies-awkward.

                Cruz said explicity “No’ Mo’ Corn Subsies”, and he won those Caucuses, even with Governor Barleycorn (R) actively and publicly excoriating and campaigning against him. It can be done.

                I have hope Paul can refine his message and, more importantly, his marketing of his message. That is the one thing that I hope Paul and other would-be 20/20 candidates, regardless of LP or TEAM RED, take to heart.

        2. Considering how many hit pieces this magazine wrote against Rand I would assume he was the most libertarian candidate. I think the writers around here were busy shitting themselves about Rand not wanting to throw gobs of money at planned parenthood and other fucktarded proggy causes as usual.

          So the Republican Party may be going libertarian, and in the opposite direction of the progeltarians around here without any contradiction. The only real question is what the hell direction is the LP going?

          I guess after Hillary is elected people can wail and nash their teeth about our future leader’s flaws despite covering or ignore her scandals, and writing 15 hit pieces against her opponent a day just like they both and moan about getting Trump now when they wrote numerous hit pieces against Rand when it mattered.

          1. That’s a huge exaggeration. There were a few somewhat critical articles about Paul, but that doesn’t mean they were hit pieces, and there was still far more positive coverage than negative. Libertarians regularly criticize Republicans and Democrats for being blind and silent about the flaws of their leaders, so we shouldn’t hold ourselves to a different standard.

            And I can’t even comprehend the last paragraph.

        3. Because the ONLY libertarians that ever get elected to any office anywhere do so AS REPUBLICANS.

          Because despite the virulent leftist infiltration of the Libertarian party and movement the fact remains that libertarian policy sits to the right of actual conservatism(not to be confused with ‘social conservatism’–whose ‘social’ modifier tells you EXACTLY what these people actually are).

          The libertarian candidate in the primaries–Rand Paul–got nothing but shit from the leftists who control way too much of the levers of influence in the larger libertarian movement just so that after he dropped out they could point to this as Republican hatred of libertarian ideals.

          Which they did and are still doing now–while STILL holding fast to the idiocy that libertarians need to cozy up to the SJW/prog controlled left.

      2. I fucking despise Biden just as much as I do the Clintons. He’s cut from the same mold, only knows how to keep himself out of trouble. But there’s no doubt that as a candidate, he’s an improvement over Clinton.

        1. I don’t disagree.

          We live in a world where someone with brain damage is a better candidate than Hillary.

          1. Who also has brain damage.

            It’s brain damage all the way down.

    2. After 4 years of her immigration policy and SC picks and burearocratic crony infestation into every nook and cranny of our lives, this will basically be a one party country on the national level.

      1. Forgot to mention the additional free shit she’ll implement to increase the 47% to a majority.

  8. Here’s how it works:
    When Trump questions whether the system is “rigged”, he’s showing a complete lack of respect for our democratic institutions, along with his own conspiratorial loserism.

    However…

    Our democracy is under attack from the FBI and House Republicans, who are in a conspiracy with the Vladimir Putin and the KGB (even though they haven’t existed in 25 years) to rig our democracy, and that is in no way over-the-top, or involves wearing tinfoil hats. They are out to get us. Believe it.

    And there is no cognitive dissonance at all in that. This is known.

    1. It makes perfect sense

    2. Wow. I expect that kind of crazy from random commenters on, say, Slate or Huffpo, but…OH. It’s Carville.

      1. That’s Snake Head to you son.

    3. What’s the GRU,chopped liver?

  9. Granted, Obama is not one to allow anger or frustration to creep into his pedantic tone

    Pedantic tone? Huh?

    I offer you “sanctimonious” to sufficiently describe his addresses of the American people.

  10. And, of course, the further irony here is that Comey’s letter makes it clear he has no plans to “operate” on innuendo, incomplete information, or leaks. “Leaks” is a particularly odd choice because this whole part of the scandal is because Comey went public about the state of the investigation, probably because of the administration’s problems with containing leaks.

    Comey is in an impossible situation here. His incredibly thin reasoning in not taking any action against Hillary Clinton was legitimate cause for believing the FBI was compromised by politics– even if those politics are simply the politics of the powerful, ie Hillary is “too big to fail” even if it’s not necessarily pro-forma partisan politics.

