Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Love at First Sight at Clinton.com

Headlining Drudge most of yesterday: When Huma Met Hillary: ‘Our Eyes Connected’
When Huma Abedin first met her longtime friend and boss Hillary Clinton in 1996, she was hooked.

“Oh my God, she’s so beautiful and she’s so little!” Abedin recalled in a recent interview on the “Call Your Girlfriend” podcast about the first time she met the Democratic presidential candidate.

It was election night in 1996, and Abedin and a few other White House interns were at an event in Little Rock with the then-first couple. President Clinton had just defeated then-Kansas Sen. Bob Dole for re-election, and the crowd was electric, Abedin said.

“You know these things that happen in your life that just stick?” Abedin asked on the podcast.

“That she walked by and she shook my hand and our eyes connected and I just remember having this moment where I thought ‘wow, this is amazing.'”
I guess when you give up the Muslim Brotherhood as your guiding light, you're bound to fall for the next authoritarian that comes your way.

Add another former DOJ lawyer, Ron Sievert, to the group who insist that Hillary's email scandal rises to the level of prosecution.
Since the beginning of the Clinton email scandal, the nation has been subjected to a political and criminal defense generated smokescreen. The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her very unprotected server was not “marked as classified” or “classified at the time.”

The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document ... or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case.

The courts have held repeatedly that “national defense information” includes closely held military, foreign policy and intelligence information and that evidence that the information is classified is not necessary for a prosecution. Evidence that the information was upon later review found to be classified, however, as is the case with approximately 2,000 Clinton messages, is of course one kind of proof that the information met the test of “national defense information” in the first place. (See U.S. v. Rosen and Weissman, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Va. 2006) pertaining to a different provision but containing a good summary of law on national defense information and classified information.) The fact that the information does not have to be “marked classified” at the time only makes sense because sometimes, as in the case of the Clinton case and other 793 cases, the information is originated and distributed before any security officer can perform a review and put a classification mark on it.
So why hasn't she already been indicted?
Regardless, I am not confident that the Justice Department will indict. It is true that part of the reason is that the political appointees who make the final decisions will at least unconsciously be searching for ways to evaluate the case in a way that would evade an obvious debacle for the Democratic Party.

But there is more to it. Spending 25 years as an attorney and supervisor in U.S. Attorney’s offices and working with Main Justice in Washington provides an understanding of the process. Main Justice has not always had a reputation for being strong and aggressive, especially in the face of an intimidating defense. What a DA will indict in a week, and a U.S. Attorney in a month, will take Justice more than a year if they ever pull the trigger at all. They tend to be hamstrung by endless memos, briefs, meetings and approvals from multiple levels and divisions . . . A jury, which should make the final decision, may never get the chance.
According to Hillary, the FBI hasn't even gotten around to asking her about it yet. Is the DOJ running out the clock deliberately? And from the left wing media incest division, you'll never guess who is representing Clinton's aides in this case. David Gregory's (flashing illegal items on TV with impunity) wife. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it certainly exemplifies the fact that a certain political class sees itself above the law, and with a history to back that up.

Hillary is sick of the left: Why Bernie’s persistence is a powerful reminder of Clinton’s troubling centrism. And from what I see, the sick feeling is mutual. Even her one super special interest group: Hillary’s Woman Problem: Most Women Don’t Like Her. Women can be perceptive.

Could an Imaginary Candidate beat Hillary? Sadly, I think he might beat anyone in the race.

Another warning that Hillary is preparing to be "Trumped," Clinton prepares for Trump’s insult machine, which has already turned her way.
Clinton’s allies believe that Trump is intentionally zeroing in on a character trait that they see as her key strength — her work ethic. They think the Republican front-runner is trying to neutralize that strength and turn it into a weakness, with insinuations about Clinton’s health, fatigue level and even her appearance. To stop Trump, the campaign and Clinton’s network of supporters have begun planning a swift and aggressive response, they say. . . .“The purely sexist attacks on Hillary, the slightly veiled ones, are going to backfire [in the general election] in a way that they don’t in a primary,” Dunn added.
Girl card, played. Although it's getting less media attention than Trump's abortion fiasco, Hillary also stepped into the abortion abyss, angering both sides by declaring that an unborn person has no constitutional rights. It angers the pro-life side by declaring the fetus without constitutional rights (what, no penumbra?), and angered the left by acknowledging that it was a person at all. Well played! And what about Cesareans? Are people who are not born, but rather pulled out through the abdominal wall covered by the constitution? I hope we have a 9th justice by the time they have to decide that one!

‘Godmother’ Hillary shows her mob boss side
. . .What are these lies about her Hillary is so angry about? The specific claim that set her off didn’t come from the Sanders campaign but from a leftist activist who asked Clinton to defend taking “fossil-fuel” money. She said she didn’t — indeed, it’s illegal for any corporation to donate to a presidential campaign — but then she basically acted as though the activist were an official of the Sanders team spreading falsehoods about her.

The reason the charge makes her angry is that she knows it’s “sticky” — the kind of idea that goes viral. She had faced the same question a few times in previous weeks, all due to an article published by the radical group Greenpeace detailing $300,000 in donations to Clinton from people who work in the oil and gas industries.

But it’s not “sticky” because it’s about oil and gas. It’s sticky because it resonates with the idea that Clinton is a corporatist in liberal garb secretly plotting to serve the interests of big business and Wall Street against the modest folk. The supposed evils of Wall Street are the focus of the Sanders campaign, and one of the reasons Sanders is bedeviling Clinton’s every step is the ease with which he can tie her to them.
. . .
A politician with a natural sense of the negative emotions roiling inside her own party would have foregone such gigs. Did she need the money? Please. Her husband made more than $100 million in speaking fees between 2001 and 2013, when she left government. Surely she could have borrowed a couple of bucks from him if she was short before payday.

But she didn’t. She took the dough. And that helps to explain why she sputters with rage when confronted with the leftist-populist accusation she hasn’t been hard enough on corporations like oil-and-gas producers closely tied to the “millionaires and billionaires” Sanders excoriates hourly.
. . .
As Sollozzo the Turk, the outsider who decided to challenge Don Corleone, might have put it: “The Godmother is slippin’.”

To be fair, though, it’s likely that many Democrats feel free to vote for Sanders because they think it’s a free vote.
The Atlantic thinks that Hillary can co-opt Trump supporters by promising them free shit. That might be true. But even the Clinton campaign admits the  Nomination is Not Locked Up. Shorter translation; send mo' money.

No comments:

Post a Comment