“We have no evidence that’s sufficient to justify conclusion that she violated any of the statutes with respect to classified information.” - James "Weasel" Comey. Bill Whittle (see adjacent video) needs all of 93 seconds to conclusively demonstrate Comey is either an utter incompetent or a bald-faced liar...though we STRONGLY believe him to be the latter.
Video of the Day
Obama offers a gold-star mom a manufactured reason why he still refuses to call Islamic terror by its proper name. Yeah, you lying bag of douche; as soon as self-proclaimed Christians start beheading people...and hundreds of millions of Christians actively SUPPORT them...we'll consider your utterly idiotic argument.
Tales From the Dark Side
Courtesy of Keith Koffler, the Washington Free Beacon presents the Trump-Holt debate.
On the Lighter Side
South Park on the scripted nature of Hillary's "debate" performance. Like it or not, Trumpeteers, Ted Cruz would have wiped the floor with the hapless harpy.
To old friends, we bid you welcome. To those unfamiliar with either our site or, perhaps more importantly, our sense of humor, learn more about us through the "About" link at the top of the page
Our latest offering is below; past editions can be accessed through the "Archive" link in the box at the top of the page. Feel free to participate in our latest poll, located immediately to the right, and be sure to view our video selections in the numbered boxes above.
We appreciate you taking the time to visit, and hope you've enjoyed The Daily Gouge.
It’s Friday, September 30th, 2016…but before we begin, in an exposé which deserves to read in full, the WSJ‘s Kimberly Strassel offers proof positive James Comey is a lying poltroon:
Jim Comey’s Blind Eye
The FBI director can’t defend immunity for Hillary Clinton’s aides—which says volumes.
“I swear to tell you lies, whole lies, and nothing but lies, so help me Obama!
Two revealing, if largely unnoticed, moments came in the middle of FBI Director Jim Comey’s Wednesday testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. When combined, these moments prove that Mr. Comey gave Hillary Clinton a pass.
Congress hauled Mr. Comey in to account for the explosive revelation that the government granted immunity to Clinton staffers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson as part of its investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton had mishandled classified information. Rep. Tom Marino (R., Pa.), who was once a Justice Department prosecutor and knows how these investigations roll, provided the first moment. He asked Mr. Comey why Ms. Mills was so courteously offered immunity in return for her laptop—a laptop that Mr. Comey admitted investigators were very keen to obtain. Why not simply impanel a grand jury, get a subpoena, and seize the evidence?
Mr. Comey’s answer was enlightening: “It’s a reasonable question. . . . Any time you are talking about the prospect of subpoenaing a computer from a lawyer—that involves the lawyer’s practice of law—you know you are getting into a big megillah.” Pressed further, he added: “In general, you can often do things faster with informal agreements, especially when you are interacting with lawyers.”
The key words: “The lawyer’s practice of law.” What Mr. Comey was referencing here is attorney-client privilege. Ms. Mills was able to extract an immunity deal, avoid answering questions, and sit in on Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview because she has positioned herself as Hillary’s personal lawyer.Ms. Mills could therefore claim that any conversations or interactions she had with Mrs. Clinton about the private server were protected by attorney-client privilege.
Only here’s the rub: When Ms. Mills worked at the State Department she was not acting as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer. She was the secretary’s chief of staff.Any interaction with Mrs. Clinton about her server, or any evidence from that time, should have been fair game for the FBI and the Justice Department.
Ms. Mills was allowed to get away with this “attorney-client privilege” nonsense only because she claimed that she did not know about Mrs. Clinton’s server until after they had both left the State Department. Ergo, no questions about the server.
The FBI has deliberately chosen to accept this lie.The notes of its interview with Ms. Mills credulously states: “Mills did not learn Clinton was using a private email server until after Clinton’s tenure” at State. It added: “Mills stated she was not even sure she knew what a server was at the time.”
Which brings us to the hearing’s second revealing moment.Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) pointed out that the FBI’s notes from its interview with Clinton IT staffer Bryan Pagliano expose this lie. In late 2009 or early 2010, Mr. Pagliano told investigators, he approached Ms. Mills to relay State Department concerns that the private server might pose a “federal records retention issue.” According to Mr. Pagliano, Ms. Mills told him not to worry about it, because other secretaries of state had used similar setups.
More damning, Mr. Chaffetz held up an email that Ms. Mills sent in 2010 to Justin Cooper, whom the Clintons personally employed to help maintain the server. The email reads: “hrc email coming back—is server okay?” Mr. Cooper responds: “Ur funny. We are on the same server.”
To be clear: When Mrs. Clinton had an email problem, Ms. Mills didn’t call the State Department’s help desk. She didn’t call Yahoo customer service.She called a privately employed Clinton aide and asked specifically about Mrs. Clinton’s “server.” She did this as chief of staff at the State Department. Mr. Chaffetz asked Mr. Comey why the FBI wrote that Ms. Mills was ignorant about the server until later.
Mr. Comey suddenly sounded like a man with something to hide.“I don’t remember exactly, sitting here,” he said, in what can only be called the FBI version of “I don’t recall.” He then mumbled that “Having done many investigations myself, there’s always conflicting recollections of facts, some of which are central, some of which are peripheral. I don’t remember, sitting here, about that one.”
Really? Only a few minutes before he had explained that the Justice Department was forced to issue immunity to Ms. Mills because she had asserted attorney-client privilege.Yet he couldn’t remember all the glaring evidence proving she had no such privilege? Usually, the FBI takes a dim view of witnesses who lie. Had the FBI pursued perjury charges against Ms. Mills—as it would have done against anyone else—it would have had extraordinary leverage to force her to speak about all of her communications regarding the server. It might have even threatened to build a case that Ms. Mills was part of a criminal scheme. Then it could have offered immunity in return for the real goods on Hillary.
But going that route would have required grand juries, subpoenas, warrants and indictments—all things that Mr. Comey clearly wanted to avoid in this politically sensitive investigation. Much easier to turn a blind eye to Ms. Mills’s fiction. And to therefore give Mrs. Clinton a pass.
Any questions? No, seriously…any questions?!? James Comey deserves, quite literally, to be shot for violating his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and…
Now, here’s The Gouge!
We lead off the last edition of the month with two final comments on the Holt-Trump debate; first, the brilliantly biting, always-insightful wit of Hope ‘n Change:
“…In our view, we saw a largely out-of-control contest (nice moderating, Lester!) between a master schemer and a stream-of-thoughter. Hillary wore a robotic smile as she lied and lied with well rehearsed, entirely scripted answers.Trump seemed somewhat unclear on the idea that “answers” should be at least tangentially related to the “questions,” lacked anything remotely like specifics, but did not disappoint in the bombast category.
There were multiple opportunities for Trump to utterly destroy Hillary – and he unfortunately missed every one of them. He was like a man at a buffet who had no plate. In the future, he needs to listen harder to what Hillary is actually saying so he can take advantage of her more ludicrous statements.“
Next, the thoughts of the editors at NRO:
It turns out that working the refs is an effective strategy. Hillary Clinton glided through the first of the season’s three presidential debates on Monday night, thanks in no small part to moderator Lester Holt, who spent pretty much the entirety of his evening clearing Secretary Clinton’s way.
If Holt didn’t rappel into the debate Candy Crowley–style, it was because he didn’t need to. Antagonistic questions were directed toward one candidate and one candidate only. Donald Trump was asked about his tax returns, his role in promoting the birther controversy, whether he flip-flopped on the Iraq War, and what he meant when he said recently that Clinton does not have a “presidential look.” Clinton, by contrast, was not asked about her private e-mail server, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, or any one of the many topics about which voters have rightly expressed concerns. Instead, she was asked open-ended policy questions and permitted to dilate about renewable energy and the sundry misdeeds of George W. Bush.
The institutional slant of the media being what it is, the Republican nominee is always at a disadvantage when it comes to debate moderators, and should prepare accordingly.It was clear from his performance last night that Trump did not adequately prepare for what were entirely predictable lines of questioning; he also missed several opportunities to go on the offensive against a uniquely vulnerable opponent. Nonetheless, it’s not the job of the moderator to give either candidate a leg up; in fact, it’s the moderator’s job to do the opposite.
Unfortunately, Holt’s performance is the result of growing pressures in liberal media and political circles to treat Donald Trump as a candidate beyond the pale of public life, to deny him legitimacy as a presidential contender. We have our criticisms of Donald Trump, too. But his electoral fate should be up to the voters, not Lester Holt and his colleagues.
We can only hope Trump learns from his lapses and takes Round Two significantly more seriously; but given his history, we’re far from confident he will. Teaching a 70-year-old dog new tricks is tough enough; but it’s well nigh impossible when the canine in question has only a passing familiarity with many of the issues, the vocabulary of Snookie and the self-control of a hormonal teen-age girl.
