Hillary Blameless for Loss?

Hillary is now explaining her loss and it has little to nothing to do with her candidacy but is mostly because of things beyond her control.

1. Russian Hacking: The Russians "meddled with our election."  Specifics were not offered, instead simply hinting at the ongoing story that has failed to find any link.

2. Misogyny: Americans hate women.  "That has to be admitted," she says.  It isn't her they hate, but women in general.  Does that mean that McCain lost in 2008 and Mondale in 1984 because misogynists couldn't handle a woman as vice president?  Also, didn't she win the popular vote?  Is misogyny limited to certain swing states?

3. FBI Director Comey: Darn that Comey for reopening the case less than 2 weeks before the election.  Her private server and detailed work emails had already been covered.  That more emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop was a poor excuse to reopen the case.

4. WikiLeaks: How dare Julian Assange publish John Podesta's emails!  Sure, they were all true and exposed the double dealing and coordination with the media but the voters had no right to know that, especially since it reflected so poorly on Hillary and her campaign.

Missing in her list of reasons why she lost is any introspection beyond "things I could have done better."  Might that be a reference to her 'deplorables' comment?  While Trump was constantly on the campaign trail and filling stadiums, Hillary was taking weekends off to rest and barely filling high school gyms.  Hillary lacked either Trump's or her husband's charisma.  Points 3 and 4 are self-inflicted and yet she pretends they were outside her control.  To those not in denial, it is clear that Hillary was the problem, not her listed external factors.  She was a terrible candidate who only looked acceptable because Donald Trump was the other candidate.

Leaking is Bad except when it's Good

In the wake of Trump's victory, the story arose that the Russians had hacked the election.  That vague declaration is intentional.  What is alleged is that the Russians managed to hack the DNC server and tricked John Podesta into revealing his email password.  The trove of emails were provided to WikiLeaks who published them throughout the campaign.  They were very embarrassing for the Democrats and Hillary.  However, we were repeatedly told by the media and the Democrats that the content of the emails was secondary to the hacking.  The people who provided the emails were very bad people.  Pay no attention to the emails and instead focus your indignant rage on those who revealed them.  Yes, it may all be true but the voters have no right to know.  Okay, I accept your terms.

Members of the deep state, likely holdovers from the Obama Administration, have been leaking the contents of secret phone calls that President Trump and his staff - notably Michael Flynn - to the media.  By the recently established rules, the media should blast the leakers for letting the public know about these phone calls.  No?  It turns out that now the leakers are heroes to be praised while the media reports with gusto about the content of the leaked phone calls.  Huh.

It is this sort of reporting that has led to the precipitous decline in trust for the media.  We have heads I win tails you lose reporting.  It reminds me of how government shutdowns are always the fault of the Republicans.  Republican president and Democratic Congress?  President is at fault for shutdown.  Democratic president and Republican Congress?  Congress is at fault.  The media too often functions as the PR department for the Democratic Party.

Party Before Country?

In the recent campaign, information hacked from Democratic campaign operatives was provided to WikiLeaks.  WikiLeaks published the private communications, damaging the Democratic campaign, even costing her the campaign.  The source that leaked the information to WikiLeaks - generally agreed to be Russia or Russian-aligned hackers - has been attacked by President Obama.  He expelled Russian diplomats and has ordered an ongoing investigation into the hacking.  This is serious business.

In 2010, secret communiques and files were stolen from the US Military.  The documents included State Department profiles of Icelandic politicians, airstrike videos, detailed logs of the Iraq and Afghan Wars, diplomatic cables, files related to Guantanamo Bay, and much more.  The documents were provided to WikiLeaks, who published the vast trove.  It was an intelligence disaster, revealing secrets and harming US standing.  The culprit was quickly nabbed.  Bradley - now Chelsea - Manning was convicted on 21 charges and sentenced to 35 years in prison.  President Obama commuted the majority of Manning's sentence so that he will only serve 7 years, 20% of the original sentence.

What explains the difference in how Obama treats the hackers?  Manning's theft and release of information hurt America but Russia's theft and release hurt the Democrats.  One is more serious than the other, but not the one you would think.