    But when they uncovered these emails on some other dude’s laptop– and yes, that’s what Anthony Weiner is to the state fucking department– he’s the “some chap named Bernard” in this case– Comey couldn’t possibly ignore them. He simply couldn’t. It would have come out later that they found the emails and around 50% of the electorate would have lost their complete shit and accused the FBI of actively engaging in a coverup had Comey not come clean early on. And an accusation of a coverup wouldn’t have been far from the truth.

    1. Comey is still free to not find anything “of substance” in this new round of emails– at which point the Democrats will swing back to believing that Comey is the picture of integrity. But he had to alert the People (aka Congress) about this. He simply had to.

      I mean, for fuck’s sake, when you’ve got the New York Fucking Times screaming that it doesn’t want to know anything about no secret Hillary Emails on a serial sexting husband Hillary’s top inner circle– that tells you everything you need to know about so-called Big Media Objectivity.

  11. I’m sure the Democrats would have applauded the FBI waiting until after the election to reveal something similar about the Bush administration.

  12. I still cannot decide whether I want Hillary to win so that even the slightest vestige of remaining trust and faith in the government is completely destroyed, or if I want Trump to win so that my salty prog tear barrels are filled and overflowing.

    1. I hoping for a Trump win and Hillary having a ‘Trading Place’s’ moment on the stage. ‘Turn those machines back on”

      1. I am stocking up on my tear buckets to collect those tasty tears from others.

        Funny movie!

      2. ‘Madame Secretary,I think your husband had a heart attack.’ ‘ FUCK HIM. TURN THOSE MACHINES ON!’

        1. Luckily, we won’t get a “We’re back Mortimer” Hillary cameo in Eddie Murphy’s next movie. After she loses, she will be toast forever.

    2. I think Trump should win and give Clinton a job in his cabinet.

  13. I haven’t been paying attention, but when did Obama go all gray? It’s a pity play isn’t it?

    1. We did that to him. I hope you’re happy.

      1. We should have been thanking him for screwing up the healthcare system of 350 million people. What are we thinking?

    2. Every President for some time looks haggard at the end of their term. All that bullshit piles up and makes all Presidents look ashy from head to toe.

      1. So maybe it pays to go in Orange, that way you avoid the ashen look.

    3. In 2008 I remember an article that was about US Presidents aging. It had 92 vs 200 Clinton and 2000 vs 2008 Bush. Then they had a photoshop of what Obama might look like if he gets two terms. It was quite a contrast.

      The photoshop actually underestimated how haggard he ended up looking. It’s a shit job that eats you up. I can understand people who want it the first time. To hang on for another four years – no way.

      1. If I had a job that allowed that much golf, vacation, party, and ESPN watching, I don’t think I’d age that badly.

        1. Shit, sorry Hyperion, didn’t bother to read below.

    4. His mother in-law lives with with. He’s lucky to be alive.

    5. It’s been a while now. 8 years of golf sure aged him. Imagine what it will do to Hillary. She’ll look like white Yoda before it’s over.

    6. He’s just in his fifties, FFS. A bit of hair dye would go politely unnoticed. Reagan had a lush black pompadour well into his eighties, and he won the Cold War, didn’t he? Coincidence? No fucking way it wasn’t. This is why Mike Pence is an affront to American democracy and Barack Obama not dying his hair will lead to armageddon.

      1. I’m in my 50s and the guy looks 10 years older than me, seriously. I have grey in my goatee, but not anything visible in my hair. And despite the daily nut punches here on Reason for the last 10 years, I still look younger than this guy, grey aside.

        Maybe it’s the knowledge of how you are fucking over your own people that does it?

        1. Maybe it’s the knowledge of how you are fucking over your own people that does it?

          Nah, it’s just Republican’s being mean by daring to exist. Fuckers.

        2. I was largely gray by my mid-30s – and my life is relatively stress-fre. Sometimes it just happens.

          1. I’ve read some fairly convincing articles that say that hair just turns grey when it does and stress doesn’t really bring it on.
            Most people who are president and don’t already have grey hair are around the age where most people’s hair turns grey.

      2. If Reagan dyed his hair, and I’m not saying that he did, it was only to look strong in front of the Russians.

        1. Somebody gets it.

  14. A while back, somebody wondered aloud about how the Germans woke up one day and found themselves responsible for the atrocities of WWII. I’m beginning to believe that this is how.

