quote:

Lawyers for Bryan Pagliano, the former State Department information technology specialist who managed Hillary Clinton’s email system, provided new details in a federal lawsuit on Tuesday about an immunity agreement he has with the Justice Department.

They also argued that Pagliano should be allowed to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in a pending deposition with the watchdog group Judicial Watch because he has information that could “furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute” in the Clinton email investigation.

quote:

“Dilbert” creator and commentary writer Scott Adams gave a halfhearted endorsement of Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, saying he fears her supporters might otherwise try to murder him.

“I’ve decided to come off the sidelines and endorse a candidate for President of the United States,” the 58-year-old cartoonist wrote on his popular blog Sunday night, a day before the Associated Press reported that Mrs. Clinton reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination. “I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety.”

Mr. Adams, who has previously lauded Mr. Trump for his persuasion skills, explained that Mrs. Clinton’s supporters have “convinced” him that his safety would be at risk if he was viewed as supportive of Mr. Trump.

“This past week we saw Clinton pair the idea of President Trump with nuclear disaster, racism, Hitler, the Holocaust, and whatever else makes you tremble in fear,” Mr. Adams wrote. “Her new scare tactics are solid-gold persuasion.

“The only downside I can see to the new approach is that it is likely to trigger a race war in the United States. And I would be a top-ten assassination target in that scenario because once you define Trump as Hitler, you also give citizens moral permission to kill him,” he explained. “And obviously it would be okay to kill anyone who actively supports a genocidal dictator, including anyone who wrote about his persuasion skills in positive terms. (I’m called an ‘apologist’ on Twitter, or sometimes just Joseph Goebbels).

“So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd,” Mr. Adams argued. “But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.

Promoted Content

This Razor Is So Popular It Sold Out Twice Harry's
She Deserves Nothing Less… Get Her The Best Engagement Ring Store.com | Search, Find, Buy. The best deals on the hottest products.

Recommended by

“As I have often said, I have no psychic powers and I don’t know which candidate would be the best president,” he wrote. “But I do know which outcome is most likely to get me killed by my fellow citizens. So for safety reason, I’m on team Clinton.”

Mr. Adams said he’s sticking by his prediction that Mr. Trump will win in a “landslide” because of his “superior” persuasion skills.

“But don’t blame me for anything President Trump does in office because I endorse Clinton,” he added. “The rest of you are on your own. Good luck.”

promoted stories

quote:

Hillary Clinton may need to change her campaign theme from “Stronger together” to “What, me worry?”

Clinton gave a series of interviews Wednesday in which she was asked about the ongoing FBI investigation of her personal server as well as fundraising by the Clinton Foundation. Clinton’s answer was that she is not worried about any of it.

First up, Fox News’ Bret Baier asked Clinton about a previous statement she had made about the FBI investigation saying, “What basis did you tell this radio station, 1070 radio on Friday, that there is absolutely no possibility of an indictment? Has anybody from the DOJ talked to you or your representatives?” Clinton replied, “I will repeat what I said. That is not going to happen. There is no basis for it and I’m looking forward to this being wrapped up as soon as possible.”

[note she really didn't answer the question]

Toward the end of the interview Baier took one more shot at asking if Clinton had any concerns about ongoing investigations. “The Clinton Foundation investigation, the FBI investigation of the email, you’re saying zero chance that this is a problem for you in this election?” Baier asked. Clinton replied, “Absolutely. That’s what I’m saying.”

quote:

Earlier today President Obama officially endorsed Democrat presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton for President. In an endorsement video released by the Clinton campaign, Obama made it clear he wants Clinton to win the White House in order to preserve his legacy...

Shortly after the endorsement was made, President Obama met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch this afternoon in the Oval Office. The meeting was closed to the press.

Lynch, of course, will ultimately make the decision as to whether Clinton will be prosecuted should the FBI issue an indictment surrounding her use of a private email server to store and transfer top secret, classified information.

In order for Clinton to carry Obama's torch, she has to stay out of prison. In order to do that, she has to avoid prosecution. I'm sure Obama made that very clear to his somewhat new Attorney General.

quote:

It seems as if anything is up for sale if you give enough money to the Clinton Foundation, even positions on a national security intelligence board that has access to top-secret information. Meet Rajiv K. Fernando, a big donor to Clinton, Democrats, and the family foundation, was given a spot on the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board in 2011, even though he had zero experience in the field. He has since resigned from the board after ABC News [you know, ABC, it must be full of republican nutsuckers right??] launched an inquiry into his appointment. The first thing that they asked for from the State Department was his resume. Emails obtained by Citizens United after a 2-year Freedom of Information Act battle with the State Department showed that Clinton’s staffers were instructed to “stall” and “protect the name” of Mrs. Clinton from the news organization’s review of this appointment. One member told ABC, “We had no idea who he was.” ...

The newly released emails reveal that after ABC News started asking questions in August 2011, a State Department official who worked with the advisory board couldn’t immediately come up with a justification for Fernando serving on the panel. His and other emails make repeated references to “S”; ABC News has been told this is a common way to refer to the Secretary of State.

“The true answer is simply that S staff (Cheryl Mills) added him,” wrote Wade Boese, who was Chief of Staff for the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, in an email to Mannina, the press aide. “Raj was not on the list sent to S; he was added at their insistence.”

