Senate minority leader thinks he can set legislative agenda because …?

Schumer hints of compromise with Trump, but not on ObamaCare

President-elect Donald Trump is perhaps looking for a Democratic political ally in Sen. Chuck Schumer, considering the native New Yorkers’ long-time acquaintance. But the new Senate minority leader on Sunday made clear his limitations about any bipartisan efforts with the next president — especially on ObamaCare or easing banking regulations.

Schumer told “Fox News Sunday” that he and Trump could compromise on several different issues, considering Trump’s campaign “echoed the views of Democrats.”

He suggested bipartisan support on tax reform, a comprehensive transportation bill and an infrastructure spending bill — even within the first 100 days of the Trump administration, which begins January 20.

“I think blue-collar America voted for Donald Trump more on Democratic issues than on Republican issues,” said Schumer, who next year replaces retiring Nevada Sen. Harry Reid as the chamber’s top Senate Democrat. “We will work with him on those issues.”

Senator Schumer needs to read the second sentence in the opening paragraph above. The part where is says, you know, minority leader. Granted, Republicans currently hold a slim 51 – 48 lead (Louisiana race yet to be determined next month, but likely a Republican take), soon to be 52 – 48, but that means that it’s the Republicans who are in the majority, not the Democrats.

The fact that he’s willing to compromise on certain things is mighty big of him, too, but you know something? As the minority leader, he’s not quite on as solid of ground as he would like everyone to think. Why? Those pesky mid-term elections coming up in 2018, where Democrats will have to defend 25 seats, while Republicans only have to worry about 8.

Of those 25 Democrat seats up for re-election in 2018, 5 are deep in Republican territory – West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Missouri, Indiana – with 5 more in swing states that Trump took – Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan. So let’s see if my non-Common Core math is up to snuff here … 5 in deep red territory, plus 5 in swing state territory equals a potential 10 votes that could be added to the Republican vote totals on legislation over the next two years. Not saying that this will be the case every time, or even ever, but do you think that these ten Democrats won’t be pressured to cross the aisle to vote with Republicans on important legislation? All we need are 8 to cross the aisle to get a filibuster proof 60.

So Schumer claiming “ObamaCare, he won’t be able to do it,” and “Forget about repealing or modifying Dodd-Frank.”, seems to me to be more whistling past the graveyard than anything concrete.

Schumer also expressed opposition to Trump’s vow to “build a wall” along the southern U.S. border to keep out illegal immigrants unless he includes a plan for immigration reform.

“Put it all together,” said Schumer, who disagrees with the largely-held conservative argument that the first step to reform is to secure American borders.

Saying he’s opposed to Trump’s plans in general, let alone anything specific like the wall, is like saying water is wet. He’s a Democrat. But to get to what he said, what he really wants is “comprehensive immigration reform” (aka as amnesty for the illegals already here with a path to citizenship, and even less control of our borders than what we have now) passed along with any plans for a wall. Of course what he didn’t say is that if his ideas on “comprehensive immigration reform” are passed, no wall will ever be built, as our borders will effectively have been erased. That’s why we must insist on the wall first, while we enforce our current laws, before we look at any massive reform bill.

Schumer, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also made clear that Alabama GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, Trump’s pick as the next U.S. attorney general, is “going to need a very thorough vetting.”

Sessions, a former federal prosecutor, made comments in the past about gays, minorities and women that have hurt his career.

“Many of those statements, they’re old, but they’re still troubling,” Schumer said in the pre-taped interview. “There are lots of questions that have to be asked.”

He suggested his support for Sessions will depend largely on whether Sessions is committed to having a strong Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department.

Senator Sessions has been in the Senate since 1996. You haven’t taken the time to get to know him over the last 20 years? Seriously? Oh, I know, you’re going to dredge up the 30 year old “dirt” on him, and accuse him of still being a “racist”, fully aided and abetted by the Democrat propaganda team, aka the MSM – who have already started the smear campaign against Sessions. Then you make another veiled threat to not support him, based on what he plans on doing with the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ, which support I’m assuming you’ll withhold if he states that he’s going to clean it out, which absolutely needs to be done after the politicization of that Division by Holder and Lynch.

