What Comey’s letter said

A letter from FBI director James Comey ignited a new fire storm in the US presidential campaign, but it actually said very little, especially about Hillary Clinton.

From ThinkProgress: What the FBI Director’s letter about the Clinton emails really says

comeylettter

The relevant paragraph in this brief letter is the middle one, where Comey writes that the FBI “has learned of the existence” of emails that it previously did not review. In response to this new information, the FBI will now “allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information.”

The FBI, in other words, is not reexamining its previous findings. It is not questioning its previous legal conclusion that “no reasonable prosecutor” could determine that charges are warranted. Based on the letter, it appears that the FBI will simply provide the same scrutiny to these newly uncovered emails as it previously applied to the emails it already reviewed when it determined that criminal charges are not warranted.

It would be remarkable if the US presidential election swung on this letter.

It would appear that at the very least it has handed an enhanced weapon to Donald Trump’s campaign.

 

Leave a comment

41 Comments

  1. Klik Bate

     /  29th October 2016

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  29th October 2016

      I suppose it’s possible the emails are just stuff like:

      “Hills, check these out! Tones. PS: Don’t tell Huma.”

      “Tony, FFS! Please don’t send me any more attachments like that! I get more than enough of these sorts of pics from Bill! – H”.

      “Ok, sorry. I’ll send them to someone else next time. Tones. PS: Don’t tell Huma.”

      Reply
  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  29th October 2016

    I think Kitty would agree with most of this except the ending:
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-woman-is-a-disaster-camille-paglia-on-hillary-clinton/

    Reply
    • Traveller

       /  31st October 2016

      I certainly concur with Paglia’s opinion of the raising of young women these days.

      “Today, she suggests, middle-class girls are being reared in a precisely contrary fashion: cosseted, indulged and protected from every evil, they become helpless victims when confronted by adversity. ‘We are rocketing backwards here to the Victorian period with this belief that women are not capable of making decisions on their own. This is not feminism — which is to achieve independent thought and action. There will never be equality of the sexes if we think that women are so handicapped they can’t look after themselves.” It’s contrary to everything I understand as a 60s influenced girl. I classify myself like Paglia, as an Amazon feminist – a keep up with and be better than the blokes.

      It wouldn’t surprise me if a good many people were thinking in the manner she is, when she expresses herself thus:

      “if Trump wins it will be an amazing moment of change because it would destroy the power structure of the Republican party, the power structure of the Democratic party and destroy the power of the media. It would be an incredible release of energy… at a moment of international tension and crisis.”

      If she’s right and Trump does win, the shocking impact could result in such a shake-up to that corrupt, deep pocketed lobbyist system it’ll bring about positive change. The ensuant rough ride Trump’s ascendancy might result in could be just what the USA needs. A dose of salts as opposed to the wooden, entitled Clinton machine.

      On the other hand………..Armageddon might just be preferable.

      Reply
  3. Klik Bate

     /  29th October 2016

    This just through from my Niece in the US XD

    Reply
  4. so why are there emails on Weiner et al’s devices that are not on Hillarys server? Ad why did Hills and her people wipe the emails at their end and even destroy devices themselves before the FBI could look at them? It stinks, but I reckon she will still be POTUS when the votes are counted….and then the carnage really starts…