    Of course the system is rigged. I kinda wish the most widely available example weren’t so symbolically fixed and anachronistic. It makes it too easy for people who don’t give two shits about libertarianism to think “Don’t be stupid, don’t vote for Hitler.” and toss everything else aside (let alone read the actual book).

  15. The reality was that Germans had their choice of the SPD, who’s explicit aims were narrowing the income gap, expanding public education, providing insurance to workers, low-income housing, etc…. , the *actual* Communist Party, and the Nazis. Moreover, while people like to portray Trump and his supporters as Nazis it’s rather obvious that he’s a Wilhelm II and that Clinton isn’t exactly an ill-fit for a Friedrich Ebert suit, complete with Russians and deplorables as Dolchsto?legende.

    Not to say that we’re headed for WWIII, though it’s not outside the realm, but that I think the cartoon dramatically undersells the shittiness and sanctimoniousness of all sides as well as the interchangeability of the bits played in the debate about what role government should play.

  16. Prob is: some other people are serving time for same “innocent mistakes” made on similar level as those made by Hillary Clinton.

    Hence, the “make-up call”, like when a bad call is made by an official in a football game. Within a short time, an equally aggregious (sp) call is made against the other team. Neither is right, but to defend the honor of the officials, they need to make equally bad calls.

    FBI obviously caved under reigning Democrats and did not enforce its rules equally, so now must make up for it to defend its “impartiality” and raise issue again.

    Answer: Get it right the first time or be willing to backtrack. But, you know, GOV has its own interests.

    1. “Prob is: some other people are serving time for same “innocent mistakes” made on similar level as those made by Hillary Clinton”

      No one else has ever taken an official .gov email server home and put it in their closet and then destroyed the data on it. Ever. Period.

      1. Come on those blackies powell and rice did the same thing.

        1. Oh yeah, I forgot. They both had their own private email accounts on their phones. Shit, I totally forgot that is the same thing as trying to hide official state department business from the public by setting up an illicit server and deleting the data once you got investigated for it.

  17. Shackleford, I would like to complain. I try to support Reason, I don’t use adblock (on this site), and what do i get? A billion ads for Rachel Maddow and Elizabeth Warren.

    This is cruel and unusual punishment that is all, somehow, your fault.

    1. It’s not Reason’s fault that you have a fetish for Madcow and White Squaw.

  18. “There is a norm that when we are investigating, we don’t operate on innuendo. We don’t operate on incomplete information. We don’t operate on leaks.”

    To start with, there’s a hoary old adage about the ship of state being the only ship that leaks from the top, and to end with, look who’s suddenly a big fan of norms! Aren’t norms – like customs, traditions, habits, institutions – those old-fashioned conservative strait-jackets you progresssives keep whinging on about getting rid of? What happened to you, man? You used to be the champion of change and now you’re practically telling those damn kids to get off your lawn with those new-fangled ideas about how things ought to work? Bummer, dude.

  19. Has he ever done an interview he didn’t completely control? He is Putin without the girth.

    1. I think the only way to solve this new Russian threat is a caged fight between Putin and Obama. Let’s get it on!

      1. I think Putin has trained in Judo and Sambo.. It would be a short fight. Maybe Michael Weston can fill in.

        1. How about Michelle vs Putin?

          1. We all know it would end with the bald bear balls deep inside the first wookie. The only question would be who fucked who into submission! Now if you’ll excuse me; I’m going to go vomit.

        2. “I think Putin has trained in Judo and Sambo”

          But has he trained in Black Sambo?

          /simply could not resist

    2. Samantha Bee, Bill Maher, and this woman? Establishment DC media are laaaaaame.

    3. Putin without the beefcake.

      *swoons*

  20. Breaking News:

    The Washington Redskins finally drop offensive name:

    Dan Snyder, owner of the NFL Redskins, has announced that the team is dropping “Washington” from the team name, and it will henceforth be simply known as, “The Redskins.”

    It was reported that he finds the word ‘Washington’ imparts a negative image of poor leadership, mismanagement, corruption, cheating, lying, and graft, and is not a fitting role-model for young fans of football.