Senator Schumer, you might be your Party’s leader in the Senate, but don’t forget that your Party is in the minority, so you really don’t get to set the agenda. Please stop acting like you do.

So, what to do about Hillary?

Now that the election is over, what do we do about Hillary and her email scheme?

Congressional Clinton probes will go forward post-election, GOP lawmakers say

At least four congressional investigations into Hillary Clinton’s personal email use and mishandling of classified information are expected to go forward even after the former secretary of state’s election loss last week, Republican lawmakers tell Fox News.

The probes, which cover allegations that Clinton lied to Congress about her email practices in October 2015 and that government records were destroyed, are ongoing and not dependent on the election’s outcome, two senior Republican senators said.

“I still don’t have the information I need,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, told Fox News. Johnson said the work of his committee, with jurisdiction over government records and the mishandling of classified information, would be careful not to disrupt President-elect Donald Trump’s priorities.

“I think it’s one of the messages of this election that the public is disgusted when they see double standards, when they think people in high places, high government officials can get away with what ordinary citizens can’t,” he said. “So, I just think it’s extremely important to follow this thing through and get all the information. Make it public.”

A spokesperson for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said answers, not the political calendar, are driving investigators.

Continuing with the investigations into her exclusive use of an illegal, private email system designed to hide her activities while SecState from Congress and the American people, and the quid-pro-quo/pay-to-play allegations regarding the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, certainly seems worthwhile, but is it really? Here’s Andrew C. McCarthy’s take –

Will Obama Pardon Hillary? Should He?

White House press secretary Josh Earnest raised some eyebrows on Wednesday when he engaged on the question whether President Obama would pardon Hillary Clinton before leaving office. Earnest did not indicate that the president had made any commitment one way or the other, but the fact that he is clearly thinking about it is intriguing.

The question primarily arises because there is significant evidence of felony law violations. These do not only involve the mishandling of classified information and the conversion/destruction of government files (i.e., the former secretary of state’s government-related e-mails). It has also been credibly reported that the FBI is investigating pay-to-play corruption during Clinton’s State Department tenure, through the mechanism of the Clinton Foundation — the family “charity” by means of which the Clintons have become fabulously wealthy by leveraging their “public service.” Thus far, Mrs. Clinton has been spared prosecution, but we have learned that the e-mails aspect of the investigation was unduly limited (no grand jury was used); and the legal theory on which FBI director James Comey declined to seek charges is highly debatable, even if it has been rubber-stamped by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

So, if you’re a law and order type, like me, you’re probably cringing, like me, at the prospect that she could be pardoned – in effect, sweeping everything about this under the rug – thus proving without a doubt that there is a two-tiered “justice” system, one for the so-called elites, and one for everyone else.

If President Legacy doesn’t pardon her (perhaps in retribution for her not covering his rear end by losing, thus putting his “legacy” in peril), would President Elect Trump do so after he is sworn in? Let’s check in with Jazz Shaw on that –

So I guess we’re seriously discussing a pardon for Hillary Clinton now

Lock her up!

How many times did you hear that during the endless campaign of 2016? I lost count long ago. With the President Elect not tipping his hand at this point as to whether or not there will actually be a special prosecutor looking into Hillary Clinton’s “situation” we have no guidance as to how we should proceed. But as long as the possibility exits, plenty of pundits are speculating on the possibility that Barack Obama might want to issue a full and complete pardon to Clinton before he leaves office. Not too long ago I would have scoffed at the idea, but in what has already been one of the strangest years in American politics on record I’m no longer quite so sure. [Emphasis in the original]

After citing Andrew C. McCarthy’s article linked to above, he continues –

I’ve been mulling this one over for a couple of days and it seems to me that it’s a double edged sword for both the Republicans and the Democrats. Right up front I absolutely agree with Andrew’s statement in the linked article that, there is significant evidence of felony law violations. (And he explains the details very well.) If we look at this from an unbiased, law and order perspective, you can certainly make the argument that a full investigation is called for and a trial if the results indicate such is required. This is essentially the argument in favor of going after her. But this is one of those cases where you simply can’t extract the politics from the equation.

