FBI Director James Comey reacted this week to the widespread criticism of his decision to bend the law to let Hillary Clinton off the hook by sending a memo to staffers (many of whom are rumored to be furious at having the FBI’s reputation for unbiased law enforcement trashed). In it, Comey doubled-down on his decision not to recommend indictment for Clinton for mishandling classified information, insisting that it wasn’t even difficult. If he’d instead called it a “no-brainer,” that might at least be defensible.
But this story may not be over yet. The latest release of FBI notes and emails has made it clear that there is another potential, very serious charge lurking out there like the shark from “Jaws.” It’s the same charge that brought down the Nixon White House: obstruction of justice. In this case, the deliberate destruction of evidence (Hillary’s emails) using BleachBit digital deletion software, after it was placed under subpoena and ordered to be preserved.
US Army Reserve Colonel and University of Texas Professor Austin Bay has an article at Observer.com that lays out the ironclad obstruction case step-by-step with a very clear timeline. Take a look and see if you think it would be an easy decision for an FBI Director to ignore all that. Bay concludes by calling on Comey to schedule another press conference to admit he erred in July and to recommend that the DOJ proceed with indictments for three reasons: to reassert that all lawbreakers should be treated equally, to re-establish the FBI’s tarnished reputation, and to provide justice for the four Americans who died in Benghazi. Bay says if Comey refuses to do that, then he should resign.
Sadly, anyone who understands Washington won’t place any hopes or bets on that happening. Obstructing justice used to be a felony. These days, it’s so common, even the Justice Department does it.
It’s always fun during election season to see how candidates react when confronted with questions about their negatives that are indisputably true. For instance, if Trump is slammed for not having a detailed plan to deal with some issue or other, he simply says that his plan is to put the best people together to craft a plan, then he tells us how great that plan will be (by the way, it’s always baffled me why pundits put so much importance on a candidate’s detailed “plans” when they know those plans will have to pass Congress, where all the details will be changed anyway). Or when Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson didn’t recognize the Syrian refugee center of Aleppo, he reacted by simply admitting he had a brain glitch. Pundits declared his campaign mortally wounded, but didn’t specify whether that was because he failed to recognize Aleppo or he was just too honest for politics.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton has more skeletons in the closet than the Chicago Morgue. Not to mention all the failures of Obama policies that she’s vowing to continue (ISIS) or even double-down on (Obamacare). And resorting to honesty is never her first instinct. So I’ve noticed that she’s developed a one-size-fits-all response to an attack: turn it around and accuse the accuser of being unpatriotic for even bringing it up. For instance, if Trump criticizes the weakened state of the military under Obama, he’s insulting America’s troops. If he criticizes Obama for not listening to his generals, he’s attacking our heroic generals as weak and ineffective. If he says he wants to reverse Obama's policies and “make America great again” (something Bill Clinton said Hillary would do in a 2008 campaign ad), then he’s badmouthing America by suggesting it’s not great now.
It remains to be seen whether this strategy will work, but it did seem awfully familiar. Then I remembered where I’d seen it before. I think this might be a clip of Hillary’s campaign strategist during his college days:
Since a lot of people this week are talking about the risks of vote fraud through electronic voting machines, it’s worth noting that a newly-released internal email from George Soros’ laughably-named “Open Society Foundations” shows that they held a meeting two years ago to discuss ways that Obama could bypass Congress and promote online voting, probably the worst idea since texting while driving. Predictably, the Obama Administration later proposed exactly those Soros-approved idea for voting via table computer, dismissing objections that online voting could be tampered with by hackers.
Irony alert: we know about the Soros minions’ avid pursuit of online voting because the email was leaked to Breitbart.com by someone who apparently hacked into their computer system and stole it.
“Dilbert” cartoonist Scott Adams is also an economics MBA, master hypnotist and longtime student of persuasion techniques. His blog posts on the election campaign have become hugely popular for his unique perspective that emphasizes the candidates' psychological manipulation and persuasion tactics over politics (although they’ve cost him a lot of fans and garnered death threats because he predicted Trump would win in a landslide)
This particular post is a must-read for anyone who wonders why Democrats all suddenly started using the word “dark” when talking about Trump, and how they convinced so many people that he’s a scary, racist bogeyman when nobody who actually knows him has ever seen any evidence of that. It also has some good insights into how Trump’s political tactics mirror his business negotiation tactics from “The Art of the Deal,” and are either totally misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented by the media and his political opponents.