    Reply
  5. Anthony Weiner is Hilary’s chief of staff Huma, in case you didn’t know. As far as the nature of the correspondence, the following message has to be evidence that she did receive and retain Classified material.
    UNCLASSIFIED
    U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-04841 Doc No. C05739578 Date: 05/13/2015
    From:
    Sent:
    To:
    Subject Attachments:
    We should get this around asap.
    From:
    Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 06:16 PM To: H
    Subject: Fwd: more on libya
    Sending direct. Just in.
    Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DRUID
    ——- Original Message
    Subject: more on libya From tyler clnunheller &It;
    UNCLASSIFIED
    U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-04841 Doc No. C05739578 Date: 05/13/2015
    STATE DEPT. – PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
    SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER. STATE-5CB0045274
    To: CC:
    &It
    STATE DEPT. – PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
    SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER.
    H <hrod17@clintonernaii.com› Wednesday, September 12, 2012 11:26 PM esullivanjj@state.gov'
    Fw: Fwd: more on libya
    Libya 37 sept 12 12,docx
    kgt;
    'cgt;
    B6
    RELEASE IN PART B6
    B6
    UNCLASSIFIED
    U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-04841 Doc No. C05739578 Date: 05/13/2015
    STATE DEPT. – PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
    SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER.
    . PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL
    SUBJECT: Libya (37)
    SOURCE: Sources with direct access to the Libyan National Transitional Council, as well as the highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services.
    THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION COMES FROM AN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE SOURCE AND SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH CARE,
    1. On September 12, 2012 Libyan President Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf told senior advisors that the death of the U.S. Ambassador at the hands of Islamist militia forces represents a threat to the future of the newly elected General National Congress (GNC) Government. According to a sensitive source, el Magariaf believes that the primary goal of this and other attacks on Western facilities is to demonstrate that the GNC cannot protect its non-Islamic friends. Libyan security officials believe that the attack was carried out by forces of the Islamist militia group calling itself the Ansar al Sharia brigade; working out of camps in the Eastern suburbs of Benghazi. These officials added that their sources indicate that this group is led by former members of the old Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
    (LIFG), some of whom are loyal to Islamist General Abclelhakim Belhaj. The same officials were quick to point out that they have no evidence that Belhaj had any direct involvement in this attack. They also have no direct information as to whether this assault has anything to do with the death of Libyan born al Qai'da leader Abu Yahya al- Libi, but they are pursuing this theme. These officials do
    UNCLASSIFIED
    U.S. Department of State
    Case No. F-2015-04841
    Doc No. C05739578 STATE DEPT. – PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
    Date: 05/13/2015 SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER. STATE-SCB0045275
    UNCLASSIFIED
    U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-04841 Doc No. C05739578 Date: 05/13/2015
    STATE DEPT. – PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
    SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER.
    believe that the attackers having prepared to launch their assault took advantage of the cover provided by the demonstrations in Benghazi protesting an internet production seen as disrespectful to the prophet Mohammed.
    2. According to this source, the immediate events were set in motion by a statement made by a Muslim Cleric in Egypt saying that the interne film was going to be shown across the United States on September 11 in an effort to insult Muslims on the anniversary of the attacks on the New York World Trade Center in 2001. This statement inspired increasingly hostile demonstrations at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, and at diplomatic facilities in Libya. In Benghazi, reporting from security sources states, approximately twenty one (21) Ansar al Sharia fighters left their base in East Benghazi just after sundown infiltrated the crowd of about 2,000 demonstrators at the U.S. Consulate. These forces, operating under cover of darkness, opened fire on the consulate, eventually setting it on fire with rocket propelled grenades. These fighters then withdrew to their camp. El Magariaf ordered security officials to identify and arrest the attackers, adding that he had been in touch with Egyptian President Mohmmed Morsi, and the two
    agreed that their intelligence and security personnel will cooperate in this matter. (Note: Some of the Libyan officials believe that the entire demonstration was organized as cover for the attack, however; they point out that there is no evidence of such a complex operation at this time.
    3. (Source Comment: In the opinion of this individual, Libyan security officers also informed el Magariaf that the attacks had been planned for approximately one month, based on casing information obtained during an early demonstration at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The attackers were, in the opinion of these individuals, looking for an opportunity to approach the consulate
    UNCLASSIFIED
    U.S. Department of State
    Case No. F-2015-04841
    Doc No. C05739578 STATE DEPT. – PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
    Date: 05/13/2015 SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER. STATE-SCB0045276
    UNCLASSIFIED
    U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-04841 Doc No. C05739578 Date: 05/13/2015
    STATE DEPT. – PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
    SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER.
    under cover in a crowd. These officials add that government security officers admitted to el Magariaf that they do not have the physical capacity to locate, attack, and destroy the Ansar al-Sharia brigade, among others. They describe these forces as well-trained, hardened killers; many of whom have spent time in Afghanistan and Yemen. These fighters are located in camps in Eastern Libya; and Libyan officials doubt they can penetrate these camps because the militia's are better armed than the forces of the new National Army.
    4. In the opinion of a separate source El Magariaf continues to believe that the attacks were planned and carried out in a political atmosphere where a portion of the Libyan population is focused on past cooperation between Western intelligence and security services, and the regime of former dictator Muammar al Qaddafi. According to this source, el Magariaf realizes that the death of the U.S. Ambassador dictates that he must find tangible solutions to the problems tied to disarming the militias, dealing Salafist violence against the followers of Sufi beliefs, and efforts to discredit his government through linking him to Western intelligence services. El Magariaf instructed his security officials to cooperate with their U.S. counterparts. He also warned all of his advisors to be prepared for U.S. retaliation against the suspected perpetrators of this attack, and the angry public reaction that is sure to follow.
    5. (Source Comment: A separate, particularly sensitive source added that in private conversation el Magariaf stated that if his government cannot protect a senior diplomatic official, foreign businesses will not be willing to risk opening up new operations in Libya. According to this sensitive source, el Magariaf believes that a number of the Islamist militias are now being influenced al Qai'da and other radical groups; working out of camps in the Eastern and Southeastern parts of the
    UNCLASSIFIED
    U.S. Department of State
    Case No. F-2015-04841
    Doc No. C05739578 STATE DEPT. – PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
    Date: 05/13/2015 SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER. STATE-SCB0045277
    UNCLASSIFIED
    U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-04841 Doc No. C05739578 Date: 05/13/2015
    STATE DEPT. – PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
    SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER.
    country. These groups are receiving aid and weapons from supporters in Sudan. In the end, el Magariaf added that while he does not expect U.S. officials to focus on this point, he believes the attacks against the interests and citizens of the U.S. and other Western states are aimed first at overthrowing his government, and replacing it with a strict Islamic Republic dominated by Salafist leaders. Magariaf also warned that tribal militias loyal to the Qaddafi family continue to present an equally dangerous threat to the new Government.)
    CONFIDENTIAL: This message is confidential, privileged, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 USC 2510). This message and any attachments is intended for the sole use of the addresses(s) and any discussion, copying and/or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender, and immediately delete from your computer system. Thank you.
    UNCLASSIFIED
    U.S. Department of State
    Case No. F-2015-04841
    Doc No. C05739578 STATE DEPT. – PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM.
    Date: 05/13/2015 SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER. STATE-SCB0045278

