Tuesday, July 05, 2016

Comey: Hillary corrupt, incompetent, criminal--and should not face charges

The FBI report is remarkable:
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
In sum, Comey explains that Hillary passed along classified information from one unauthorized, unsecured server to another at least 112 times, each instance constituting a criminal act irrespective of intention.

Regarding intention, she elected to use neither a government nor a commercial account but instead opted for a private server so as to avoid third-party archiving--that rigmarole being more convenient than the 30 seconds it takes to set up a gmail account, since it had nothing to do with secrecy, of course!

The tens of thousands of emails on Hillary Clinton's private server were not there because of simple negligence or carelessness on her part. They were intentionally kept on unsecured servers so that they could be effortlessly hacked by specific entities, foreign and domestic, who knew were to look. Those entities are the ones who've given tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and have paid six-figure speaking fees for Bill or Hillary to give half-hour prepared speeches.

It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see that Comey is confirming as much:
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. 
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.
Hidden from plain sight but totally accessible to those knowing where to look. What's so remarkable is how blatant this all is. It's almost as if they, the Cloud People, are humiliating we, the Dirt People, by rubbing our faces in it.

Parenthetically, that most of the emails were not designated as being classified doesn't mean they were not of use to the entities that were invited to hack them. A personal conversation with an ambassador or another cabinet member or, who knows, the president himself, provides plenty of value to various interested parties.

This naked corruption is orders of magnitude worse than the Watergate scandal that brought down the Nixon administration. It's worse than Benedict Arnold or the Rosenbergs. The DOJ, under pressure from the Obama administration, won't indict her for any of it, of course.

To the contrary, just a week after Bill Clinton officially inexplicably met with US attorney general Loretta Lynch and hours after the FBI officially inexplicably recommends no indictments be made, Hillary suggests she'll keep Lynch on as AG as president.

Comey on Hillary's gross dereliction of responsibility:
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
After spending the majority of his time listing Hillary's incompetent and illegal behavior, Comey concludes by noting:
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.
If anyone else did this, it would result in "security or administrative sanctions". Meanwhile, Hillary is running for a position that will give her the highest level of security and administrative clearance in the entire country! Stultifyingly blatant.

Edward Snowden need no longer ponder why Comey, after explaining multiple reasons why Hillary should not only have been removed from her position as US secretary of state but also why she should be criminally prosecuted, didn't recommend the indictments:
We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
Too many people involved. The corruption runs too widely and too deeply.

I don't pretend to fully grasp the position Comey is in. He may, given his precarious circumstances, actually be acting laudably by exposing crooked Hillary as, well, crooked Hillary, while saving his skin--and the lives of those close to him--by officially recommending that nothing be done. It fits Trump's #RiggedSystem approach like a glove.

Perhaps the biggest whopper, straight from the Ministry of Truth, comes as Comey closes:
What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.
And people think I'm a nut for advocating secession.


Anonymous said...

"And people think I'm a nut for advocating secession. "

Not me

Anonymous said...

How terrible, the open abuse that the we "dirt people' must endure. The FBI Director's chilling reminder that anyone else will be punished followed by the assurances that no outside pressure affected the investigation or outcome makes one feel his place. Now, I am aware how others in class tiered societies felt through out history.

Your post is one of the most lean but loaded ones yet, and I am thankful you take the time for the Audacious Epigone.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

The rule of law died.

The American Republic will not last without it.

irate eye rater said...

It's a little nutty.

Secesssion would no doubt be a violent bloody mess. Bad enough as is, but having that unfold inside a nuclear power so far removed from the rest of the world in terms of both military might and physical distance that there could be no check on things but the combatants' own human decency? that puts a chill in the guts.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

FBI Director Comey did the full John Harington quote below --

Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason?

For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.

Paul Davis said...

I wouldn't say it is nutty, I would say that it isn't realistic without the willingness to do more than hope and pray it happens. No one in power wants it to, thus, without an organization (like a state) - it is just a pipe dream.

People are way to comfortable in their lives to give it all up for probable death, destruction and widespread poverty (and the other side knows this and keeps pushing because the next thing isn't that far off from the last thing, inch by inch)

There is no rule of law, however, and the left is painting this like a win for Clinton and they will believe that too, doesn't matter what else was said, like with liberals, even 1% their way is a win - and - the recommendation that no reasonable person would file charges makes anyone saying she's guilty, by definition, unreasonable.

They win again (in the mind of a plurality of people, if not majority)

Anonymous said...

What can be done?

BTW secede where and from what and most importantly HOW and with WHO?

So what can be done?

BTW I'm going to indulge an annoyance: you Sons of the South are The True Hebrews.
Every failure is sacralized, every misstep Holy Ground.


sykes.1 said...

Add to this Judge Posner's repudiation of the Constitution as the basis of law and court proceedings.

Audacious Epigone said...


Thanks. There's plenty being written about this. I wanted a personal time capsule of my own because this feels like it's one of those jumping-the-shark moments. It's so blatantly corrupt and makes such a mockery of the federal government's justice process, and there isn't even much effort in spinning it. Comey lamely says the average prosecutor wouldn't bring the case so, you know, nothing to see here. Wtf is the FBI assuming prosecutorial discretion for, anyway? Shouldn't that be the DOJ's decision?

Mil-Tech Bard,

Right. If this is the republic, what's the point? We're down to economic expediency, propositionalism, and force as the only things holding the country together politically, and even the propositionalism is essentially gone.

Perfectly apt quote for what transpired here, by the way. That's the way it'll be spun--they'll latch onto the throw away lines about how prosecution isn't recommended.

Irate eye rater,

Maybe, maybe not. Had Scotland voted to leave the United Kingdom a yearish ago, that would've been a non-violent disunion. Brexit similarly, assuming it happens. A compound of a few hundred people in Idaho might be put down violently as has been the case in the past, but if, say, a governor running on Texas seceding from the US won the gubernatorial race? That's a different question.


I don't know if there'd be much stomach to militarily stop it from happening, either. What about in the case of the hypothetical above? A majority of Texans vote in a governor running on secession. We're not as far from that as you might think. Does the military roll into the Lone Star state and march on Austin? If a coalition of states simply refuses to comply with a host of duties related to certain federal programs (like the NSA data storage facility in Utah) and there's significant public support for those states, is there enough will to go to war over political union?

Trump has to prep for the presidential debates. His narrative is sitting on the table. He needs to pick it up and run with it. The feminists and the NAMs will vote for Hillary no matter what, but a lot of uninterested, apolitical "independents" will not react positively to such blatant corruption. In other words, a Trump prosecution of Hillary will be populist strategy. He's doing it well in the media, social and otherwise. He needs to do it face to face with 50 million people watching.


Speaking of political union, that's the kind of secession we're talking about. Most of us wouldn't even notice in the course of our daily lives. The thousands and tens of thousands we have deducted or send in the form of federal taxes is disappears and the services--whatever they are--we currently receive are picked up by a smaller governmental or private entity.


He's doing us a service. Constitutionalism can become a fetish. We've had the Constitution. It hasn't prevented us from ending up where we are now. Constitutionaling harder is not the answer. The bill of rights is a set a of propositions borne out of the Anglo mind, one of the greatest bundles of propositions in the history of the world (and I don't make that claim lightly). But they are mere propositions all the same. Without a high-IQ, WEIRDO population with lots of room to roam and without threatening neighbors (internal and external), they become nothing more than ink on parchment.

The Constitution may be necessary. It is certainly not, however, sufficient.

chris said...

"The bill of rights is a set a of propositions borne out of the Anglo mind, one of the greatest bundles of propositions in the history of the world (and I don't make that claim lightly). But they are mere propositions all the same. Without a high-IQ, WEIRDO population with lots of room to roam and without threatening neighbors (internal and external), they become nothing more than ink on parchment. "

Anglo culture is the extended phenotype of the Anglo. Without the Anglo, the extended phenotype is not created.


Paul Davis said...

The FBI agents come in to Austin (which is very liberal) and arrest the governor. Then, they arrest the other people in charge under treason and appoint leaders loyal to DC.
If the TX law enforcement prevents this, that creates a hostile situation where the federal government brings in more force (or uses special forces to extract the governor). He wouldn't be able to hide and the protection would be by non-military members (easily overcome by those with training).
The violence would be baited by the Feds to have the TX commit first (same thing Lincoln did in the civil war).

So, yes, I do think it would come to violence rather quickly. The elites can't tolerate something breaking up their rape of the world and people who stand up to them get squashed.

Wouldn't stop me from, however, supporting the TXEXIT (along with the OKEXIT, KSEXIT and so on) and fight that fight, however it was needed.

Ben Kurtz said...

I think Comey is fairly shouting it from the rooftops:

"What I can assure the American people is that **this investigation** was done competently, honestly and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear."

The investigation was all these things indeed! He just published a detailed account of all of Hillary's misdeeds and served it up to the media on a silver platter, notwithstanding who's in power right now and who his boss just had a supposed-to-be-secret meeting with at some private airfield.

As to his post-investigation conclusion that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a criminal case; well, he made no representations regarding that, and anyway, no reasonable prosecutor who wants to avoid lifelong IRS anal-probe audits -- and keep any public job better than assistant dogcatcher of Nome, Alaska -- WOULD dare bring the case.

In Nixon's time, the media had to work for the scoop, they hated Republicans anyway, and the public still had standards when it came to high public officials. Here, Comey's handing the media a steaming pile of fragrant dogshit on a silver platter, but they're still defending Hillary's candidacy because they've got a culture war to fight, goddamn it, and they won't rest until every straight while male has tasted more than a little boot in his face.


Cicatrizatic said...


I would be interested to see your analysis of the latest Reuters poll.


Based on page 2, almost 50% of their sample were Democrats, which is higher than their previous samples. One of their polls from May had 44% Democrat. They seem to always over-sample Democrats but nowhere near this rate. I assumed their methodology was consistent, but the sampling and methodology of polling this election cycle seem to be off. I think it's hard to project the makeup of the electorate this time around.

Audacious Epigone said...


That's a conceivable scenario but maybe not a necessary one. A lot depends on how broad the support is. Shutting down the identitarian right in the West at present is frustratingly difficult for the Cathedral because the identitarian right is surging everywhere, in the US with Trump, in Britain with Brexit and UKIP, in the Netherlands with the DPP, National Front in France, Freedom Party in Austria, etc.


I don't pretend to know one-tenth of what's going on behind the scenes but it's not difficult to conceive of a situation in which Comey has been threatened/compromised into not recommending conviction but that was all he would sign on to so he's going right up to the water's edge with everything else.


The Reuters-Ipsos poll tracks daily. I'll look at the Democrat/Republican/Indepedent sample breakdown over time and plot it if it makes sense to. Thanks for the heads up.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The State Department is reopening their investigation. I could see a few reasons for doing so:

- Have someone on Clinton's staff fall on the sword: that way this person can take all the heat. If nobody gets charged, it seems suspicious, so maybe if they offer a patsy, they think that people will be satisfied.

- Exonerate her again in hopes that people don't think the FBI investigation is rigged. They can say "Hey, she got cleared by two agencies!"

- Bargaining chip: Obama wants to see Hillary sweat unless she makes some serious concessions for any variety of reasons including things we know about and things we don't. Once Hillary makes those concessions, the investigation just goes away and you never hear about it again.

tbraton said...

Audacious epigone

"Wtf is the FBI assuming prosecutorial discretion for, anyway? Shouldn't that be the DOJ's decision?"

That's a great question. I watched most of yesterday's hearing but not all. Did any congressman ask Comey that question?

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Yes. Now what?

Audacious Epigone said...


Not that I'm aware of. Clinton apologists are saying he shouldn't have said anything at all beyond whether or not he recommended prosecution, but that doesn't answer the question--it underscores it.

Djadai said...

Have you heard about a guy named Anthony Denitto Jr. that was recently arrested for allegedly attacking his ex-girlfriend? Here's the news article: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Trumbull-man-charged-with-assault-after-New-933804.php. What do you guys think? Did he really do it or was it someone else who wanted to put the blame on him. Does he have a chance of winning the upcoming trial? Share your thoughts.