    1. Ok, you just made that shit up.

      1. Googled it, didn’t you.

        1. I actually found a graphic that claims the same thing, Counselor.

          No TWs, SFW, and no weird medical stuff.

          1. I did steal the joke, I admit.

    2. Lol, awesome

    3. It’s retard appropriation anyway…

    4. Bingo.

  21. Norms!

    Can’t believe it took this long.

    1. “Sometimes you wanna go.., Where everybody knows your name”

      Umm, no. People fucking suck.

      1. “Sometimes you wanna go.., Where everybody knows your name drink.”

        Much better.

  22. Comey has the problem with the potential leak. He was worried about FBI agents leaking the info on the new emails, and he is the one in charge of those agents.

    And regardless, potential leaks is a poor excuse to do something stupid, which he decided to do. Let’s count the ways…holding a press conference detailing a person who will not be charged with anything illegal, but Comey offering HIS opinion of all the things that person did wrong. Then, detailing for congress his findings, answering questions and promising further updates, when Congress had no right to any of it.

    And further, he decided this is a special case that gets special treatment in the media, and you buy it. You only buy it because it’s Hillary Clinton. The FBI is charged with investigation, period. And based on that they suggest charges or not. There aren’t special cases, or at least there shouldn’t be. You just bought into expanding FBI discretionary power based on who the defendant is. You don’t then get to whine about it in the future when it’s not Clinton bearing the brunt of it.

    1. “He was worried about FBI agents leaking the info on the new emails, and he is the one in charge of those agents.”

      Obey your masters, comrades. /bloop boink blop derp

      1. You actually read his whole post? Didn’t just scroll right past it? I’m in awe of you.

        1. Jackass ass is one of those farting shoulder-assholes Hillary’s got, as SugarFree revealed.

      2. If it were an R whose campaign Comey inserted himself into in the last week of an election you’d be calling for his nuts along with all the flapping heads on FOX News and everybody knows it including you.

        1. Here’s a thought: don’t nominate corrupt politicians to your party if you don’t want to suffer the indignity of them getting investigated.

          Crazy, I know.

          1. She had a private email account saved to a home server that she didn’t once misuse. Oh my, the vapors, I have never seen such corruption in all my days!

            1. “She had a private email account saved to a home server”
              Illegal

              ” that she didn’t once misuse.”
              You ignorant piece of shit; she stored classified material on that server. She also destroyed evidence from that server.

              “Oh my, the vapors, I have never seen such corruption in all my days!”
              Finally! Something that not be a lie. Congratulations, even though it was by accident.

            2. The lies and misdirection are getting pretty laughable at this point.

              How does one even “misuse” an email server? Did she leave salacious notes in the server logs? Did she maliciously craft SMTP responses?

              The emails are evidence, not the crime.

            3. Wow.

              Never mind SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE DONE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

              People like you keep dishonest people of low and moral character in power and in business.

              1. And spare me the bull shit lies about ‘it was an honest’ mistake. For someone who has been around for 30 years as we’re told there’s no way in fucken hell she didn’t know what she did was wrong.

              2. No no no. You don’t understand. She was absolved of all wrongdoing because she was apparently too stupid to know that what she was doing with her email was completely against procedure and would be illegal, except for her stupidity.

                Or, as we like to say, our next president.

            4. Tony eats the red crayons because he reds ones taste the best !!!!

              =D

            5. Really? Even she herself acknowledges she misused it at this point. Give it up Tony, really. She viewed/communicated sensitive information on unsecured devices. That’s a pretty big fucking breach of protocol for the head of the state department. Minimize it all you want, but the gall you have to say it didn’t happen or wasn’t wrong. Why don’t you go ahead and tell us how her poop is really chocolate ice cream.

        2. Tony, some of us just want to see the world burn. Well, figuratively. Not in the literal Hillary way.

        3. And if it was the media going after her Republican, instead of the FBI going after Hillary, you’d say, “stop whining.”

          Now, watch as Democrats whine to high heaven about the highest law enforcement agency of the US.

          Oh yea of little government faith.

    2. And regardless, potential leaks is a poor excuse to do something stupid, which he decided to do

      If you’re talking about letting Hillary slide on an admitted breach of the law, we’re entirely in agreement.

      Too big to fail always ends in tears.