    The documents were downgraded by the State Department when submitted to the House Benghazi Committee, after being graded "CONFIDENTIAL" and with several caveats of the need to protect the information coming from extremely sensitive sources. A serviceman holding such material in an unclassified container would get at least 10 years in the Brig. How the FBI concluded it did not meet the requirements for prosecution, I don't know. However I do know that the FBI's head investigator's sister received half a million dollars from the Clinton Foundation.
    Another cable in the Hilary Benghazi collection gives specific details of how the US Ambassador to Benghazi entered the country and identified where he was being accommodated, and what his immediate mission was. He paid for his work with his life. That cable shows just how cavalier HRC was with sensitive classified communications. The intelligence officers of US allies must have severe doubts about her ability to handle very sensitive material.

    Reply
  6. Drat Weiner is Huma Abiden’s husband. My machine plays tricks from time to time!

    Reply
  7. Klik Bate

     /  29th October 2016

    View this post on Instagram

    POLARCRUSH!!!!

    A post shared by Kim Dotcom (@kim_dotcom) on

    COULD Kim Dotcom have had a hand in this – as he SEEMS to be claiming ❓

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  29th October 2016

      They’ll be there for sure, but not allowed to spy on US citizens?

      Reply
  8. Corky

     /  29th October 2016

    Trumpy starting to tee off:

    ” If my people said the things about me that Podesta & Hillary’s people said about her, I would fire them out of self respect. “Bad instincts”
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 28, 2016

    Reply
    • The man needs to start being a tad more Presidential about now. He needs to trot out a few Clintonesque platitudes like ‘the sanctity of National Security”, “safety of our troops and their movements are paramount”, “as President I will ensure our systems are unhackable” etc. He’ll get more flies with honey – flies being the floating voters.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  31st October 2016

        Or .. As President I will ensure that Hillary Clinton gets the best public defender assistance the taxpayer can afford.

        Reply
  9. Here is the present position of Hilary Clinton on the Emails. When you look at this, think about what she claims and then relate the actual classified documents she claims she never received or sent. Her explanation is pure bullshit and can be torn to pieces. When asked about her initial briefing about handling classified material she responded to the Senate Hearing “I do not recall.” This was her stock answer to specific questions in the hearing about actual material. Anyway, here is her current briefing note for you to see:
    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  29th October 2016

      Good stuff, BJ.

      Reply
    • As well as HRC’s dishonesty about the emails there’s the whole other issue of State Department pay-for-play via the Clinton Foundation.

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/20/abedin-implicated-clinton-in-foundation-trade-off-with-morocco-amid-12-million-commitment.html

      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.

      Reply
      • Yes UT, in addition, HRC noted that Morocco was the first state to recognise the infant USA Democracy in 1777, and strongly recommended a much closer diplomatic relationship with Morocco, for the future. We are not so naive as to believe any claims that this attitude was not in support of the “contribution” from Morocco. Obviously Americans have bigger hearts than we and are far more willing to accept things “on the surface” ie facile acceptance!

        Reply
        • The Articles of Confederation of 1777 refer to pre-existant sovereignty, and this is inconsistent with the Article VI declaration that the Constitution defines the law of the land, since the law of the land was pre-existent and described sovereignty as the source of legislative authority, not the Constitution. In other words the attempt to redefine the law of the land disconnected the Constitution from the sovereignty that it used as the source of its own authority.

          http://forum.clonehost.net/topic/45/us-constitution

          Reply
  10. This is the US Federal Law that defines how USA Classified material is to be protected. I add that ignorance of the law is no excuse Mrs Clinton et al.

    ” U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

    Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
    US Code
    Notes
    Authorities (CFR)
    prev | next
    (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
    (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
    (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
    (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
    (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
    (b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—
    The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

    The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;

    The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;

    The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;

    The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
    (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.
    (d)
    (1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
    (A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
    (B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
    (2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).
    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), the provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)), shall apply to—
    (A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
    (B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
    (C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,
    if not inconsistent with this subsection.
    (4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.
    (5) As used in this subsection, the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.
    (Added Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, § 24(a), 65 Stat. 719; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 804(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3439; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 602(c), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3503.)”

    Reply
  11. Lost in amongst all of the commentary id this assessment written some 2 years ago still has relevance :

    “Supporters of Hillary Clinton continue to ask the equivalent of ‘What difference does it make?’ with regard to the former Secretary of State’s use of a personal email account to conduct official State Department business.

    Meanwhile, many investigative reporters are combing through federal rules and regulations to discover what criminal charges Clinton could face for her actions.

    Here are the three most frequently cited laws that appear to have been violated by Clinton:

    1. Mishandling Classified Information

    Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email. Casey Harper at The Daily Caller delved into this angle:

    “‘By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual regarding records management, and worse, could have left classified and top secret documents vulnerable to cyber attack,’ Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein said in an email to reporters.

    ‘This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they could be facing fines and criminal prosecution.’”

    Harper goes on to point out that multiple violations of this law have been enforced recently, including in 1999, when former CIA Director John M. Deutch’s security clearance was suspended for using his personal email to send classified information.

    Additionally, this past week, Gen. David Patraeus pleaded guilty for mishandling classified information by using a Gmail account instead of his official government email.

    2. Violation of The 2009 Federal Records Act

    Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that:

    “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.”

    According to the original story on Clinton’s emails published in The New York Times:

    “Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency’s record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record.

    In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department.”

    The fact that the State Department combs through the 55,000 pages of emails sent on Clinton’s private email account seems to verify that at least some of the emails Clinton sent contained classified information.

    3. Violation of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)

    Veterans for a Strong America has filed a lawsuit against the State Department over potential violations of FOIA. Joel Arends, chairman of the non-profit group, explained to the Washington Examiner that their FOIA request over the Benghazi affair specifically asked for any personal email accounts Secretary Clinton may have used:

    “’At this point in time, I think we’re the only ones that specifically asked for both her personal and government email and phone logs,’ Arends said of his group’s Benghazi-related request.”

    MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell believes that the use of a personal emails server appears to be a preemptive move, specifically designed to circumvent FOIA:

    “’Hillary Clinton’s system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, which is designed to defy the law.’”

    These are just three of the potential violations that Clinton may have committed by using a personal email account to conduct official State business. ”

    http://ijr.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillary-may-violated-secret-email-accounts/

    Reply
  12. I have to wonder why the Democrats would stand a candidate potentially/allegedly so legally compromised.

    And I wonder why the Republicans put up their candidate too, a train wreck waiting to happen.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  29th October 2016

      Presumably the Democrats knew they had the FBI and Justice leadership in their pocket.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  29th October 2016

        My recollection is that the Republicans didn’t so much put Trump up as their candidate as allow him & his growing band of supporters to make them too scared not to.

        Reply
        • Mmh Gezza, more than a grain of truth in that. What gets me is that HRC is incapable of giving an honest answer to a simple question. She either can’t recall what happened 8 years ago when she was being sworn into office and being briefed as to her legal responsibilities or she uses cant to deny a responsible answer. Is such a person fit to be given the responsibility to decide whether or not to exercise the nuclear response? My blood has gone cold.
          At present,I have had access to 54,888 of her emails dating from 2008. I have much better things to do than read them all, but by random sampling, I detect a pattern of deliberate acts to obscure and defy the rules of conduct that must be followed by persons occupying positions of high office and power. She is a deliberate lier and also probably mentally unfit to be in command. If she becomes President then the US will be run by the Military/Industrial complex whose intent is not to pursue ways to global peace, but to preserve continued conflict and power. Imagine if we could get together a representative group of Russian and non-Russian people to design a plan to achieve Global peace. What would we ordinary Russian and Non-Russians have to sacrifice to achieve this situation where we take each other at face value and stop trying to dominate and exert power over each other? We would probably need a complete replacement of our political leaders and the political processes of the exercise of power. We actually are capable of conciliation and support for others expectations aren’t we?