Arguments against pursuing such a course of action seem to be centered on the political fallout and potential blow back from Democrats in Congress and among their rank and file voters. That’s probably overstated. It’s not as if the Democrats are lining up to “work with the new President” in any meaningful way and most of Hillary’s voters weren’t going to be helping us out in the midterms anyway. But it could certainly build on the perception of Trump as a bully who is seeking to punish his enemies via the power of his office and that might turn off some of the voters in the middle. [Emphasis in the original]

I too have been mulling this over the last couple of days, but I differ slightly with Jazz here, in that, if Trump does push for a Special Prosecutor, I think blow back from Democrats, both in Congress and the rank and file, is something to be taken into consideration, if you also consider the outrage machine quaintly known as the MSM that would be in full throat, spilling vast quantities of ink. But I do agree that voters in the middle would look askance at Trump – with the accusations coming from the outrage machine quaintly known as the MSM that Trump is being the big, bad bully that they always said he was.

So, what to do about Hillary? Since I think this is now a six of one, half dozen of the other, damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation, I have no idea … nope, I got nothin’.

I do think that something needs to be done, if for no other reason than to change the perception of a two tiered “justice” system, but exactly what, and how to do that unknown what? Like I said, I got nothin’.

How about you? If you could finish this sentence, what would you say? “I think Hillary should …”

Are We Headed For A Constitutional Crisis? Updated.

UPDATE – Well, the one thing I didn’t take into consideration – at all, which was a big mistake on my part – happened Sunday. FBI Director Comey punted again, just like he did in July, which means just about everything I wrote below is now moot. I’m leaving it up though as a “teaching moment”, both to myself and to anyone else that is thinking about (or is) blogging, and that would be to think things through as far as you can before you embarrass yourself …

Original post follows –

Maybe.

It depends.

It depends on a number of things happening.

It depends on what we, as a voting body, do this coming Tuesday.

It depends on what is found on a certain laptop, in a certain investigation. Actually, in two investigations.

Let’s look at this starting with the on-going investigations – plural. One investigation is, ICYMI, whether or not Hillary Clinton, during her term as Secretary of State sent and/or received classified material through her private, illegal, non-secure home-brew email server(s). As you may recall, during his now famous (infamous?) press conference back in July, FBI Director James Comey told all of us that yes, classified material went through her private, illegal, non-secure home-brew email server(s), but that she had no intent to harm US National Security, and because she had no intent to cause any harm, no reasonable prosecutor would seek to indict her, irrespective of the fact that the pertinent statute doesn’t require that there be intent. There has been a tremendous amount written on this subject, including by yours truly (mainly in a different venue than this), both in praise, and vilification, of Director Comey’s decision. More on that decision later.

The other investigation, which was first reported by Fox News at the beginning of this year, but largely ignored until they couldn’t any more by the MSM, due to the negative nature in regards to their “favored one”, is about the investigation into the pay-to-play allegations leveled at the Clinton Foundation, the allegations being that donors to the Foundation were given “special access” to Hillary Clinton, and by extension the US Government, while she was Secretary of State, and that those donations were in fact bribes that enriched not only Hillary, but especially Bill as well.

It has been reported (originally by the WSJ, but a subscription is required, so no link – sorry.) that the DoJ has tried to either slow walk both investigations, or to even halt both investigations, and as a result, there is a feud between FBI investigators who want to see these investigations proceed to their natural conclusion no matter what that is, and DoJ attorneys who, as Lynch loyalists – and by extension, Clinton loyalists – want all of this to just go away. Unfortunately for the DoJ, and fortunately for We the People, several Congressional Committee Chairs have said that they will be investigating all of this no matter what happens this coming Tuesday, which is what I want to explore now.

This Tuesday, those of us who are eligible to vote (if you’re dead, please stay in the ground – this election is weird enough already), if we decide to vote, have the unenviable position of having to choose between two people who are the least liked candidates in modern memory to be running for the Presidency of the United States. Much has been written by many, including by yours truly, decrying these choices as the awful choices that they are, each candidate being declared to be unfit for the office that they seek, for a multitude of reasons. Only one candidate, however, is under not just one, but two, FBI criminal investigations (they are most certainly not “security reviews” – the FBI does not do “security reviews”), and that candidate is Hillary Clinton.

