Streetwise Professor

September 3, 2016

The Smartest Woman in the World Doesn’t Know Her A-B-Cs

Filed under: Politics — The Professor @ 12:45 am

When it comes to condemning Hillary Clinton’s mendacity, I take second place to no one. But even I am stunned by the revelations in the holiday Friday FBI dump. The audacity of her mendacity is staggering.

Where even to begin? There is so much.

  • The woman who was the primary classifying officer of the State Department claims ignorance as to the meaning of (C) (designating “confidential”)  at the beginning of paragraphs in various documents she reviewed, and which had passed through her server. During her interview with the FBI, she averred that it just was an alpha order designation. Which would make total sense, except these documents had no paragraphs designated (A), (B), (D), (E), etc., and had multiple (C)s. Maybe Hillary didn’t learn the A-B-C song as a child. The chutzpah required to say something so risible with a straight face is beyond measure.
  • Said same classifying officer claimed she had no knowledge that the designation NOFORN meant not for distribution to foreigners.
  • She claimed lack of memory for many details relating to her email, classified documents, etc., because of the concussion suffered in 2012. But if you dare question her health, you are a raving conspiracy loon. In a typically Clintonian fashion, she wants things both ways. She’s brain damaged when it helps her, she’s the smartest woman in the world when it helps her.
  • She (again remembering that “she” was the designated classifying officer) said she trusted that her subordinates not to send her any classified information. She also claims she never sent any classified information. So we are to believe that the Secretary of State never had any communications that were relevant to the national security of the US, and would damage said security if released.
  • Her original story was that she wanted a private server so she only had to deal with one device, e.g,. Blackberry. Turns out she had 8(!) at one time or another. Oh, and 5 fricking iPads. None of the devices have been recovered, and 2 of the iPads are AWOL. Supposedly at least two of the Blackberries were destroyed. With a hammer. By one of her flunkies. “If I had a hammer, I’d hammer my Blackberry in the morning, I’d hammer it in the evening, all over this land.” The other Blackberries? Who knows? Check eBay or DealDash.
  • The movement of her material from the home server to the new bathroom server at Platte River Networks was a complete FUBAR. The material could not be moved remotely (as if that was secure). So a computer containing the email archive was shipped from NY to Colorado, but even then the transfer was not easy due to an Apple Mail-Microsoft Exchange incompatibility. So it was uploaded to Gmail, and then downloaded onto the PRN server. Totes secure. And some 900 of the messages remained on Gmail.
  • But it gets better! The PRN drone shipped the laptop and a thumb drive containing the archive back to a Hillary staffer via UPS or USPS (he can’t remember which). They were never received. I should say allegedly never received, because you can never believe anything this lot says, especially when the disappearance is oh so convenient. Maybe they will reappear on a White House table in  5 years, like Rose Law Firm billing records.
  • Late in 2014 Clinton consiglieri Cheryl Mills informed PRN that the email retention policy had changed (how convenient!). PRN was instructed to irrevocably delete all messages on the PRN server over 60 days old (which would include everything relevant from her time at State) using BleachBit. The drone at PRN did delete the email, but neglected to BleachBit them.
  • After the NYT broke the story about the private server, and after the House had subpoenaed her emails, the PRN drone had a conversation with Clinton staffers. After realizing that he had deleted but not wiped the emails from the PRN server, he said “oh shit” (his words) and then merrily proceeded to BleachBit them. In full knowledge that they were under subpoena. The Clinton crowd will no doubt attempt to pin this all on him, but his come to Satan moment occurred after he had a conference call with Clinton staff. The inference is immediate.

I could go on (and on and on), but you get the idea. The sewer of lies, coverups, willful destruction of documents, and egregious breaches of national security is bottomless.

In a way, I am less livid at Hillary, Cheryl Mills, and that entire crowd. They are mendacious by nature. Slugs gonna do what slugs gonna do.

No, the objects of my greatest scorn are James Comey, the FBI, and the DOJ. They were obviously just going through the motions with this investigation. What the FBI grudgingly released only under pressure from the House reveals a pattern of conduct extending over years that would warrant indictment under either the statutory negligence standard, or even the fictitious intent standard that Comey invented to rationalize recommending no charges against her. The circumstantial evidence of intent screams out, from the day that the private server was first considered, to the day that it was wiped clean, to the day she told barefaced lie after barefaced lie to the FBI.

When someone destroys documents, the law is that the finder of fact should draw a negative inference about the content of those documents. One doesn’t destroy what makes one look good, so the logical inference is that the documents make one look bad. And here the inference is that Hillary intentionally flouted the law in order to shield her communications from any public scrutiny or oversight, in order to escape accountability for her actions.