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  29th October 2016

            I don’t know Bj. The problem is usually the realpolitik difficulty of getting large world powers to stop expecting to be allowed to economically, diplomatically, politically & militarily dominate what they see as their rightful spheres of interest. And the US behaves like that is now everywhere. As the continually self-proclaimed “leader of the free world”.

            Trump might be the closer of the two to stop surrounding & threatening Russia, but the more likely to start a conflict with China.

            But anyway, right at the moment, if you were an American voter, and you had to choose between them, which of these two risky ratbags would you vote for?

            Reply
  13. Gezza,I would be interested in reading your reasoning for conflict being supported by Trump against China. it is mostly puffery by the US Military trying to underline their claims to freedom of navigation. That is more a diplomatic problem than a military one. To change the agreed international rules applying to freedom of navigation is a global matter not a China versus USA area of conflict. Do you really think the Chinese will be able to change the Law of the Seas?

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  29th October 2016

      Two things mainly Bj. When you’ve watched as many of Trump’s rallies as I now have you see that in preaching to the ignorati his intemperance about the Chinese being the cause of much of Amerika’s loss of greatness means that he insults them almost daily.

      Secondly, his whole ethos around their military is that they must demonstrate they are so powerful no one dare challenge America anywhere & get away with it. It is inextricably bound up with his policy of making America great again. I believe he might just direct them to monster Chinese naval vessels in the South China Sea. And t’m not certain they won’t react. Duterte cuddling up to China, and telling America to push off, is a major worry for the US.

      I don’t think the Chinese give a shit about the law of the seas, and I don’t think the Americans do either, when it comes asserting what they consider are their rights to assert control over their territorial waters.

      Reply
  14. Hey Gezza, if you look at the history of the “Law of the Seas” development you will notice that Indonesia had a huge part in the determination of the LOS as passed by the UN. They will not stand for revisionist acts to erode the agreed rights of passage and authority over passage of vessels in the high seas. Their philosophy of “Wawasan Nusantra” is integral to their understanding of the LOS. After the last show of force by Indonesia (last month) I think China would have got the same message.
    The point is, this is not just a China versus USA problem, it concerns all trading nations including us.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  30th October 2016

      So, which of those two bags of smelly stuff, would you vote for? El Trumpo, or Hellary?
      You seem to be avoiding answering this terrible question like the plague, but, like, if you were, say, cursed, and going to die horribly the day after if you didn’t vote – who would be your choice Bj?

      Reply
      • Gezza, as of Monday morning, I am still inclined to sit and wait for the actual day, so that I can examine what else is revealed. Trump’s paedophile case in Federal Court shows the use of established power as a last resort manoeuvre against his character. Clinton’s emails and use of the Clinton Foundation are still bubbling away in the foreground as well.

        Reply
  15. Zedd

     /  31st October 2016

    Politics.. at its WORST !

    besides the ‘total nut-jobs’ does anyone really want to see ‘Pres. Drumpf’ in the whitehouse ? :/ 😦

    Reply
  16. Alan Wilkinson

     /  31st October 2016

    What Comey’s letter didn’t say:

    The FBI was preparing to wade through around 650,000 emails on a computer used by Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s close confidante, meaning their investigation will not be completed before the US presidential election on Nov 8.

    It came as the race narrowed to a statistical dead heat in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s latest email scandal, a new poll showed.

    An initial look at the Ms Abedin’s laptop’ data reportedly showed there could be thousands of messages sent to or from the private server used by Mrs Clinton when she was US Secretary of State, the Wall Street Journal reported.
    The scale of the task meant it would take weeks at least to assess whether the emails contained classified information, offering Mrs Clinton no prospect of clarity before polling day.

    FBI agents had still not examined any of the emails and were seeking a warrant to look at them, with Ms Abedin said to be co-operating.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/30/donald-trump-surges-into-tie-as-fbi-seeks-warrant-to-search-more/

    Reply
  17. Klik Bate

     /  31st October 2016

    She obviously hasn’t watched ‘American Sniper’ yet 😎

    Reply
  18. Klik Bate

     /  31st October 2016

    It sounds like the Clinton’s may have a bit MORE to worry about……

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s