So, what happens after Tuesday, after all of the votes have been counted?

One of two things may occur. Either the FBI will be investigating a private citizen (who will probably be pardoned by the current occupant of the WH, effectively ending the investigation where she is concerned), or the FBI will be investigating President-Elect Hillary Clinton. No matter what the current occupant of the WH does in regards to a pardon, if she wins the election Tuesday, in my opinion we are headed for a Constitutional crisis. Remember Comey’s decision in July? At the time, I was stunned. I felt sure that they were going to indict her, and eventually we would be rid of this horrid, horrid woman. Imagine my disappointment.

I think I now understand why he made that decision, with information that has come to light since that decision. Information such as what Andrew C. McCarthy of NRO has detailed (see link above), and the big one – that the current occupant of the WH had communicated with Clinton, using an alias, and sending it to her via her private, illegal, non-secure home-brew email server(s), despite telling the American people that he learned about her private, illegal, non-secure home-brew email server(s) from the news. Comey knew that if he went after Clinton, he would also have to go after the current occupant of the WH, which would trigger a potential Constitutional crisis right there. As a secondary consideration, Comey had to know that if he did push for an indictment that it would be “career suicide”. So, he punted. Kicked the can down the road. Deferred action. Hoped that nothing new would come up …

Oops.

The bombshell revelation that Anthony Weiner, estranged husband of long time Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who is being investigated for sexting with a minor girl, had approximately 650,000 emails on his laptop, tens of thousands of which are known to have gone through Clinton’s private, illegal, non-secure home-brew email server(s), kicked that can right back down the road in front of God and everybody, making it impossible to ignore, despite every attempt by the MSM to do just that. By following through on his promise during his Congressional testimony to notify Congress of any new developments in the case (his decision also lit a firestorm of criticism as several on the Left have called for his resignation, with Harry Reid even going so far as to laughably insinuate that Comey had violated the Hatch Act, which he has not), his decision has caused many, including me, to wonder “What’s next?”, hence this post.

To me the “What’s next?” is, if Trump wins Tuesday, Clinton will get an immediate pardon, stopping any and all investigations of her personally (but not necessarily the Foundation), and keeping her out of prison, but also, I think, effectively removing her from public life, thus no Constitutional crisis. However, a Trump victory is not a sure thing. If Clinton wins?

All bets are off.

See above.

Friday Emailgate update

Emailgate. It ain’t over, folks. Not by a long shot.

In spite of the almost manic attempt of the Left and their media allies to deflect and distract from the fact that these two investigations of their “chosen one” are on-going, guess what? They are still on-going.

Also, in spite of the almost manic attempt by some in the DoJ to derail the investigations into Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email system while she was SecState and the pay-to-play scandal involving the Clinton Foundation, thanks to Clinton’s long time aide, Huma Abedin’s hoarding habit, and her husband, Anthony Weiner’s inability to keep his hands out of his pants and off of his phone at the same time, and the feud that has apparently erupted between the FBI investigators (who want to take the investigation to the end) and the DoJ lawyers (who are loyal to Loretta Lynch, and by extension, Clinton, and don’t want this to go anywhere for obvious reasons), we now know that there is mounting evidence – against whom is still unknown at this time – that will almost surely result in an indictment, or indictments, being handed down.

So, what happens if Clinton is elected? Will the investigations stop? Gregg Jarrett of Fox.com has laid out some scenario’s of the possibilities –

She could resign before or after inauguration, leaving President Tim Kaine sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office.

President Obama could pardon her before he departs that same office.

Clinton, as president, could try to invoke broad constitutional immunity from prosecution, delaying her criminal trial until after she leaves office. Or she could pardon herself. 

Yeah, you read that last part right – she could pardon herself. But, that would forever lay to rest any further political aspirations, such as a second term, that she may have, and with her lust for power, you just know that would gall her to her rotten core. Even if she did pardon herself, a Republican led House could (and probably would if she were to be so arrogant as to pardon herself) still bring her up on impeachment charges.

As for the investigations stopping if she’s elected? That won’t happen – they will continue, as Bret Baier explained in the video above. The evidence is mounting for both cases, including the fact that new emails are on the Abedin/Weiner laptop that are not duplicates of emails previously released (whether those are significant or not remains to be determined).

The other thing to consider here is that it is being reported that there is a 99% certainty – certainty – that Clinton’s unsecured email server was hacked by foreign operators, thereby exposing all of that classified material that she falsely claimed was not there, despite her assertion to the contrary (after all, there were Secret Service agents at her house, so the server(s) must have been safe, right?).

One of the more ludicrous claims being made, is being made by President CoverHisAss, that all she did was make “an honest mistake” –

The words “honest” and “Clinton” are like oil and water. They do not mix, they are not compatible together, they are polar opposites. Hillary simply cannot be honest. It’s just not in her. She’s a congenital liar, as William Saffire so eloquently pointed out in 1996!

She is criminally unfit to hold office – any office.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wednesday Emailgate update

FBI never asked Clinton aides for all their devices

The FBI never asked Hillary Clinton’s top aides to turn over all the computers and smartphones they used while Clinton was secretary of state, an omission that is now triggering questions from Republican lawmakers.

While the FBI made a concerted effort to obtain all the computers that were used as Clinton’s private server and ultimately asked two of Clinton’s lawyers for laptops used to review her email messages, investigators never requested or demanded all equipment her top staffers used for work purposes during her four years at State, a source familiar with the investigation told POLITICO.

“No one was asked for devices by the FBI,” said the source, who requested anonymity.

The decision left the FBI at least partially dependent on the aides’ attorneys’ decisions about which messages were work-related and therefore might have contained classified information the agents were looking for. Those messages were turned over to State in response to its request last year.

GOP lawmakers say the decision not to demand the aides’ electronics, or even to ask for them, raises doubts about how the FBI and prosecutors handled the probe.

“The more we learn about the FBI’s initial investigation into Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server, the more questions we have about the thoroughness of the investigation and the administration’s conclusion to not prosecute her for mishandling classified information,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) told POLITICO on Tuesday.

This entire investigation was going nowhere, really, from the beginning because of one salient fact – President Anonymous and Hillary Clinton communicated with each other via her illegal, private, home brewed email system before he denied knowing about it before learning about it through media reports “just like everybody else”.

That’s why no grand jury was ever formed. That’s why no subpoena’s were ever issued, let alone requested. That’s why the odd side deals and immunity grants were made. That’s why this case was closed.

That’s why the revelation that there are upwards of 650,000 stored emails on a laptop shared by Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife, Huma Abedin, of which thousands (possibly more than 10,000) of emails are known to have gone through Clinton’s email server is so important, and that is why Senator Grassley’s letter to FBI Director Comey is important as well, as Grassley asks Comey to explain just what really happened in the investigation of Clinton’s email system and also the investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Grassley has requested that all of the questions be answered by Comey no later than November 4th.

The following is my opinion only, based on pure speculation, which should be taken with a large grain of salt, honestly. I have no crystal ball, or any “secret knowledge” – I just have time to think about stuff, roll it around in my brain and see if anything remotely logical plops out. Ready? Here goes.

If Comey replies that his investigators were frustrated or impeded by DoJ officials through denial of subpoena’s; that the DoJ refused to form a grand jury; that DoJ officials told FBI investigators to back off in any way, this will possibly cause a constitutional crisis of greater magnitude than Watergate ever was. It could, might, maybe, possibly force Clinton to step down – either as candidate for President, or from the office itself if elected. This all depends, of course, on how Comey responds to Sen. Grassley.

We have between now and November 4th to find out.

Monday Emailgate update

It’s Monday, and a lot has been reported over the weekend regarding the FBI investigation into Clinton’s exclusive use of a private server during her term as SecState, quite a bit of which I linked to in my previous posts which you can see by scrolling down from this post. Let’s get to the latest stuff though, shall we?

Laptop in FBI’s Weiner sexting case had ‘state.gov,’ Clinton-related emails, source says

FBI Director James Comey’s decision to revisit the Hillary Clinton email-private server case was triggered by the discovery of Clinton-related emails in a separate sexting investigation involving ex-New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, a government source told Fox News on Sunday.