In a related item courtesy of Townhall.com, the great Victor Davis Hanson details one profoundly important reason every American should be concerned…very concerned…about the outcome of the 2016 election:
“Donald Trump’s supporters see a potential Hillary Clinton victory in November as the end of any conservative chance to restore small government, constitutional protections, fiscal sanity and personal liberty. Clinton’s progressives swear that a Trump victory would spell the implosion of America as they know it, alleging Trump parallels with every dictator from Josef Stalin to Adolf Hitler.
Part of the frenzy over 2016 as a make-or-break election is because a closely divided Senate’s future may hinge on the coattails of the presidential winner. An aging Supreme Court may also translate into perhaps three to four court picks for the next president.
Yet such considerations only partly explain the current election frenzy.
The model of the imperial Obama presidency is the greater fear. Over the last eight years, Obama has transformed the powers of presidency in a way not seen in decades.
…Partisans are shocked that the press does not go after Trump’s various inconsistencies and fibs about his supposed initial opposition to the Iraq War, or press him on the details of Trump University. Conservatives counter that Clinton has never had to come clean about the likely illegal pay-for-play influence peddling of the Clinton Foundation or her serial lies about her private email server.
But why, if elected, should either worry much about media scrutiny?
Obama established the precedent that a president should be given a pass on lying to the American people. Did Americans, as Obama repeatedly promised, really get to keep their doctors and health plans while enjoying lower premiums and deductibles, as the country saved billions through his Affordable Care Act?
More recently, did Obama mean to tell a lie when he swore that he sent cash to the Iranians only because he could not wire them the money — when in truth the administration had wired money to Iran in the past? Was cash to Iran really not a ransom for American hostages, as the president asserted? Did Obama really, as he insisted, never email Clinton at her private unsecured server? Can the next president, like Obama, double the national debt and claim to be a deficit hawk?
Congress has proven woefully inept at asserting its constitutional right to check and balance Obama’s executive overreach. The courts have often abdicated their own oversight. But the press is the most blameworthy. White House press conferences now resemble those in the Kremlin, with journalists tossing Putin softball questions about his latest fishing or hunting trip.
One reason Americans are scared about the next president is that they should be.
In 2017, a President Trump or President Clinton will be able to do almost anything he or she wishes without much oversight — thanks to the precedent of Obama’s overreach, abetted by a lapdog press that forgot that the ends never justify the means.“
For all his personality flaws, were Ted Cruz the Republican candidate we’d rest easy in the knowledge his bedrock Conservative beliefs would lead him to repair much of the damage wrought by The Dear Misleader; we’ve no such confidence in The Donald, primarily because we’ve still no idea exactly what he thinks…let alone how!
Next, submitted for your perusal, a special section devoted to the complete and unmitigated lie which is Black Lives Matter and all its resultant incarnations.
As we’ve noted numerous times before, our position on this utterly despicable movement is due to the undeniable fact it’s based on a no-ifs-ands-or-buts fabrication of the first order. When even the WaPo’s Jonathan Capeheart reluctantly reaches that conclusion, you can take it to the bank.
Anyone’s entitled to their opinion; but when said opinion is completely contradicted by incontrovertible facts, it’s rendered unworthy of further consideration…no matter who…
…continues to espouse it.
Since we’re on the subject of “movements”…and individuals…bereft of credibility, writing at NRO, Rich Lowry accurately identifies BLM‘s modus operandi:
“The Charlotte rioters didn’t know whether the controversial police shooting of Keith Scott was justified or not, and didn’t care.They worked their mayhem — trashing businesses and injuring cops, with one protester killed in the disorder — before anything meaningful could be ascertained about the case except that the cops said Scott had a gun and his family said he didn’t.
Charlotte is the latest episode in the evidence-free Black Lives Matter movement that periodically erupts in violence after officer-involved shootings. The movement is beholden to a narrative of systematic police racism to which every case is made to conform, regardless of the facts or logic.
…The police dashcam and body-camera video of the Scott shooting is inconclusive but broadly supportive of the police story.(Not to mention it’s highly doubtful Mr. Scott had ever read a book in his life!) The quality is too grainy to show definitively that Scott held a gun in his hand, but what appears to be an ankle holster is visible on his leg. His movements and those of the officers around him are consistent with him brandishing a gun.