But the FBI and the DOJ ignored all of this, and gave Clinton a pass. In so doing, they are accessories to and enablers of her mendacity and corruption. In so doing, they demonstrate that the system has been deeply corrupted. Perhaps irredeemably so. The powerful and protected get a pass. The rule of law has gaping exceptions that exempt the privileged. Accountability is an alien concept.

DC is an Augean Stables that would give pause to Hercules, if there was a Hercules in sight. But there’s not. So the shit just gets deeper by the day.

Print Friendly

10 Comments »

  1. We Europeans scorn the low quality of the presidential candidates.
    We may laugh, but it matters.
    Next year in France we might have a presidential of François Hollande v Marine Le Pen.
    Which would make your choice look like… What’s that word, a doozer?

    Comment by bloke in france — September 3, 2016 @ 3:16 pm

  2. Europeans also scorned Reagan. Since then, the U.S. has innovated and grown, and Europe has ossified and is now circling the drain. Their own elections are such farce that they float the idea that they should have a vote in our elections (Dutch newspaper, 2012), which is simply the articulation that their own elections are frauds. A vote against the EU? Well, we’ll just have to have another vote. A Danish MP essentially said that the people shouldn’t have a vote. Recently they have been led by a Maoist (Jose Barroso, President of the EC), an Ostie (ex-Marxist Merkel) and a drunk (Juncker). Europeans still cling to the belief that they matter to the U.S. as they once did. But undergrad demographics courses in the U.S. are detailing to a new generation of Americans the inexorable decline to insignificance of Europe. A birth rate below the replacement rate is a clear indication that that population doesn’t really think there is a future.

    Comment by Richard Whitney — September 3, 2016 @ 7:52 pm

  3. Now try imagining what the US might look like in four years time, should she win the presidency.

    Speaking as a national of one of your country’s less significant but long-term and stalwart allies, for the first time, I’m seriously concerned for the future of my ‘great and powerful friend’.

    Comment by Ex-Regulator on Lunch Break — September 4, 2016 @ 5:31 am

  4. I agree – there is no longer an FBI or an Attorney General. The fix was in. It is appalling that the FBI and the AG rolled over for the pantsuit. One would have expected that the laws would be enforced. Killery Billary Rotten Klinton Hildebeast is right – there are 2 standards – one for the pantsuit and one for the rest of us. This begins to look like a third-world dictatorship.

    “for my friends – everything; for my enemies – the law” – as the Romans used to say.

    Martha Stewart must be shaking her head big time, along with millions of other people.

    And then there is this, from the lardbutt pantsuit who claims she is “fighting for us” – money, money, money, money:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising.html?_r=0

    Mr. Trump has pointed to Mrs. Clinton’s noticeably scant schedule of campaign events this summer to suggest she has been hiding from the public. But Mrs. Clinton has been more than accessible to those who reside in some of the country’s most moneyed enclaves and are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to see her. In the last two weeks of August, Mrs. Clinton raked in roughly $50 million at 22 fund-raising events, averaging around $150,000 an hour, according to a New York Times tally.

    When financiers complain about the regulations implemented by the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul, Mrs. Clinton reaffirms her support for strong Wall Street regulation, but adds that she is open to listening to anyone’s ideas and at times notes that she represented the banking industry as a senator.

    For a donation of $2,700, the children (under 16) of donors at an event last month at the Sag Harbor, N.Y., estate of the hedge fund magnate Adam Sender could ask Mrs. Clinton a question. A family photo with Mrs. Clinton cost $10,000, according to attendees.

    And when Mrs. Clinton attended a dinner at the Beverly Hills home of the entertainment executive Haim Saban last month, the invitation was very clear. If attendees wanted to dine and receive a photo with Mrs. Clinton they had to pay their own way: “Write not raise” $100,000.

    Comment by elmer — September 4, 2016 @ 9:46 am

  5. @Richard Whitney:

    You are very ill-informed about Europe.

    “Europe has ossified and is now circling the drain”
    Some European countries, yes. However, the Baltics, Scandinavians, Central Europe and Germany are all doing pretty well, and the under-performers will eventually come good (as Germany has done at least twice in living memory).

    “Their own elections are such farce that they float the idea that they should have a vote in our elections (Dutch newspaper, 2012), which is simply the articulation that their own elections are frauds”
    How does one beget the other? I imagine that the Dutch suggestion was based on the importance of the US to the world, rather than an unexpressed desire to make love to a goat, or whatever other nonsense you want to come up with.

    “A vote against the EU? Well, we’ll just have to have another vote”
    Yeah, OK, fair point.

    “A Danish MP essentially said that the people shouldn’t have a vote”
    Well, thankfully, the people DO have a vote, so they are free to tell him to shove off at the next opportunity.

