BloggeRhythms

Today's unique in the sense that both presidential candidates have been exposed by leaked evidence of highly questionable behavior. There’s a major difference in the two embarrassing situations, however.

One concerns a guy caught talking about women in locker-room terms with another guy which is deemed by many to be beneath presidential stature. The other illustrates a candidate readily admitting that serious issues facing the nation must be discussed in public in a way that’s readily acceptable, while the truth may be something else entirely. Confirming that a public stance built on lies is perfectly acceptable when addressing the electorate.

Of the two situations, the magnitude is certainly quite different. Lot’s of guys brag, boast or enhance about exploits with women, some politely, others not. But that’s a far cry from selling out one’s nation, or personal integrity for financial or political gain.       

The subject was covered by many in the MSM. An article by David A. Fahrenthold @washingtonpost.com, for example included: “Donald Trump bragged in vulgar terms about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women during a 2005 conversation caught on a hot microphone, saying that “when you’re a star, they let you do it,” according to a video obtained by The Washington Post.”

In response, key Republican leaders expressed their distaste, quickly distancing themselves from Trump, likely to save face with their pristine constituents. And then: “After the video appeared online Friday afternoon, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wrote on Twitter: “This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president.” Her running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.), told reporters, “It makes me sick to my stomach,” while campaigning in Las Vegas.”

To that, reader spades72, commented: “If I am a deplorable, how do you hypocrites explain having no problem with Bill Clinton taking up residency in the White House "Again", after ending his presidency in disgrace because of the very same things you are now deploring. Yeah, the spouse of the president and former president known just as much for his serial womanizing as he was president is loved by the democrat moral police.” 

And so, the beat goes on. 

On another favorite topic, Sarah Knapton, Science Editor @telegraph.co.uk today writes: “Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more now than in 2012. 

“Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Moderey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets. 

“Prof Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the polar region would free of ice in the middle of this decade. 

“As late as this summer, he was still predicting an ice-free September. 

“Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012. 

“The view was supported by Prof Maslowski, who in 2013 published a paper in the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences also claiming that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2016, plus or minus three years. 

“However, far from record lows, this year the Arctic has seen the quickest refreeze ever recorded with the extent of sea ice growing 405,000 square miles (1.05 million square kilometres)  in just three weeks since the September 10 minimum.  The Danish Meteorological Institute said that refreezing is happening at the fastest rate since its daily records began in 1987.” 

Thus, despite the continual Democrat effort to change Mother Nature’s unpredictability, she just doesn't seem to care about making them continually wrong on the subject. 

Binging us to today’s two updates on Bill Clinton’s wife which concerns a pair of headline story’s. One regards the FBI, the other addresses information found in newly released WikiLeaks documents.  

Paul Sperry titled his article @nypost.com Thursday: “FBI agents are ready to revolt over the cozy Clinton probe” 

“Veteran FBI agents say FBI Director James Comey has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his “cowardly” whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server. 

“Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, “So if I blew it, they blew it, too.” 

“In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews,” said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit. 

“Instead of going to prosecutors and insisting on using grand jury leverage to compel testimony and seize evidence, Comey allowed immunity for several key witnesses, including potential targets. 

“Comey also agreed to have Mills’ laptop destroyed after the restricted search, denying Congress the chance to look at it and making the FBI an accomplice to the destruction of evidence. 

“Comey’s immunized witnesses nonetheless suffered chronic lapses in memory, made unsubstantiated claims of attorney-client privilege upon tougher questioning and at least two gave demonstrably false statements. And yet Comey indulged it all. 

“What’s more, Comey cut a deal to give Clinton a “voluntary” witness interview on a major holiday, and even let her ex-chief of staff sit in on the interview as a lawyer, even though she, too, was under investigation. 

“Clinton’s interview, the culmination of a yearlong investigation, lasted just 3½ hours. Despite some 40 bouts of amnesia, she wasn’t called back for questioning; and three days later, Comey cleared her of criminal wrongdoing. 

“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time,” Hughes said. “I hold Director Comey responsible.” 

“Each month for 27 years, I received oral and computer admonishments concerning the proper protocol for handling top secret and other classified material, and was informed of the harsh penalties, to include prosecution and incarceration,” for mishandling such material, he pointed out. “Had myself or my colleagues engaged in behavior of the magnitude of Hillary Clinton, as described by Comey, we would be serving time in Leavenworth.” 

“Former FBI official I.C. Smith knows a thing or two about Clinton corruption. After working at FBI headquarters as a section chief in the National Security Division, he retired as special agent in charge of the Little Rock, Ark., field office, where he investigated top Clinton fundraisers for public corruption and even Chinese espionage. 

“FBI agents upset with Comey’s decision have every reason to feel that way,” Smith said. “Clearly there was a different standard applied to Clinton.” 

“Comey made the 25 agents who worked on the case sign nondisclosure agreements. But others say morale has sunk inside the bureau. 

“The director is giving the bureau a bad rap with all the gaps in the investigation,” one agent in the Washington field office said. “There’s a perception that the FBI has been politicized and let down the country.” 

While the FBI's apparent complicity indicates blatant politicizing of the agency, further evidence of Bill’s wife’s duplicity is found in a piece by Lee Fang, Zaid Jilani, Alex Emmons and Naomi LaChance @theintercept.com, yesterday, as follows: 

“Clinton’s remarks during paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, and other groups were leaked online Friday afternoon by WikiLeaks. Clinton, who was paid upwards of $225,000 per speech, earned more than $22 million on the paid speaking circuit after resigning as secretary of state. 

“The excerpts are revealed in an email from Tony Carrk, the research director of the Clinton campaign, to John Podesta, the campaign chairman, and other top campaign officials. Carrk, who did not respond to a request for comment, highlighted in the memo the most politically damaging quotes from each paid speech, under headers including “CLINTON ADMITS SHE IS OUT OF TOUCH,” “CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY,” and “CLINTON REMARKS ARE PRO KEYSTONE AND PRO TRADE.” 

“The wealth Clinton accumulated was a topic at the paid events.” 

However, the most direct example of duplicity was illustrated by her telling “a housing trade group in 2013 that on certain issues, she has “a public and a private position.” “If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least,” said Clinton. “So, you need both a public and a private position.” 

Therefore, it’s that kind of dishonesty that likely prompted Joe Biden to display apprehension regarding her electability. 

According to Pam Key @breitbart.com, yesterday: “Biden said, “I know some of you, and some of the people you are trying to convince are not crazy about Hillary. I know that. Okay. I think she has gotten an unfair deal. But the truth of the matter is there is a lot of people—but folks don’t , don’t wake up on November 9 and find out we lost Pennsylvania by 2000 votes and say if I only. If I had only taken my neighbor. If I only gone. If I only. If I only. And there has been a lot of elections. Remember Al Gore.” 

And if that isn’t one of the most left-handed (no pun intended) endorsements ever uttered, one has to wonder what is.

It also brings up the continuing question again: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, are you guys are reading this? 

That's it for today folks.         

 

Adios