The source said an analysis of the metadata on Weiner’s computer has turned up “positive hits for state.gov and HRC emails,” which led Comey to revisit the FBI investigation into Clinton using a private email server system while secretary of state. A second law enforcement source confirmed the account.

Weiner is the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. He resigned from Congress in 2011, after a sexting scandal.

That Clinton-related emails were on Weiner’s computer, which he purportedly shared with Abedin, was reported first by The Wall Street Journal. [Note: Subscription required]

From what I’ve read elsewhere, the WSJ reports that there are approximately 650,000 emails that the FBI will have to sift through to pull out any that pertain to the case against Weiner, and any that pertain to Clinton, from all of the rest of the emails, which I’m going to presume are not related to either case (family, other work related, etc. – you know, the usual stuff everybody has). Apparently though, as I reported yesterday, there are approximately 10,000 emails directly pertaining to Clinton, which is an astonishing number. Granting that many, if possibly not most, are duplicates of emails already discovered elsewhere during the investigation, any new emails will have to be checked for classified information, which will take potentially weeks, well after Election day, to complete. Regardless of what is found, the mere fact that there were any Clinton related emails on this laptop may prove problematic for Abedin, as she could be brought up on perjury charges for not turning over these emails after previously swearing under oath that she had turned over all work related emails. Apparently Clinton has yet to talk to Abedin about this situation. I imagine that it may be a bit awkward, don’t you think?

There is more to read there so I encourage you to do so. In related news –

FBI Obtains Warrant for Newly Discovered Emails in Clinton Probe — as Reid Accuses Comey of Hatch Act Violation

The FBI obtained a warrant to search emails related to the probe of Hillary Clinton’s private server that were discovered on ex-congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop, law enforcement officials confirmed Sunday.

The warrant came two days after FBI Director James Comey revealed the existence of the emails, which law enforcement sources said were linked to Weiner’s estranged wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The sources said Abedin used the same laptop to send thousands of emails to Clinton.

The FBI already had a warrant to search Weiner’s laptop, but that only applied to evidence of his allegedly illicit communications with an underage girl.

Agents will now compare the latest batch of messages with those that have already been investigated to determine whether any classified information was sent from Clinton’s server.

Comey’s disclosure included few details about what the emails contained. In a letter to Congress, he said the FBI learned “of the existence of e-mails that appear to be pertinent” to the Clinton probe, but he added that the agency “cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant.”

As I reported earlier (see previous posts), the FBI couldn’t look at the contents of the Clinton related emails because they were outside the scope of the search warrant in the Weiner investigation. Apparently there was enough in the headers of the Clinton related emails to seek and obtain a search warrant for those Sunday, which leads me to speculate that there really are new emails that have not previously been seen in the Clinton investigation that they prompted the FBI to seek the warrant on Sunday. If they were “old news”, or mundane, they would have waited until today at the earliest to seek the warrant.

The revelation ignited fierce criticism. Citing the longstanding practice of avoiding even the appearance of acting in a manner that could tip the political scales, former Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller said that “most people, when they hear that the FBI is involved, automatically assume the negative.”

Clinton called the move an “unprecedented” departure from FBI policy, and on Sunday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid scolded Comey for potentially breaking the law.

“Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be clear intent to aid one political party over another,” the letter says. “I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act.”

The act bars government officials from using their authority to influence elections.

Reid also accused Comey of shielding Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump from scrutiny over his connections to Russia, saying “it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination” between Trump and his advisers and the Russian government.

As I also reported yesterday, Comey came under fire from the Left for releasing the letter he sent to Congressional Committees stating his intent to re-open the case against Clinton because of what they found in the unrelated Weiner case, without specifying what case it was, which was the “cover” the Left used to express their “outrage” toward him, when in actual fact, they were outraged that he had the temerity to continue investigating Clinton after “exonerating” her (which he didn’t).

Clinton’s comments notwithstanding, what is truly “unprecedented” is a Cabinet Secretary exclusively using a home brewed, private, email system in order to cover up and conceal all of her communications from government over sight, and the American people. Not only is that unprecedented, it’s also illegal.

As for Senator Reid? I think this is his last act before retirement, and I don’t think his comments are to be taken seriously. Indeed, it’s my personal opinion that Senator Reid himself should not be taken seriously. Of course, YMMV.

John Sexton of Hot Air has his take on the warrant topic here, and is worth the read – especially the silly tweet near the end by HuffPo writer Sam Stein. Timing is everything Sam. (Sorry, I won’t link to HuffPo)

Last, but not least, for this post, Fox News contributor KT McFarland has an excellent opinion piece on the wrong lessons learned by Hillary Clinton in her early career here that is definitely worth the time.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t

James Comey: Caught between the Devil and the deep blue [C]

From Hot Air columnist Jazz Shaw –

The rest of the Hot Air team covered the FBI bombshell last night quite thoroughly and not a lot has changed overnight. We still have that letter to Congress from the Director sitting out there like the proverbial turd in the punch bowl, with proclamations and demands coming in from the candidates and spokesmodels for both parties. Without more information to go on in terms of precisely what was found on the “device” shared by Huma Abedin and her estranged (with emphasis on the “strange” part) husband, political analysts are left with little to sink their teeth into.

Related, from Allahpundit, also of Hot Air –

Just a reminder: Democrats and their lousy candidate left Comey with no good options

Back in July, when Comey gave his presser stating that Clinton was reckless among other things, with her email set up yet let her off the hook, many on the Right – including me – howled with outrage at the fact that, in essence, the FBI and DoJ had “punted” on a sure fire, slam dunk (to mix metaphors) easy case, stating at the time that no prosecutor would file charges.

I had been blogging for months (at a different venue) about Clinton’s email scandal, along with many others that A) write at venues that actually have readers, and B) get paid to do this, and so I had a vested interest in hearing what Comey had to say. To say I was disappointed in what he said at his news conference is a gross understatement. Rather, I was quite shocked and, yes, outraged at his conclusions. I mean, he goes to all the trouble to say how bad this all was, but wasn’t going to do anything about it? C’mon, man! SERIOUSLY?!?!?! I can only imagine how people such as Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne at Fox News, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, John Schindler at XX Committee, et al. felt at the same time, after all of the hard work they did covering this scandal (that I admittedly piggy back on – hey, I don’t have their sources, so they are my sources, ok?).

The backlash to his statements from the Right was nearly instantaneous, and was blistering in the heat applied with many calling for his resignation (including me), while at the same time those on the Left, who had been excoriating the investigation the entire time, saying it was a waste of time and tax payer dollars, and incessantly calling on Comey to end it all, were now suddenly coming to his defense, saying what an honorable, honest, and fair broker he was, and that the Right should leave him alone because he “did the right thing” by “exonerating” Clinton (when he did nothing of the sort).

Everyone on the Left was now happy and mollified, thinking this was all behind us, put to bed, buried, so totally over, while those of us on the Right, although down, weren’t out of this fight quite yet, and kept digging, and digging, sharing with the world whatever we were able to dig up, and then BOOM! A bolt out of the blue that absolutely NO ONE saw coming. FBI Director James Comey sends a letter to various Congressional Committee Chairs AND TO RANKING MEMBERS (that means Democrats, folks), stating that new emails had come to light in the case against Clinton, and that they were reopening the case. In that letter, Comey left things quite vague as to just what exactly they had found, but we have all since learned that it was because of tens of thousands of emails found on a computer shared by Huma Abedin, senior aide to Clinton, and her husband Anthony Weiner, that were from/to Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secrtary of State that were not turned over to State when Abedin left, as required by law. She has made a statement saying that she has no idea how all of those emails got there, but I’ll leave that for another post.

Well, by sending that letter, Comey has rather annoyed some folks, including his boss AG Lynch, and several Democrat Congress types, who are saying that “it’s unprecedented!”, “it’s something that just isn’t done!”, “it’s OUTRAGEOUS that he did this so close to the election!”, among other aspersions thrown his way, and many on the Right now saying how brave he is, it’s the right thing to do, etc. in an effort to come to his defense, and for those on the Left to leave him alone.

In July, it was damned if he did, and damned if he didn’t. Amazingly enough, now that it’s the end of October, he still finds himself in basically the same position. I, for one, would NOT want to be in his position.

Will these new revelations matter?

Update: 1,000 Clinton-Petraeus emails missing from records sent to State, FBI files show

Roughly 1,000 emails between Hillary Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus were thought to be missing from the 30,000 emails provided by Clinton’s team to the State Department in December 2014, according to the newly released FBI investigative files.

Additional documents obtained through a federal lawsuit by Judicial Watch show Clinton had directed Petraeus to send her emails at her personal address, which was used for all government work during her tenure as secretary of state.

In a heavily redacted FBI interview summary from Aug. 17, 2015, a State Department employee from the Office of Information and Programs and Services (IPS), which handles Freedom of Information Act requests, discussed how Petraeus’ records apparently were not among the work-related emails provided by the former secretary’s team.

Once again, it took a lawsuit from Judicial Watch to get these additional work related emails released. More from them on this is here.

Original post continues –

Two semi-related news articles today about Clinton emails that illustrate her corruption, as well as the on-going corruption at State, plus the corruption evinced by her aides. My question – will these new revelations matter in the end? See below for my conclusion.

Clinton server email at heart of ‘quid pro quo’ controversy contained Benghazi intel

The email at the heart of a “quid pro quo” controversy involving a senior State Department executive and the FBI contained intelligence about suspects in the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack, two government sources told Fox News.

Heavily redacted FBI interview summaries, known as 302s, state that Patrick Kennedy, a top lieutenant to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state, wanted to deep-six the email – which was one of two on her personal server that kick-started the FBI investigation into the mishandling of classified information on her unsecured system.

Abedin implicated Clinton in foundation trade-off with Morocco amid $12 million commitment

Just hours after Hillary Clinton dodged a question at the final presidential debate about charges of “pay to play” at the Clinton Foundation, a new batch of WikiLeaks emails surfaced with stunning charges that the candidate herself was at the center of negotiating a $12 million commitment from King Mohammed VI of Morocco.

One of the more remarkable parts of the charge is that the allegation came from Clinton’s loyal aide, Huma Abedin, who described the connection in a January 2015 email exchange with two top advisers to the candidate, John Podesta and Robby Mook.

Abedin wrote that “this was HRC’s idea” for her to speak at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in Morocco in May 2015 as an explicit condition for the $12 million commitment from the king.

“She created this mess and she knows it,” Abedin wrote to Podesta and Mook.

At the beginning of this post I asked will these new revelations matter in the end?

Not as long as Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General and James Comey is the Director of the FBI, because to do anything remotely related to doing their job and bringing everyone involved before a grand jury, would mean that they would be indicting their potential new boss, Hillary Clinton, and that would be both political and career “suicide” for both of them, and they both know it. Throw in the fact that the current occupant of the WH is also involved through his “anonymous” emails to Clinton through her illegal home brewed server … well, suffice it to say that absolutely nothing will be done.

So, no, these new revelations don’t matter. To think otherwise is delusional.

Coincidental timing?

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

The Emailgate scandal continues apace, with the DoJ and FBI obviously colluding with Clinton to keep her from being prosecuted, as more emails from the Wikileaks dump has plainly shown, so what happens? Does the media (other than right leaning outlets, led by Fox) dig into this further? Are you kidding? Why do that when they can dig up more dirt on Trump? In new allegations against Trump, four women have come out saying that he groped them, among other things, which gets printed in a big “expose” by the NY Times. Trump has denied the truth of the claims, and has demanded a retraction and apology from the NY Times (don’t hold your breath on that ever happening).

So, coincidence that these stories have come out at about the same time, yet only one is getting mass media coverage? Methinks not. Consider this – every time Wikileaks has dropped a trove of emails putting Clinton in a bad (worse) light, the MSM comes to her defense by attacking Trump, showing the entire world that they are all in for her. Neither person in these two tales of slime are worth defending, imo, but it would be refreshing if the MSM would take their collective thumb off the scales and be a little more objective in their coverage.

I won’t be holding my breath on that, though.

Update: More here, here, here, and here.