The police recovered an ankle holster and a pistol at the scene. For the police to have planted the gun would require a vast conspiracy involving multiple officers, the top brass of the department and whoever faked lab results showing Scott’s fingerprints and DNA on the weapon. It doesn’t necessarily mean he did anything wrong in this instance, but Scott also has a long rap sheet including weapons offenses, lending additional credence to the idea that he had a gun.
These facts didn’t penetrate the Black Lives Matter narrative of the Scott shooting. Such facts never do.The narrative is immune to complication or ambiguity, let alone contradiction. Every police-involved shooting of a black man is taken, ipso facto, to confirm that the police are racists. When the evidence in any particular instance makes it obvious that the narrative is a lie or a gross over-simplification — e.g., in Ferguson or the Freddie Gray tragedy — the movement simply moves on to the next case, as reckless as before.
It is increasingly hard to deny that the movement is anti-police. When any evidence supporting the police is disregarded, and rioters hurl insults and objects at officers whose only offense is trying to maintain public order at a protest,the agenda is clear…”
Including that of their primary source of support:
“…A genuine, good-faith effort to make police more accountable would focus on the facts, recognizing that the vast majority of police shootings are, although tragic, justified, and working with departments to make sure that unjustified shootings are fewer and further between. Everyone accepts that there are bad cops and that they need to be rooted out.
But Black Lives Matter has been uninterested in the facts since its inception.“Hands up, don’t shoot” was a fabrication, and it may well turn out that Keith Lamont Scott’s “book” was, too.Yet “activists” are comfortable running riot, putting innocent citizens in danger, on the basis of these and other lies.Charlotte is the latest demonstration that whatever Black Lives Matter is interested in, it really isn’t the flourishing of black lives — or any others.“
Which is why the unrestricted right to bear arms set forth in the 2nd Amendment…
…can never be the subject of negotiation.
One only has to consider the relative reactions of the races as related in this video courtesy of G. Trevor:
Yet another reason Dimocrats will need to pry our guns from our cold dead fingers. Sure, we’ll turn the other cheek…but when the lives of our loved ones are concerned, only to shoot whoever’s coming up on our blind side.
Meet the ultimate oxymoron: Petty Officer 2nd Class Janaye Ervin, intelligence specialist in the Navy Reserve.
“I feel like a hypocrite singing about the ‘land of the free’ when I know that only applies to some Americans,” she wrote. “I will gladly stand again, when ALL AMERICANS are afforded the same freedom.“
John Paul Jones must be rolling over in his crypt; what’s to investigate?!? No, Janaye: you should feel like the ignorant, misinformed ass you are, as you haven’t the faintest clue about what you’re protesting or talking!
The appropriate response to such idiocy reminds of this scene from the equally fictitious U-571:
But instead of a sock in the jaw, PO2 Ervin deserves to be drummed from the Service…following a extended jolt in the brig.
Which brings us to today’s installment of Tales From the Darkside, as the great Thomas Sowell details the destructive impact of Dimocrats’ supposed…
“Back in the 1960s, as large numbers of black students were entering a certain Ivy League university for the first time, someone asked a chemistry professor — off the record — what his response to them was. He said, “I give them all A’s and B’s. To hell with them.”
Since many of those students were admitted with lower academic qualifications than other students, he knew that honest grades in a tough subject like chemistry could lead to lots of failing grades, and that in turn would lead to lots of time-wasting hassles — not just from the students, but also from the administration. He was not about to waste time that he wanted to invest in his professional work in chemistry and the advancement of his own career. He also knew that his “favor” to black students in grading was going to do them more harm than good in the long run, because they wouldn’t know what they were supposed to know.
Such cynical calculations were seldom expressed in so many words. Nor are similar cynical calculations openly expressed today in politics. But many successful political careers have been built on giving blacks “favors” that look good on the surface but do lasting damage in the long run.
One of these “favors” was the welfare state…”
And we all know how well that’s worked out!
Meanwhile, another “favor” bestowed upon the world by Dimocratic do-gooders continues its counterproductive activities:
Question: so why just the U.S.; why not the Italians, British, Arabs, West Africans, French, Egyptians, Spanish, Greeks, Portuguese, Brazilians, or any of the innumerable other countries, empires or civilizations which have, at one time or another in the course of history, embraced slavery?!?
Answer: the same reason trial lawyers always go after whoever’s got the deepest pockets.
Moving on, it appears Cambridge, MA has become the last resting place for those willing to sell out their beliefs in the pursuit of personal power and profit: