FBI's Comey: A Weasel Among Rats

“You can call us wrong, but don't call us weasels. We are not weasels.” – FBI Director James Comey at a congressional hearing on September 28, 2016

Sigmund Freud would have a field day with Mr. Comey's psyche. Dr. Freud would say he protests too much. Why does the FBI Director compare himself—and the now perhaps forever tarnished organization he heads—to a pack of weasels? Guilty subconsciousness perhaps, Herr Doctor?

Recall, the FBI's motto is Fidelity, Bravery and Integrity. Once important American ideals, today reduced to a bumper sticker slogan. Consider the bureau's former principled reputation of incorruptibility: of holding the powerful to account without fear or favor. Men like Eliot “untouchable” Ness who risked life and limb to combat criminally rather than condone it as James Comey clearly has. How else does one explain his actions of last January, of laying out an unambiguous case of multifaceted Clintonian law breaking, only to ultimately sit on his hands and close the investigations?

To add insult to injury, Mr. Comey foolishly took the political heat for his public pronouncements. Yet, the fix was in before that. Specifically, when spouse Bill Clinton had an “unplanned” chinwag with Attorney General Lynch. Both in different private planes which by “sheer coincidence” crossed paths on the same tarmac in Phoenix. So the nation's top prosecutor meeting privately with the spouse (an ex-president) whose wife is the prime subject of a then looming criminal indictment isn't a colossal conflict of interest? Moreover, is it any surprise that just days after that infamous meeting AG Lynch announced that Hillary would face no criminal charges?

So, one supposes during their 20 to 25 minute exchange, Mrs. Lynch and Mr. Clinton only chitchatted about the grand kids as was claimed? Seriously? That's the same malarkey as Mrs. Clinton's yoga routines and Chelsea's wedding plans that she claimed populated her private servers. Those unsecured, illegal devices likely hacked by bad actors in which Mr. Comey stated 110 emails were classified—and 48,000 (read: 33,000 originally reported and an additional 15,000 recently uncovered) were destroyed.

By ignoring the law—and the evidence—Mr. Comey wrongly recommended non-prosecution. He laughable claimed he didn't want to interfere in the upcoming election, but he has done precisely that—and not on the side of the angels. How is any presidential candidate known by reputation to be a habitual liar—an immoral and greedy person mired in 40 years of infamy—good for the country? If the email scandal wasn't malfeasance enough, there is the Clinton Foundation “charity”: a pay-for-play scheme involving high-level political favors in exchange a personal Clinton slush fund (while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State). The 238 million the Clintons have “earned” after being “dead broke” 15 years ago doesn't even factor in the 2 billion dollar foundation they control. By his own Freudian omission, Mr. Comey's a weasel, but the crooked Clintons are far worse: unapologetic rats who make Richard “Watergate” Nixon look, by comparison, like a church mouse.

Experience repeatedly demonstrates that honesty and the 'for sale' Clintons have never coincided. They should be on the verge of the big house, not the White House. What on earth is going on here? How can the superficial irrelevancy of identity politics—this time in the trivial form of an empty skirt by a corrupt wearer—obscure this obvious truth? One wonders, is this propagandist Germany of 1933 or freedom-loving America of 2016? How can such an ignoble character enjoy such mindless support—and have a 50/50 shot at becoming the next U.S. president?

In any case, Mr. Nixon was drummed out of the nation's highest office for his law breaking. He certain didn't go in the door dogged by a well-established track record of villainy as Hillary Clinton hopes to. That, too, is a vital distinction. Yet, the Mrs. Pig Pen of American politics has only one unpredictable barrier to overcome if she can: outsider Donald Trump.

In the final analysis, political power without a guiding morality—and/or respect for law—is inherently corrupt. This dynamic encapsulates the disastrous Obama years (soon mercifully to be in the rear view mirror), James Comey's “weaselly” words of last week, and the titanic mistake of electing another corrupt Clinton to the Oval Office in November.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Washing Hillary's Mouth

“I maintain that 'political correctness' has as much to do with what is correct — i.e. true — as 'ethnic cleansing' has to do with personal hygiene.” – Clifford May

Mr. May brilliantly exposes “political correctness” as what it is: anti-American, anti-First Amendment word burning. This is the Democrats' go-to political strategy to control—or severely limit—the social discourse. Hillary Clinton polarizes via hate speech: demonizing the proponents of traditional American values.

Mrs. Clinton was wrong to proclaim half of Trump supporters a “basket of deplorables”: racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic or Islamaphobic. This basket case needs a mirror. What of the election of a two-term black president? What of commonplace interracial, and newly legalized gay marriage? She's the one who needs “redemption,” not us.

Unlike the human rights violating foreign governments the Clinton Foundation readily accepts money from, America is one of the most tolerant societies on earth.

Our problems are physical safety, and the economic: debt, joblessness, porous borders, government overreach and terrorism. Progressives focus on these non-existent “weather” problems to distract from their failed policies. And specifically in Hillary's case, her failed record, lawbreaking and corruption.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Hillary's Nuclear-sized Crookedness

“A major Clinton Foundation donor who gave at least $250,000 to the organization was granted a spot on [the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB)] … despite having no experience for the role” briefly reports Washington Times's Douglas Ernst (Inside Politics blurb section, page two). Like Server-gate—just with nukes and America's foreign posture—Hillary intentionally shares State Department secrets with an unqualified benefactor. If this pay to play isn't worth a full, front page exposé, what is?

Peter Schweizer's book “Clinton Cash” demonstrated the well established Clinton pattern of (foreign) donors funneling hundreds of million of dollars to their “charitable organization,” the Clinton Foundation, in exchange for Hillary's governmental favors as Mr. Obama's then Secretary of State. The present unearthed duplicity involves Rajiv K. Fernando. As founder and former CEO of Chicago's Chopper Trading, he had no background in intelligence matters. That was obviously no problem for Mrs. Clinton. When Mr. Fernando's check cleared back in 2011, he magically become a shaper of U.S. nuclear weapons policy. A Hillary “adviser” with top secret government clearance to access and influence (perhaps even share?) classified foreign policy details.

Naturally, the State Department tried to cover up the blatant political cronyism that has defined the “honest and transparent” Obama Administration. Only a Freedom of Information lawsuit by Citizens United has finally brought a spotlight's hot glow to this wrongdoing. Fortunately, at the time, embarrassment of exposure prompted Mr. Fernando's sudden resignation only days after his announced appointment. (The State Department was unable to articulate a legitimate reason for him to remain. Perhaps that's because he didn't belong there in the first place.)

What has become of Rajiv K. Fernando? Per ABC News, his current donations to the Clinton Foundation have increased to $1 to $5 million. Therefore, rest assured, he's still a mover and shaker in 2016. Specifically, he's a Democrat superdelegate: same as Hillary's hubby Bill. One somehow doubts either man will cast his upcoming presidential convention vote for socialist Bernie Sanders.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Hillary breaks silence, offers platitude cake

To quote she who would be president in 2016—and has been skirting press questions for almost a month with a wink and a smile—Hillary Clinton was finally shamed into answering a few of the press' questions by Fox News reporter Ed Henry.  Her imperious, smirking response: “Yeah, maybe when I finish talking to the people here.  How’s that?  I might, I’ll have to ponder it.”  Then, pretending to write on a notepad, she added, “I’ll put it on my list for due consideration.”  In this, Mrs. Clinton finally deigned—under her own terms—to break her self-imposed silence.  This attitude parallels Server-gate (modern day Nixonian document shredding): her destruction of 33,000 emails—half of those created on her private server as Secretary of State—that she now infers is government property.  Indeed, for she who wants to sit in the big chair in the Oval Office, how can the American people objectively get a complete picture of her performance in that previous role with 50 percent of the picture forever obscured? 

Continuing to ignore the shrieking, chest-pounding 300 pound gorilla in the corner, Mrs. Clinton steadfastly refuses to finally address her own dismal record of veracity considering the still unanswered questions regarding Benghazi, the before mentioned Server-gate, and the most recent in a long list of Clintonian scandals, the multi-faceted Charity-gate.  Regarding the latter, she offered vague platitudes: “I am so proud of the foundation.  I'm proud of the work that it has done and is doing… I'll let the American people make their own judgments.”  Shadowed in this Clintonian malfeasance is the fact of 1,100 foreign donors mysteriously not reported by the Clinton Foundation; her and Bill's supposed family charity.  That little nugget comes literally right on the heels of Peter Schweizer's exposé of the Hillary Clinton-Bill Clinton fiscal shell game, "Clinton Cash," of bartering favorable U.S. government treatment through the State Department she headed (her role) to the mostly foreign donors who gave exorbitant, six-figure speaking fees to Bill (his role) or otherwise donated large sums of money to the charity á la George Stephanopoulos.

For any clarity at all, one must look to the Hillary speech the fourth estate has dubbed 'Bonds of Trust' for any indication of where she stands: "From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable." Yet, while she hypocritically pontificates upon broken trust between the black community and the police she completely ignores her own severe lack of honesty and forthrightness when it comes to explaining her own behavior and actions to the American people.

It is interesting dynamic when a politician with her own severe trustworthiness deficit lectures the rest of us on trust: "We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans.  Between police and citizens, yes, but also across society, restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets, between and among neighbors, and even people with whom we disagree politically."  So desperate is she to distract—and point the finger away from her own lack of character—that she, in essence, panders to the violent street mob and further galvanizes a volatile situation by demonizing the cops á la Obama.  Her and Obama's Saul Alinsky-style political smoke screens have a direct correlation to the tear gas in the street: this is what happens when those charged with safeguarding the country use the bully pulpit to foment anti-American sentiment and tear society apart along racial lines.

Apparently Mrs. Clinton, who like her husband before her, is inartfully combining the Clintonian mantra of "say anything to get elected" with the Obama brand of destructive, divisive Democratic politics of "never letting a crisis go to waste" for personal and political gain.  Through her Orwellian words, she claims the intention to unite, but in actually she desires the opposite: to polarize and divide.  She knows all too well that an unhappy populace votes Democrat.  Remember her and Bill's single greatest character flaw from which all their lies, greed and hubris stem: their obsessive self-serving power-seeking.

Her blasé, disingenuous Marie Antoinette 'let-them-eat-cake' persona demonstrates that she—who seeks to lead the rest of us—owes nothing.  In this, her silence bellows stentorian that she is unfit to be the next president of the United States.

Re. Saul Alinsky: In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976