As is customary with a new administration, the make-up of the board changed substantially when Clinton took over the State Department, according to Amb. James Woolsey, who served on the panel from 2006 to 2009. But the seriousness of its mission remained the same.

He said the board’s primary purpose was to gather an array of experts on nuclear weapons and arms control to constantly assess and update the nation’s nuclear strategy.

“Most things that involve nuclear weapons and nuclear strategy are dealt with at a pretty ressumingsensitive basis -- top secret,” he said, noting that participants meet in a secure facility and are restricted in what materials they can discuss.

That is not typically the realm of political donors, Woolsey said. Though, he added, it would not be impossible for someone lacking a security background to make a contribution to the panel. “It would depend on how smart and dedicated this person was... I would think you would have to devote some real time to getting up to speed,” he said...

Then, Fernando resigned from ISAB to devote more attention to his company (so he says in his resignation letter). ABC News added that requests for an interview with Mills was denied by the Clinton campaign, with spokesman Nick Merrill deferring the news organization to State. Fernando certainly did not respond to requests for comment.

Over at Hot Air, Ed described the Clinton staff’s response to ABC News’ inquiry as “high comedy,” and that this was nothing more than an act of quid pro quo that was scuttled once State couldn’t really find a reason for his appointment that wouldn’t put then-Secretary Clinton in an awful light:

quote:

No one could come up with an explanation for Fernando’s appointment, even after two days of trying. The best that the combined efforts of State’s legal and executive team could do was to hail Fernando’s “relative youth, enthusiasm, a business perspective, and expertise in cyber security,” a description that would apply to thousands if not millions of mid-level executives in the US.

As soon as they realized that the jig was up, Fernando resigned his post. For five years, this has all been left unexplained, and only a FOIA lawsuit from Citizens United has answered this mystery. Hillary sold access to the ISAB as a payback for political and Clinton Foundation donations. It’s just that simple.

quote:

Josh Earnest came close to a tacit confession that the FIX is in.
On the afternoon of June 9, 2016, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with President Obama in the White House. We are unlikely to ever know with certainty the substance of the meeting. But White House press secretary Josh Earnest gave us some hints.

When asked earlier that day whether persons investigating the former secretary of state’s use of an unsecured, private server to send classified government information – henceforth Hillmailgate – might be influenced by President Obama’s endorsement of Secretary Clinton’s presidential candidacy, Earnest said this:

Earnest’s statement that the president is confident in endorsing Clinton because he knows the investigators have a job to do “independent of any political interference” implies that Obama already knows that the investigation has cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing. Hence, his “confidence” is substantive.

Earnest also claimed there is no effort to interfere with the professional investigators and prosecutors because the president knows they cannot be “swayed.” So how does the president trusting the independence of the investigators indicate the conclusions of their investigation? Earnest is using timeline-muddled language.

Reading in between Earnest’s lines, it sounds as though the president knows that no guilt will be attached to his party’s nominee. In other words, it’s a done deal.

Despite Earnest’s earnest disclaimer, some people, in advance of the big announcement, are skeptical concerning the ultimate veracity of the investigation’s findings.

We skeptics ponder, at least, three possible outcomes:
1. The investigation will conclude that Secretary Clinton committed serious illegalities, which may/will trigger appropriate legal proceedings against her. (move for indictment with potential prosecution)

2. The investigation will come to the #1 conclusion but will not recommend indictment. (probable guilt, but the move for an indictment would harm the nation at this time)

3. The investigation will conclude that Mrs. Clinton is, at most, guilty of several previously admitted misjudgments – both by her and by one or more of her staff – but no actions justify further adjudication. (nothing to see here, folks; move along)

Of course, (1) and (3) could merge into a two-faced end-game with a private guilty face and a public innocent face. This would be the Hillmailgate FIX.

As the public speculates on the coming dénouement of the drama, the speculated consequences of the FIX are in the air:

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There is an attack ad out now from the nutsuckers trying to pair Clinton and Nixon. Why would the nutsuckers want to say a democrat is as bad as a republican, therefore vote republican? My intellectual starch blocking mechanism does not allow me to compute the abjectness of the stupidity of that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There is an attack ad out now from the nutsuckers trying to pair Clinton and Nixon. Why would the nutsuckers want to say a democrat is as bad as a republican, therefore vote republican? My intellectual starch blocking mechanism does not allow me to compute the abjectness of the stupidity of that.

Because unlike Koolaide drinkers they can see a crook regardless of what party they belong to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Myself, I was just wondering why there's all of this whittering about Clinton being crooked from people who are fine with Flump refusing to release his tax details. It seems to serve no purpose besides making it very obvious that there's a double standard at work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Myself, I was just wondering why there's all of this whittering about Clinton being crooked from people who are fine with Flump refusing to release his tax details. It seems to serve no purpose besides making it very obvious that there's a double standard at work.

I am not really interested in Thrump's tax returns. We know he tries to pay as little as possible. Which makes him different from. . . pretty much no one.

I am interested in the Clinton Foundations financials. The whole pay for play that appears to be going on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Myself, I wonder what he's hiding if he doesn't want to release information that every candidate since Ford has, and whether his tax information indicates that he's worth nothing like as much as the figures he keeps slinging about.
On that level, it seems relevant.