      1. I love the way “telling the truth” is “doing something stupid” in Jack’s world.

    3. You just bought into expanding FBI discretionary power based on who the defendant is. You don’t then get to whine about it in the future when it’s not Clinton bearing the brunt of it.

      My irony meter just made a popping sound, and a little puff of smoke came out of it. Should I be worried?

      1. The capacitor on your irony meter needs to be replaced.

        1. Shows what you know “Doctor” he obviously needs to refill the magic smoke in his detector.

          1. Wouldn’t have this problem if he’d just quit using it as a bong.

    4. Then, detailing for congress his findings, answering questions and promising further updates, when Congress had no right to any of it.

      According to whom?

      1. I got news for you, buddy.

        Congress has the right to any information whatsoever in the possession of the federal government. About the only thing you can do to deny Congress information is plead the Fifth.

        1. Yeah, they don’t. I know libertarians like you could care less about civil liberties, but let’s leave to a law blog to detail for you why you should care about the FBI Director deciding on his own to update Congress:

          “This point is rooted in important civil liberties concerns. We don’t give the FBI the power to investigate people so that it can report on their characters or behavior, so that the FBI director can pronounce on the truthfulness of their public utterances (which Comey endeavored not to do and yet inevitably did repeatedly simply by reporting his findings). And we don’t give congressional committees the power of oversight, generally speaking, so that they can review individual prosecutorial decisions by flyspecking the details of the conduct of particular investigations vis a vis individual subjects. We give the FBI these powers so that it can investigate crimes. And if the Justice Department is not going to prosecute someone, it generally has no business talking about the conduct of that
          persons affairs.”

          You’re just another phony libertarian who frequents these pages, who loves law enforcement overreach when it suits you. Congrats.

          1. “Yeah, they don’t.”
            Bull
            .
            .
            shit
            “We don’t give the FBI the power to investigate people so that it can report on their characters or behavior, so that the FBI director can pronounce on the truthfulness of their public utterances (which Comey endeavored not to do and yet inevitably did repeatedly simply by reporting his findings).”
            Tell that to any number of people investigated by the FBI.

            “And we don’t give congressional committees the power of oversight, generally speaking, so that they can review individual prosecutorial decisions by flyspecking the details of the conduct of particular investigations vis a vis individual subjects.”
            The GM, Wells Fargo and Toyota managers would hasten to correct the liar you found.

            “We give the FBI these powers so that it can investigate crimes. And if the Justice Department is not going to prosecute someone, it generally has no business talking about the conduct of that person’s affairs.”
            Post hoc ergo propter hoc, you fucking ignoramus.

            You’re a pathetic excuse for a moral agent licking the ass of any lefty willing to drop his or her drawers.
            Fuck off.

          2. And if the Justice Department is not going to prosecute someone, it generally has no business talking about the conduct of that persons affairs

            How would the Justice Department know whether or not to prosecute someone if the FBI hasn’t concluded its investigation?

          3. “…report on their characters or behavior…”
            When they are suspected (reasonably) of criminal behavior, yeah, yeah they do have that right, indeed that duty. It’s kinda why they exist.

            And your trite nonsense about how out of line he was commenting on Hillary’s negligence is just precious. That line about extreme carelessness was the consolation prize for not pressing charges for a clear violation of the law. It’s not like he failed to find evidence of wrongdoing but decided to mention that she slept around at a press conference; he admitted that they found evidence of wrongdoing but that they wouldn’t prosecute her despite this because reasons. And then people like you say “why, what right does he have to say that!” Count your blessings, because if it were anyone else, it wouldn’t be ‘she was very careless and is free to go’; it would’ve been ‘she was very careless and is going to be charged due to gross negligence.” And you’re indignant on her behalf that he substituted some verbal criticism for prosecution. That’s rich.

      2. Apparently, Congress has no right to the details of an investigation into misconduct by an official of the United States government. That’s an… interesting view of the separation of powers.

        1. The powers! They’re s’posed to be separate! The FBI does what it wants, Hillary does what she wants, everyone leaves the theater grinning!

        2. Keebs, the Presidency is just like a teenager asserting his or her privacy space, where *YOU*, regardless who is paying the bills, buying food, and providing shelter and clothing (not mention all sorts of electronic goodies and medical care), must knock every time you want to enter, call your atty to get a court order so’s you can snoop around in there, or in any way breach the perimeter of the teen’s property partition. Yet they get to dictate to you they will operate, roam, and associate however and with whomever they damn well please.

