A Debate @ThePlumLineGS Doesn’t Want To Have.

A tweet that will get you blocked in under 30 seconds

If GS’s tweet doesn’t show up, the paraphrase is that he wants Paul Ryan to justify saying the FBI put Clinton “above the law.”

[Update: Here’s the Tweet]

Here’s the thing, they did. That’s obvious. Clinton violated statues that don’t require intent, but was let off because she’s important.

Now I tend to think that Lynch wasn’t bribed with being renewed as AG. (After all, the academic gig she can get in 2017 would be far cozier than anything Clinton, Inc. can offer. Tons of pay, no work, a nice title. My dream job.) Although I also think that she set herself up with the appearance of the bribe, what with that whole tarmac meeting.

(By the way, I got blocked for that, because it was an “accusation.” Journalists apparently have no reading comprehension.)

And what of Comey? Some seem to think he was bribed or blackmailed:


Maybe? It’s equally likely that like Chief Justice Roberts, he took the cowardly path of least resistance: dodging his duty to avoid any accusations of “politics.” This of course is what’s so dangerous about a Clinton presidency, when the very institutions that were put in place to protect the republic’s rule of law shy away from their duties because they’re afraid of being accused of being “political” the republic will simply devolve into executive rule, exactly what the founders sought to prevent with checks and balances. With the more corrupt Clinton at the helm, we can assume the worst.

5 comments to “A Debate @ThePlumLineGS Doesn’t Want To Have.”
  1. @ThePlumLineGS is really parsing Comey’s statement…

    I asked him about the following paragraph:

    “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

    His reply “there he’s talking about consequences other than facing criminal charges” which completely ignores both the next paragraph (“As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.”) and the fact that charges are, in fact, consequences.

  2. Well that and he ignores that fact that security and administrative sanctions would be a disaster for a regular employee, but can’t be applied at all to POTUS. So if Hillary is elected (which is what this is really about) she could act with impunity under this standard and no one could do anything. (Well Clinton Impeachment 2.0 I suppose.)

  3. I think that the more important question is how often sanctions/charges are applied to lower level people.
    If there are lots of cases of slip ups that do not lead to trouble, then its less worrying that they were not applied to Clinton (or, e.g. Petraeus)

  4. Up there on the mantle in the White House are the jars with the balls of Stanley McCrystal, Carter Hamm, David Petreaus, John Roberts and James Comey. That Obama is really racking up his trophies.

    Hard to believe we had so many spineless people in such powerful stations.

  5. Petraeus got fined, and IIRC lost his clearance as well.

    I know people who work for the DoD, it’s drilled into their heads that if they so much as mess up, they’ll likely lose their clearance (and thus be fired as well.)

    This also wasn’t a “slip-up.” She intentionally set up this server as a way to avoid FOIA with no respect for classified information rules.

Comments are closed.