Posted on 01/11/2016 6:34:12 AM PST by Zakeet
Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal has been a difficult one for the public to understand and for journalists to explain. But Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter who helped uncover Watergate 40 years ago, clarified things a lot on Fox News Sunday today when he said that an e-mail in the most recently released batch shows Hillary trying to "subvert the rules" that she expected others to follow.
A few days earlier, Joe DiGenova, a well-respected former district attorney for the District of Columbia, told The Laura Ingraham Show that "there is vitriol of an intense amount developing" in the intelligence community and that FBI agents "are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if [the Justice Department] refuses to bring charges" against either Hillary Clinton or her former State Department staffers.
[Snip]
Only 23 percent of independents view her as "honest and trustworthy" in the latest Quinnipiac poll. Other Democrats, including Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, would be remiss if they weren't preparing a Plan B in case this number dips even lower, making her a more vulnerable general-election candidate.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Or stupid..
The ‘intelligence community’ isn’t so much siding with anyone as is out to get Hillary convicted with a “you’re either for us or against us” attitude toward anyone else involved - as in “you will approve indicting her, or we will spill so much of your merde that you’ll be indicted overnight. We look forward to a prosperous relationship for the rest of your term.”
bump
If she gets into the WH, heads will literally roll.
Nope. Not stupid. You don’t get into that position by being stupid.
Trying to publicly justify subversive actions with “proper” reasoning DOES come across as stupid; that doesn’t mean the subversive actions are the result of stupidity.
I contend that the man was over his on day one. What surprises me is that not one person or say a group of people haven’t been able to see through this guy in meetings? He’s clearly lazy. I don’t see him as the kind of guy who wants to learn all there is to know about a certain issue, because his decisions are all the same, and all political.
But still, how can leaders from our side not see this? How can the joint chiefs in these briefings not see it? What question’s does he ask at these meetings.
I picture the president lining up his advisors and asking their opinions, then you make a decision. George Bush said that the most surprising thing about the presidency was that almost all problems have a simple obvious answer. Why is it then, that this guy always makes dumb decisions? Leaving Iraq was the worst decision ever made...by a president in my life time.
Again: it’s because his goals are different from ours. His axioms are different.
He’s “lazy” and “doesn’t want to learn” precisely because he knows what he wants to do, and does it. As you said re: Bush, “almost all problems have a simple obvious answer” - ergo he need not consult anyone; his decisions seem “dumb” because we, the USA, are his opposition. He’s doing what makes sense in his priority...which is “expand the Caliphate”. Leaving Iraq was, in his goals, a resounding success - it dropped Iraq into the hands of radical extremists who are aggressively implementing the Caliphate, a resounding success to him and his ilk.
There is an odd dynamic in normal bureaucratic relationships: when someone is operating profoundly outside the norm, everyone else grows even more intent on preserving that norm. As a result, the Joint Chiefs et al are committed to doing their part, psychologically incapable of dropping their papers, shouting “WTF is wrong with you?”, and physically throwing him out the door (or at least ignoring him as they start proceedings to replace him). Pursuit of normality is oddly compelling. They have no concept how to deal with him AND everyone else who is still committed to preserving at least the illusion of normalicy.
They know that... I'm thankful they're taking this seriously.
We do have such a bunch, precisely because anyone & everyone prone to calling the Obama out was eliminated ASAP. Like North Korea and its Great Leader, nobody will speak up because very bad things happen very fast to those who do. Just this week, an Admiral was fired because he publicized the Obama buying a villa in Dubai. No tell-all books for the same reasons. Massive resignations? AFAIK that has basically happened, quickly replacing them with compliant patsies. Methinks that’s the basis of the “FBI revolt” brewing: enough agents realize that, compliant or not, betraying secrets IS consequential and regardless of their sociopolitical leanings they CANNOT survive such systemic abuse from the top.
An excellent point, sir!!!! I stand corrected.
A new bumper sticker: Depends for Hillary!
Hillary’s scandal is 100x worse than Watergate.
The wild card here is how much personal animosity there is between Hillary and Barky/ValJar. Lerner was just doing what her boss(es) wanted. HRC not so much.
Great post. That’s it in a nut shell.
I think you're correct, since they don't even care about their children's futures. They're selling their souls for a few more years of riding the gravy train. Their daughters will be wearing burkas and undergoing clitoridectomies. But that's OK if they can cram four more years of balls, state dinners, and living the good life in D.C.
Bttt!
Buddy, the dog that was resident in the White House from 1997 to 2001, was found killed in the Clinton residence after their departure from the White House.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Could you be thinking of some other dog? The press reported that Clinton’s dog Buddy was hit by a car in Chappaqua N.Y. and died there on Wednesday, January 2, 2002.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/03/buddy.killed/index.html?_s=PM:US
“The press reported....” Considering the history of the Power Couple, how they are reported has a VERY important bearing on how Buddy died.
I still call it Arkancide. The report of death from being hit by a car was for public consumption, and was staged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.