          Comey is now CPS ready to tell the Parents that nothing can be done, the kid wins, and you better be nice to the kid and pay for college of his or her choice, CPS is a gonna be knockin’.

          1. I realize that the ends always justify the means for these people, but can they not think beyond one fucking election cycle and realize that, regardless of what happens in 2016, the “wrong” party will hold the office of the President once again, and their same tactics can and will be used against them?

          2. “Stay out of my room, respect my privacy and hey! When’s dinner?”

        3. They don’t. And you don’t want them to. See my above post. He did that of his own volition. You should demand that Congress subpoena him to get that info, and you should have preferred he stand on principle and refuse to give them that testimony. If you were cleared of any wrong doing, you would want the same.

          But then, you’re a phony, aren’t you?

          1. Hey Jackass. =D
            Someone wrote this song just for you.
            Have a great weekend. =D

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFiPANvxfDg

          2. Jackand Ace|11.2.16 @ 8:32PM|#
            “They don’t. And you don’t want them to. See my above post.”

            Your post above is a pack of lies. But then, you’re a pathetic excuse for a human being, aren’t you?

          3. Congress has every right to investigate official misconduct. It’s absurd to suggest there’s some kind of nefarious process at play here, or that there’s some great legal principle being violated that’s going to fall on all of our heads.

            If I was a lowly employee of the State Department and did what Clinton did, I guaran-fucking-tee you that I would not be able to write this comment because I’d be in ADX Florence and I’d never see the light of day again. I wouldn’t have had a nice chat session with the FBI where my lawyers get to decide what is and isn’t evidence. The FBI would have confiscated every electronic device I had ever touched.

            And if Congress decided to hold an inquiry into what I had done? Fucksticks like you wouldn’t even know my name or care to comment on it.

            You don’t have the right to call people “phony” because you don’t have a goddamn clue what you’re talking about.

          4. Jackand Ace|11.2.16 @ 8:32PM|#
            “They don’t. And you don’t want them to.”

            Further for those too young to have seen it and pea brains like Jack and the twit who wrote the screed, too fucking stupid (or possibly too blind) to have learned anything, the FBI and congress certainly do have those powers and they were amply on display when Nixon was finally hung by his own petard.
            Not one of the GOPers at the time made the laughable excuse that looking into the malfeasance of gov’t officials had to remain secret until there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, and if I read the SCOTUS ruling on turning over the tapes, the SCOTUS made it abundantly clear that the executive branch may not limit investigations or disclosure.
            Jack, as is common, you’ve made an ass of yourself.
            Fuck off.

    5. “And regardless, potential leaks is a poor excuse to do something stupid, which he decided to do”

      With your single-digit IQ, you’re going to guess whether something is stupid or not?
      Fuck off, you pathetic excuse for a human being.

    6. Oh, Jackand, quit whining about the FBI.

      The FBI is the highest level law enforcement office in the land. It can investigate whoever it wants, whatever it wants, and announce whatever it wants, within the law.

      Since you’re supposed to love government, quit whining and start pleasuring yourself while reading the Martin Act, and squealing with glee, Comey’s cock shoved firmly in your mouth.

  23. holding a press conference detailing a person who will not be charged with anything illegal, but Comey offering HIS opinion of all the things that person did wrong. Then, detailing for congress his findings, answering questions and promising further updates, when Congress had no right to any of it.

    I’m morbidly curious to hear what your proposed alternative here was? A quiet meeting between Bill and Lynch followed by a quiet dismissal of any/all charges regarding a presidential candidate who prima facie broke the law? Even if he quietly issued a statement, when Congress calls him, he’s got to answer and, once he’s in front of them and under oath, it’s not exactly his circus to run.

    1. This was meant in reply to Jackoff Ace, of course.

    2. As I stated in a previous thread, Comey really had no choice here. These weren’t wikileaks emails, these were emails that were uncovered during the course of an investigation. Had Comey held this back, he would have been accused of covering up and obscuring these details to drag Hillary over the line. He already took a lot of deserved flak for his findings during Hillary investigation 1.0. Had he kept this information secret, even the starry-eyed non-cynical people would have been calling for blood, and by them I mean Weld.

      1. No, no, no! Jackand Ace has found some great legal principle at play here! Which is why he’s talking about concrete reforms of FBI procedure and cases other than Hillary Clinton’s…

        Uh, oops.

    3. Good thing we have Jackand to warn us about the dangers of transparency.

      Apparently he lives under a rock where it is not routine for law enforcement agencies to announce that they are investigating high profile individuals even when they aren’t public officials.

  24. It’s also a norm to not have corrupt candidates running for office.

    Okay, I laughed typing that one.

  25. I’ve taken deliberate….to not meddle….’

    This guy. He should hit the comedy night circuit.

    I also reject the ‘she’s been in the arena for 30 years and you’re bound to find shit on anyone who serves for that long.’

    Er, no shit mostly because they are who we think they are. But it’s also insulting to the vast majority of people who actually, you know, don’t do stupid things and follow the law.

  26. “I do think there is a genuine, honest concern about the FBI in general talking publicly about the state of investigations”

    Investigations concerning political candidates and their possible malfeasance?
    I don’t.

  27. IF YOU DON’T WANT THE MEDIA CLIMBING ALL OVER YOUR CANDIDATE FOR EVERYTHING HE SAYS, DON’T NOMINATE TRUMP!

    IF YOU DON’T WANT LAW ENFORCEMENT CLIMBING ALL OVER YOUR CANDIDATE FOR EVERYTHING SHE DOES, DON’T NOMINATE HILLARY!

  28. the entire point of Comey’s letter is to let Congress know that after all those investigations and those conclusions, they discovered additional information that may end up being relevant. One does not have to agree or disagree with the investigation’s conclusion to understand precisely why they now have to take a second look.

    And most people in the general public…

    [ even the ones who didn’t quite understand the details of the “Server” versus ‘web based’ email distinctions, and the nature of classification protocols and the responsibilities of agency heads etc.]

    …*gets this*

    The problem with Obama & the media’s attempt to spin this shit as something Comey just invented out of thin air? Won’t work. Its hard to muddy the waters when the details are already pretty simple.

    Additionally, the Admin & Hilary have a problem fake-demanding “more transparency”… when they know the additional details just make matters worse.

    Because then people will realize that this isn’t JUST about the “classified emails”… because it also includes an entirely separate investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

    That suddenly makes Obama’s spin about “The FBI cleared this stuff up months ago” seem more like a bald-lie.

    1. While all true, the thing that makes Comey’s letter important in the publics’ mind(s?) is the Wiener connection, which itself is f***ing hilarious and must be causing the gods to be falling off their clouds laughing. Watch for the thuds!

      1. the thing that makes Comey’s letter important in the publics’ mind(s?) is the Wiener connection,

        you’re like the third person to say that, but i’m still not sure why everyone thinks the coincidental fact that “huma used to be married to that guy” somehow matters now more than it did…before they found the emails.

        i mean, i just dont see why everyone is so certain that that should be something everyone fixates about above the fact that the FBI is investigating the clinton foundation

  29. But this is a mess entirely of Clinton’s making, not Comey’s

    Er, no. Comey was too cute by half in announcing his decision not to recommend charges, but doing so in a way that absolutely justified bringing them. He invented a hitherto unknown pretext in attempting to discharge not just Hillary’s guilt in the crimes she committed, but his in obliquely dismissing them. He had an opportunity to behave ethically and he blew it trying to thread the needle. No sympathy for him, and anyone now singing his praises (not to mention his fair weather friends now condemning him in the harshest terms possible) are pathetic partisan hacks.

  30. Obama is a lying, mealy mouthed, sot.
    Lets ask Conan what he thinks of all of this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PQ6335puOc

  31. his pedantic tone

    That is one of the things that’s always bugged the shit out of me about the teleprompter-in-chief. His greatest achievement is winning a popularity contest by showing up with more victim cards that Hillary could muster back in ’08, and he has the nerve to lecture people who make an honest living. Seriously, fuck that guy.

    -jcr

    1. Some might say ending the Iraq War is his greatest achievement.

      1. Somebody should tell the Iraqis their war is over, they didn’t get the memo.

        1. I’m saying, of course, that there aren’t just shy of 200,000 of /Sarc our best and brightest /sarc fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here. Instead there’s a couple thousand special forces troops fighting with the Kurds to– I use the word unironically– liberate Mosul. Better now.