    “Recently they have been led by a Maoist (Jose Barroso, President of the EC), an Ostie (ex-Marxist Merkel) and a drunk (Juncker)”
    Not everybody shrieks “WITCH!” at every mention of Socialism. Some of us are pretty attached to the idea that society should help the sick, poor and vulnerable.

    “Europeans still cling to the belief that they matter to the U.S. as they once did”.
    Hardly – that’s why they left the US to go it alone in Iraq. We matter enough to the US, and that’s just fine.

    “But undergrad demographics courses in the U.S. are detailing to a new generation of Americans the inexorable decline to insignificance of Europe. A birth rate below the replacement rate is a clear indication that that population doesn’t really think there is a future”.
    That would be why economically powerful Germany has a very low birth rate, and economically stagnating France has a relatively high rate? It has far more to do with wealth and with social policy (the latter being the main difference between France and Germany in this respect).

    But anyway, I really should know better than to feed the trolls…

    Comment by Hiberno Frog — September 5, 2016 @ 10:58 am

  6. +++Some of us are pretty attached to the idea that society should help the sick, poor and vulnerable.+++

    That is not a problem; the problem begins when one thinks society should help anyone not motivated enough to provide for himself, while being healthy and young.

    Comment by LL — September 5, 2016 @ 4:16 pm

  7. But wait, there’s more…..there is always more when it comes to Hillary and lies, and graft. She is the ultimate Grifter.

    Comment by Jeffrey Carter — September 6, 2016 @ 9:11 am

  8. @Jeff. A bottomless pit of lies, including lies about graft.

    The ProfessorComment by The Professor — September 6, 2016 @ 9:50 pm

  9. Hiberno Frog’s response begins with an unwarranted and incorrect assumption, and ends with an ad hominem. And in between, he makes my case, Europe is doomed.
    Even the ‘doing pretty well’ countries he cites are degenerating. Denmark is fighting the good fight, but ‘way too late; many neighborhoods in Copenhagen and much of Aarhus are no-go zones in which the Islamofascists there have told the local law enforcement to stay out – and they do. Maalmo? Gone. Just forget about it. Car-B-Q’s are common in France, and Calas? Gone. Paris has many no-go banlieues. The East? The government of Hungary today is encouraging the population to vote against Brussel’s immigration policy in a referendum October 2. Meanwhile, Hungary is in a state of emergency.

    ‘Socialism/Witch?’ No, they should shout ‘disaster’. Ask the Venezuelans. How many socialist disasters does it take for people to understand? Even China figured out that a little market-based economy would be better than what they were doing, and in the process they brought hundreds of millions out of the poverty that socialism had enforced.
    Those ‘socialist’ northern European countries only have the money to buy off the populace because they have some admirable free-market policies(some of which we should adopt). So they could tax freely because that money became a transfer payment from Hansen to Jensen. Wait until they are mostly paying El-Saadi, a nice guy: http://bit.ly/20YUlZx.

    U.S. foreign policy has to continue its evolution towards deprecating the Old World. Strategically, why are we defending them? They express no commitment to self-defense; why should that be on our bill? We can’t pull the plug on NATO all at once, but we should put reduction in the works and diplomatically encourage Europe to defend itself. Economically, Asia and Latin America have been growing here, and real trade agreements can accelerate that. Europe’s idea is to periodically sue a U.S. innovator, not a good business model.
    So it goes.

    Comment by Richard Whitney — September 7, 2016 @ 3:15 pm

  10. @Richard Whitney:

    Not wishing to prolong the argument (which is anyway off topic and I’m pretty late to answer too) but I must correct some inaccuracies:
    – I can’t comment on Denmark, but I can comment on Calais, which is a lovely town and a perfectly nice place to visit. The refugee camp and the port are indeed dangerous places but most cities in the world have dangerous neighbourhoods. We are a long way from seeing society break down in Europe on the basis of a few bad neighbourhoods (how many US cities have neighbourhoods where the cops won’t go?)…
    – Again, I’ll point to the successful countries of Europe, who combine a certain degree of Socialism with a successful economy. You dismiss democratic choice as being simply “bought off” – but the fact is that the population has chosen, and they seem to be doing pretty happily out of it. Just because Venezuela and China suffered under Socialism, doesn’t mean that any country which enacts some social policies is doomed. Too much of anything is bad for you.
    – It is true that Europe should be more involved in it’s own defence. It makes no sense that America is paying to protect some of the richest countries on the planet. On the other hand, it is not in the interest of the US to leave NATO: For the simple reason that the resulting instability would be economically damaging for those countries who rely on foreign trade the most.

    Comment by Hiberno Frog — September 22, 2016 @ 2:59 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress