BloggeRhythms

While this isn’t the time, or appropriate place, for commentary on the five Dallas law enforcement officers killed and seven more injured yesterday, heartfelt condolences are extended to all who were in any way affected by the terrible tragedy.

In regard to other news, FBI Director Comey’s appearance before a House committee yesterday is getting the media attention it surely deserves.

One of the story’s surfacing came from Jerome R. Corsi @wnd.com,  providing an example of things to come whereas it establishes the fact that there has been a close relationship between Comey and the Clinton’s for many years.

Mr. Corsi writes: “Comey has long history of cases ending favorable to Clintons.

“In 2004, Comey, then serving as a deputy attorney general in the Justice Department, apparently limited the scope of the criminal investigation of Sandy Berger, which left out former Clinton administration officials who may have coordinated with Berger in his removal and destruction of classified records from the National Archives. The documents were relevant to accusations that the Clinton administration was negligent in the build-up to the 9/11 terrorist attack. 

“On Tuesday, Comey announced that despite evidence of “extreme negligence by Hillary Clinton and her top aides regarding the handling of classified information through a private email server, the FBI would not refer criminal charges to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Justice Department.” 

Following his opening commentary, Mr. Corsi then discloses that: “Curiously, Berger, Lynch and Cheryl Mills all worked as partners in the Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson, which prepared tax returns for the Clintons and did patent work for a software firm that played a role in the private email server Hillary Clinton used when she was secretary of state.” 

The article is well researched and illustrates the very clear pattern of favoritism, strongly establishing the case that Director Comey’s efforts to clear Bill’s wife were quite purposeful and almost certainly not objectively derived.    

The details are well-worth reading: here’s a link: http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/comey-has-long-history-of-clinton-related-cases/#!

 

On another issue, an article today by Paul Bedard @washingtonexaminer.com, confirms again that political analysts, writers, commentator's and pollsters have no handle whatsoever on the status of the current presidential campaign.     

Mr. Bedard writes: “They don't care much for either Donald Trump of Hillary Clinton, but there is the most interest in the 2016 presidential election in 24 years and three out of four voters believe that "it really matters" who wins, according to a new survey. 

“Pew Research Service said in a report issued Thursday that voter engagement in the campaign is the highest it has seen since it began testing interest. 

“Some 80 percent said that they have thought about the election, even higher than in 2008, when 72 percent said the same thing about Barack Obama's election as the first-ever black president.”

Then, Mr. Bedard gets into specifics: “In the head-to-head matchup, Clinton leads Trump 51 percent to 42 percent.”

In describing the makeup of the poll results, Mr. Bedard then presents a very strong argument, highly favoring Bill Clinton’s wife, as follows: 

“Republicans remain skeptical that their party will unite behind their presumptive nominee. Just 38% of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters say the party will "solidly unite" behind Trump; 54% say disagreements in the party will keep many Republicans from supporting him. These views are virtually unchanged since March, amid the GOP primary contest. By contrast, 72% of Democratic voters say their party will solidly unite behind Clinton; in March, 64% expected their party to unite behind Clinton if she became the nominee.” 

And then, one has to wonder if Mr. Bedard is aware of the point he makes next, when he goes on the present the key concerns and considerations for most voters this year. Whereas Trump is far and away better aligned with those voters desires for a candidate.       

According to Mr. Bedard: “Economy and terrorism are top issues for voters in 2016. When it comes to the issues at the forefront of voters' minds, the economy tops the list, with 84% of voters – and similar shares across most demographic and political groups – saying it is very important to their vote. About as many (80%) say the issue of terrorism will be very important to their vote.” 

And, therefore, if Mr. Bedard is correct in his supposition regarding what voters seek above all else, he should realize that the poll results he quoted mean virtually nothing at all. Because not only can’t Bill Clinton’s wife satisfy those voters wishes, no Democrat can regardless of the office they’re seeking.     

Which brings us to today’s update on Bill Clinton’s wife.  

Pat Buchanan posted a recap @wnd.com, that clearly lays out the case from the evidence presented by FBI Director Comey yesterday, that Bill’s wife is unquestionably indictable for gross negligence in handling U.S. security secrets. 

At the start Buchanan asks: “Will Americans elect a 'congenital liar' president?, and then he inquires: “What was behind this extraordinary performance?” 

Answering his own query, Buchanan writes: “By urging no prosecution, but providing evidence for a verdict of criminal negligence in handing classified material, Comey was saying: 

“I am not recommending prosecution, because, to do that, would be to force Hillary Clinton out of the race, and virtually decide the election of 2016. And that is not my decision. That is your decision.

 

“You, the American people, should decide, given all this evidence, if Clinton should be commander in chief. You decide if a public figure with a record of such recklessness and duplicity belongs in the Oval Office.

 

Buchanan goes on: “Comey was making the case against Clinton as the custodian of national security secrets with a credibility the GOP cannot match, while refusing to determine her fate by urging an indictment, and instead leaving her future in our hands. 

“And, ultimately, should not this decision rest with the people, and not the FBI? 

“If, knowing what we know of the congenital mendacity of Hillary Clinton, the nation chooses her as head of state and commander in chief, then that will tell us something about the America of 2016. 

“And it will tell us something about the supposed superiority of democracy over other forms of government.” 

Thus, Buchanan gives Comey the benefit of some very strong doubt by suggesting that the Director’s aim was to give the American people their opportunity to cast the deciding votes regarding Bill Clinton’s wife’s future, rather than making that decision himself. 

And if one were to truly consider that logic, Comey’s gesture was an optimal compliment to voters, whereas they themselves will now be able to firmly reject Bill’s wife beyond any shadow of a doubt. However, one also has to remember that, it was these very same voters who elected Obama not only once, but twice.

Nonetheless, there is still a very strong sense at this point that there will be far more negativity to come in Bill’s wife immediate future. Which raises the ongoing question once more: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are  you guys reading this?  

That’s it for today folks.      

Adios