          1. I’m saying, imbecile, that not even Huffpo buys your bullshit:
            “Obama Came To Office To End Iraq War, May Leave Having Started A New One”
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..01694.html

            He’s also done a wonderful job in Afganistan:
            “The Death Toll Does Not Lie ? Afghanistan Is Obama’s War”
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..83441.html

            And we don’t even want to look at the slime he and that pathetic ‘candidate’ did in Libya; I’m sure you’ll apologize for that, too. You have no shame.

          2. AMSOC eats the red crayons because the red crayons taste the best. =D

            1. I’m sure commie-kid is gonna dismiss my claims since I linked to a member of the VRWC!

          3. So, you admit you lied?

      2. american socialist|11.2.16 @ 11:09PM|#
        “Some might say ending the Iraq War is his greatest achievement.”

        Some might say his discovery of unicorns is equal to his ending of the Iraq War.
        Do you associate with people stupid enough to believe that level of bullshit? Aren’t you embarrassed?
        Why not?

      3. I’m sure you share the same love of Nixon for ending the Vietnam war, right?

        Richard Nixon, progressive folk hero, I can see it now.

  32. I know I may be splitting hairs about inconsequential matters, but I’ve heard, possibly, that investigations involving Hillary Clinton should not clearly violate the 4th amendment. I know, I know legalistic concerns like these pale to the threat of the Clinton Body Count.

    1. Fourth Amendment violation?

      Jesus these talking points are pathetic. Normal people would not have gotten the deference that Clinton has.

    2. “I know I may be splitting hairs about inconsequential matters, but I’ve heard, possibly, that investigations involving Hillary Clinton should not clearly violate the 4th amendment”

      I doubt you’re “splitting hairs”. You’re flat out lying.

    3. Care to actually explain your thought?

    4. Well, you know, I’m all for the 4th amendment, but we have to be reasonable, and have some common sense regulations in place that keep people from endangering us all.

      You know: like the Secretary of State running classified documents through her own personal bathroom email server, managed by an IT guy who got laid off from Geek Squad.

      In an era where the Russians are clearly as out to get us as they were in 1950, especially with the New CyberWar, how can we let such carelessness stand?

      I’m all for rights and protections, but “living, breathing document” that changes with the needs of the times, yada yada yada, blah blah blah and all.

      Wouldn’t it be better for me if politicians weren’t allowed to have private communications and thoughts? Wouldn’t it be? Isn’t it just that simplistic?

  33. OK, as mentioned, my interest is a buddy who has paid for being a Cubs fan for many years, and my hope he’d get a smile. The Cubs were leading early on in this game, but if you are a real sports fan (not me), ya gotta love:
    “Cubs, Indians tied in the 9th”
    http://sfgate.stats.com/mlb/ga…..=05&vis=16

  34. I making dough, and I’m a nut.
    I think I’m Homer Simpson.
    Dough Nut.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH14axG_Z2A

  35. OK, the advertisers and likely MLB are not pleased; these are a mid-market and a no-market team duking it out, so there’s not a lot of dough to be made.
    But if you are a real fan of BB, how could you not like a tie at the end of the 9th, seventh game of the series?
    Go (one of the teams)!!!!

    1. Fuck man, Saul Alinsky’s home team won. Probably not a coincidence knowing what the Clintons are capable of.

      1. Fuck off, asshole.

  36. Ugh. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton running for president. The Cubs win the World Series. What a dismal year. Truly a sign of end times.

  37. Clearly there is a difference between innuendo against the bad guys where we all know we’ve only scratched the surface in uncovering their nefarious dealings behind the scenes, versus innuendo used against the good guys (or gal in this case), who we all know means well and is especially victimized by unfounded allegations seeking to make a big deal out of trivial things.

  38. Watch Now….!!! Recomended Streaming Online :
    If This Sound Good For You
    Latest Update More HD Quality Movie Available Here:
    ? ? ? http://bit.ly/2eA9W4k ? ? ?
    Happy & Enjoy to Watch For Free

  39. “I trust her. i know her.”
    pretty damning stuff right there

  40. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  41. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  42. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  43. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.