Election Hacking Hoax

When someone claims that an election was hacked, what does that mean?  The most reasonable interpretation would be that someone either changed the votes or altered the counting of the votes via a computer.  Did the Russians access computers in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania?  No.  Did they somehow hack into the machines that tally the vote counts and transfer some Hillary votes to Trump?  No.  So, the most reasonable interpretation of "The Russians hacked the election" is completely wrong.  What did the Russians do?

The Russians managed to hack DNC servers and also access John Podesta's email.  They released this data to WikiLeaks (WikiLeaks denies that Russians were the source, but they would be required to deny anyone to protect their sources).  WikiLeaks then started posting it and it had an impact on the election.  The Clinton Campaign did not respond to the veracity of the leaked emails but rather attacked the source of them.  So, it's all true but you shouldn't have them.

 

However, if you are going to get all huffy about another country trying to fiddle with your elections, maybe you shouldn't be doing the same.  For instance, Obama helped fund the opposition to Netanyahu in Israel.  His administration was transparently hostile to Netanyahu.  This is how we were treating an ally but we should demand that a foe not do something similar to us?  Was the election hacked when the New York Times published Trump's 1995 tax return or was that just good reporting?  If something harming a Republican - say the Pentagon Papers - is released, the leaker is celebrated.  But if information harmful to Democrats is released, let's attack the source - WikiLeaks, Russia, Ed Snowden, etc.

 

As a geopolitical foe, we should expect Russia to attempt to influence our elections to best benefit them.  I trust that our intelligence agencies are doing their best to influence our foes' politics for the best interests of America.  It is the governments' job on both ends to prevent the other.  Who was on watch for us during this recent hacking?  Rather than blaming Trump and declaring his election illegitimate, should we not be looking squarely at our failed cyber security strategy?

Those Who Know Most Oppose Clinton

This article and Julian Assange's repeated claims that he did not get the emails from the Russians tends to support the idea that the FBI is leaking like a sieve.  The FBI has spent over a year on the e-mail fiasco and, as we are now learning, has an on-going investigation into the Clinton Foundation which has been accused of being a pay-for-play route to the State Department.  If it really is the FBI, that is not something the Clinton campaign want known and thus they are pushing hard on the Russia angle.  Why?  If Russia is releasing the emails, it can be viewed as a foreign power trying to influence a US election.  The contents of the emails are irrelevant.  What is important is foiling a foreign plot!  However, if it is the FBI that is leaking, there is no easy way to spin that.  How many movies have there been where an investigator is told to join the cover-up to rescue some bigwig but instead blows the lid by leaking the story to the press?  And that's the movie currently playing on the national stage.

 

Those most familiar with the case against Clinton are launching attack after attack to sink her candidacy.

WTF!

I saw this video and had a WTF reaction.  Coup?  Counter coup?  What?  Sounds like tinfoil hat crackpottery.  Still, he has an authority about him that is not typical of crackpots.  Turns out this guy has a long history of government service in the State Department, as a hostage negotiator, psych warfare, and so forth.  He speaks Russian, Spanish, and French.  PhD from MIT.  Impressive resume.  This can't be real, can it?

 

One thing that really caught me was when he said that the FBI was feeding emails to WikiLeaks.  There have been rumblings for quite a while that agents were furious that Comey failed to recommend indictment of Hillary Clinton.  A simple remedy would be to leak the evidence to WikiLeaks, which Pieczenik is stating was done.  But that is hardly of note compared to the whole of what he had to say.  The entire government has been corrupted to the point that a coup might take place.  Really?

 

Probably a kernel of truth in here - namely the FBI providing material to WikiLeaks - but currently taking the rest with a handful of salt.

Case Reopened!

FBI Director James Comey has reopened the Clinton email case less than 2 weeks before the election.  This is a stunning turn of events.  Despite overwhelming evidence that offered a clear path to indictment, Comey had closed the case while saying no prosecutor would take the case.  Much grief was heaped upon him for that, rightly so.  The question thus becomes, why revisit what has been a disaster for him?

First, it may be that the purported evidence found on the laptop shared by Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner had something that could not be overlooked and will eventually be made public.  There might be something that, if it were to come out after the election and also revealed that the FBI knew about it before the election, there would be hell to pay.  By reopening the case before the election, Comey protects what is left of the FBI's reputation.

 

Second, Weiner is making a deal.  Disgraced, political career ruined, and his marriage over, Weiner has no reason to protect Huma, Hillary, or the Democratic Party.  He knows all the skeletons and, rat that he is, he gathered evidence to give himself leverage.  He may have provided it to the FBI - which is currently investigating him - to get a better deal.  Sure, he will be hated and a pariah but he already is.

 

Third, Comey thought that his press conference and his testimony to Congress would be enough to torpedo Hillary's campaign, thus providing sufficient punishment for the transgressions he outlined while dodging direct responsibility.  With the polls showing her still leading, he decided he needed to 'remind' the electorate.  That the FBI is investigating Hillary's top aide's husband just made that reminder possible.

 

Fourth, WikiLeaks is getting the emails from furious FBI agents, not Russian hackers.  Comey wants to cut the rationale for the release by reopening the case.  This may take the focus off the continued Wiki Dumps until the election.  As such, this might be a tourniquet to stop the bleeding but perhaps saving the campaign.  That sounds rather unlikely but it was suggested.

Comey has mishandled this about as badly as it could be mishandled.  Should Hillary lose, he will go down in history along with the Daisy add, Willy Horton, and the Swiftboaters.  He has carved out a terrible legacy.  Even if Hillary is convicted of multiple felonies (highly unlikely), he will be viewed as incompetent for having closed the case in the first place.  If she wins, he's fired.  Either way, he has infuriated both the Democrats and the Republicans and will get no succor from either.  There is no good result for James Comey.  He abandoned the rule of law in July and he cannot recover.

Corruption on the Ballot

The Most Damaging WikiLeaks has compiled a list of 100 most damaging revelations.  So far!  I do not doubt that it could get worse.  There is a lot of criminality exposed here along with buckets of 'intent' for FBI Director James Comey.  So much intent!

 

Though I have read through the 100, let's just stick to some of the really egregious ones:

 

1. Obama knew about the server all along.  Yes, though he claimed in 2015 that he learned about the server from the news, he had several email chains - using a pseudonym - that were found on Hillary's server.  The President and the Secretary of State were communicating on a server that would avoid the record keeping laws.

6. Unaware and compliant citizens.  I have harped on this from time to time and it turns out that the campaign admits this has been a strategy all along.  Those ignorant of US history and the Constitution are far more likely to vote against the limited government that was established.

68. John Podesta, who had no government position and no security clearance, was sent top secret information.  That would be a felony.

69. John Podesta used the Amtrak wifi to access his email.  That would be a very insecure connection.  This is worse because - as we learn in point 40 - Podesta's password was p@ssw0rd.  Hillary will make him head of CIA, I'm sure.

75. The Iran Deal is admitted to be terrible that will likely lead to a nuclear war in the Persian Gulf.

78. Campaign finance law only applies to Republicans.

There are certain themes that are repeated.  Every other damaging leak appears to be collusion with the media.  The media has donated 19 to 1 in favor of Hillary and, oddly enough, 91% of stories on Trump are negative.  Huh.  Strange.  Many show that Hillary has public positions for the 'unaware and compliant citizenry' and a private position for the donors.  Therefore, she may say she is against TPP at a rally but for it at a private fundraiser.

Almost any one of these 100 leaks should be a major scandal.  Any 5 of them should cripple a campaign.  Any 10 of them should ruin a politician's career.  All 100 should result in jail time for someone.  And there is more to come.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for corrupt and dishonest government.

The Scandal that Wasn't

Thanks to WikiLeaks, it has been demonstrated that members of the media have colluded with the Clinton campaign to improve her electoral chances, a stellar violation of all putative journalistic standards.  The response from the majority of the media?  Ostracism?  Dismissal?  No, just an indifferent shrug.  This should be a career-ruining scandal for all involved and yet it has provoked little more than yawns among the corrupt journalists' colleagues.  They all do it and none are in a position to cast stones.  However, had any of them done the same for Trump, that person would be a pariah.

 

As noted in previous blogs, the media is either a lapdog or an attack dog depending on which party is in power.  Being distrustful of government, I want an attack dog that challenges every encroachment and every move of government.  The only way that happens is when Republicans are in office.  That is the unfortunate truth.

Polls to Bludgeon the Voters

WikiLeaks just keeps revealing the corruption of the system.  Here is an email chain where it is made clear that polling exists to shape public opinion, not measure it.  Intentional over-sampling to 'convince' voters that their candidate is way behind - and thus depress that candidates eventual votes - is common practice.  Not only that, but the Clinton Campaign is offering pointers on how to rig the polls for maximum effect.  Of course, this isn't new.  The media called the state of Florida for Al Gore while polls were still open (different time zone) in the Republican-leaning panhandle of the state.  How many votes were suppressed by doing that?  Was that accidental?  Had the state not been prematurely called, would we have completely avoided the fiasco that followed?

WikiLeaks has also shown that the Mainstream Media is all-in for Hillary.  The Center for Public Integrity found that 96% of the money given to campaigns by journalists has gone to the Clinton campaign.  That their reporting and polling is beneficial to the Democrats therefore comes as no surprise.  It has long been so but only now has it been exposed so clearly.  And yet the media dodges stories that should be HUGELY newsworthy because those very stories reflect so poorly on the news media.

Silly Dr. Stein, Law Only Apply to Little People

Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party has tweeted about the continuing WikiLeaks regarding Hillary's emails.  Certainly no right-winger, she wonders just how much more evidence the government needs to press charges against Hillary.  Of course, no amount of evidence is going to change the DOJ or FBI position on the case because laws are for the little people.  Like this guy.

 

A machinist aboard the USS Alexandria in 2009, he took pictures of the submarine that he shouldn't have.  When interviewed by the FBI, he deleted them.  He will get an other than honorable discharge and serve a year in prison.  His lawyer offered the Hillary Defense.  Hillary had far more sensitive and confidential material on a private server, some of which she deleted, and the FBI declined to take any action other then doling out immunity to all those involved.  You see, the navy seaman is little people and laws apply to him.

 

The Rule of Law is circling the drain.  Nixon had to resign for far less and the country was furious that he was pardoned.  Hillary is above the law.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Trump is catching grief for his refusal to say he would accept the election results.  Democrats are horrified.  Pardon me, but wasn't it Al Gore who did exactly that?  He conceded and then withdrew his concession!  Didn't Stuart Smalley demand a recount until enough 'misplaced' ballots appeared to give him the victory over Norm Coleman?  Did Christine Gregoire accept her loss in the gubernatorial election in Washington?  No, she demanded a recount and still lost.  But on the second recount, she won!  And there were no further recounts.  Was it wrong for John Kerry to claim the 2004 election was rigged in Ohio?  It seems Democrats are more than willing to question the outcome on election night but Trump needs to agree not to do the same or he is un-American.  There are those double standards again.

With the WikiLeaks, it has been revealed that the game was rigged against Bernie Sanders.  The party and the media were in the tank for Hillary.  When this was revealed just prior to the Democratic National Convention, Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to resign in disgrace.  Further WikiLeaks dumps have shown again and again that the media is completely in favor of Hillary.  FBI documents have demonstrated that the bureau sought to undermine the possibility of prosecuting Hillary for the email scandal by handing out immunity deals at every step of the investigation.  Then we have the Project Veritas sting videos in which Bob Creamer - who has met with President Obama more than 40 times and been to the White House more than 200 times - was caught discussing how to commit voter fraud.  Creamer's associate brags about causing havoc at Trump rallies, confident that the media will broadcast it as a negative for Trump, which it has.  Even George Will, who is adamantly anti-Trump, says that Trump has a point.

 

Like Al Gore, Christine Gregoire, and Al Franken, Trump should not be asked to accept results in advance of seeing how those results were made.  It was a question that should not have been asked.  Really, remember all those Republicans who offered a pledge to support the eventual nominee?  Only Trump refused.  Look at all the support he is getting from those who took the pledge.  There is no honor among politicians.  Don't trust them!

WikiLeaks

The WikiLeaks dumps demonstrate, from the horse's mouth, that Hillary Clinton knowingly deleted emails that were under subpoena from Congress, that her campaign colluded with the media, that her advisors knew the Iran Deal was a catastrophe, that voter fraud is real, and more besides.  Unless you know exactly what you are looking for and have time to comb through the mass of emails, it is useful to have a quick summary of the bombshells.  Here is Steven Crowder offering his Top 10 WikiLeaks:

 

As in my last post, if the media really went after Hillary for what is revealed in the WikiLeaks, she would be toast.  Of course, it doesn't reflect well on Obama either, so that isn't going to happen.  Several of these are impeachable offenses.  The combination of these make Watergate look overblown.