Powered by TypePad

« The Email Investigation With New Petraeus Spin | Main | Romney v. Trump »

March 03, 2016


Thomas Collins

But is shielding info from FOIA a criminal matter? Of the matters that could level The Hill, FOIA avoidance wouldn't be one of them.

Jeff Dobbs

Chi town lurker claims first!

Jeff Dobbs

Oh man, he got beat.

That's gotta be embarrassing for him.

Jeff Dobbs

--actual quote from Chi Town lurker

Thomas Collins

If governmental officials were put in jail for FOIA chicanery, Federal, state and local governments would be run from the hoosegow!

Jeff Dobbs



Miss Marple

Hillary has a long history of skirting the law and getting away with it. I well remember those Rose billing records, mysteriously lost, suddenly appearing on a table for no apparent reason. Just appeared. No explanation offered.

What happened to Craig Livingston, that no-experience guy who was hired for security?

Has anyone ever explained why Sandy berger took those documents? Why wasn't he arrested?

I wish she would just go away. I REALLY don't want to have to dredge up all those Clinton era scandals again.

Old Lurker

TC "If governmental officials were put in jail..."

Let me stop you right there so I can savor that image.

Old Lurker

It isn't the FOIA chicanery that will get her. It is directing the conspiracy to abuse with gross negligence classified information and the links to the Crime Family Foundation for personal gain that should get her cooked like a fat goose.


I hope Billy Dale or his family members are available to tell their HC horror story. Ditto the curator with pics of WH treasures HC stole and was eventually forced to return.

Miss Marple


That was when I learned about Dale Chihuly's glass! (They took two bowls.) Also paintings including "Afternoon in the Rain" which is a New York street scene with rainy streets and the American flag.

Old Lurker

To Deb's 4:53, I just sent Jeff a picture of Hillary and Bill leaving the WH back then.


Fox News has picked Rubio's replacement:


Miss Marple

Auction tonight! May or may not be back for the debate start. Good luck to all candidates!


Our lurking friend offered this non political bit from Bill Gross for those needing a break from politics.


Those effing grifters. I can't wait to rehash all the stories.

Old Lurker

I read that as "Action Tonight" and immediately thought "Good for MM!"


T0mM-- FOIA? really? we are talking about a woman who deliberately created a server off of the Fed Gov't grid to attempt to hide whatever she wanted. She deliberately or at least recklessly allowed classified and top secret info on to her unprotected server, she apparently used the server to shake down foreign interests to donate to the 'Foundation' probably as a campaign finance fraud, and she gave classified info to a crony for him to peddle and earn fees. Then she deleted 32,000 emails under investigation by the IG, destroying evidence. These are gross criminal actions... FOIA?


I guess Chihuly didn't bear a grudge:


Eff him too, I never liked that tacky crap.

Jeff Dobbs

OL's pic...hah!


Right on, NK.

Old Lurker

Thanks Jeff

Dave (in MA)

"How ironic that a guy named Willard would turn out to be a RAT!!"

--Some guy on Facebook who I don't know.


LOL, OL. When the Trump U ads start rolling with poor middle-aged Bob in his suit and tie complaining that after forking over $36,000, "All I got was a pic of me next to a cardboard Trump", I want to see ads showing most Haitians still living in shanties without running water or power while a voice describes the Clinton Foundation collecting 100s of millions for earthquake repair/relief and parceling them out to cronies for work never done.


For some reason,I remember when Hillary said she could have stayed home and baked cookies. From that moment I have despised the woman. She has always enabled her husband's behavior, but there have been sycophants who have enabled her behavior. The Clinton years are imprinted in my mind,maybe because the daughter was in high school and college during those years. Imagine telling telling friends and relatives that your daughter was an intern in Washington,D.C. during the Clinton years!

James D.

Deb, the thing about Trump is that, if he ends up being the nominee, you probably would see ads like that.

Cruz might do it, too. But there isn't a chance in hell that any of the other candidates would.

Jack is Back!

Know Your Enemy


Not bad😀

Keep voting the Chicago way and James has a chance.


JiB-- hope you are feeling better.



Of primary concern was whether or not the complaint, submitted in tandem by William Gallo of Nassau County and Barry Korman of New York City, landed at the Board of Elections before the deadline. The men’s attorney, Roger Bernstein, argued that the board’s refusal to rule on the fundamental question of Cruz’s eligibility rendered that argument moot. Bernstein said the board’s deadline argument was “a difficult exercise — to say you’re going to be kicked out of court for something we’re not going to look at.”

Grant Lally of Mineola — who ran for Congress against Democratic Rep. Steve Israel in 2014 — represented Cruz, and was accompanied by a constitutional scholar, though that particular arrow remained in the quiver. Lally called the deadline issue “a fatal defect. … They’re time-barred, and that’s it.”


The simple facts shall stay in the quiver...


Romney's just mad because his father was a Mexican.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) March 3, 2016



The Treepers noted part of Romney's speech today, which was on a telepromptor, in which he lauds the fact that our democracy has lived longer than John Adams predicted because we've had great leaders. But the John Adams quote he provided was actually a warning against America being a democracy, which is why the Founders risked their lives to give us a constitutional republic. Sheesh.



Look at the picture on her bio page. You will change your mind!


So Obama is staying in DC after his term ends? I think the odds of a Hillary indictment just went up. Can't see Obama being able accept being in DC while playing second Dem fiddle to the hated Hillary in the WH.


Well, that came out garbled, but I'm sure you get my point . . .


Good Morning.

For clarity, I would like to see the actual crimes in E-Mail Gate that Hillary has supposedly committed laid out in Bullet form so we can come to agreement as a group of what those crimes are. Former AG Mukasey (TM's first link above) says:


1) ---You can't put classified information in an unclassified setting. (Gen Petraeus)

2) ---You can't expose national secrets through gross negligence.

3)---You can't destroy government information.

4)---You can't obstruct justice.
From TM's second link (Politifact-Law Prof Doug Cox)


5)---by using personal emails exclusively, she skirted the rules governing federal records management, It would have been a violation of the NARA's rules in the Code of Federal Regulations for Clinton to use personal email exclusively
TM's last link (Judge Napolitano)


6)---The exposure of state secrets, either intentionally or negligently, constitutes the crime of espionage.

Now that these are all laid out, can JOM Team Legal whittle these down to a better Bullet Point list of Hillary's potential crimes. For instance, Is Napolitano's number 6 (Espionage) irrelevant since it's probably incorporated in Mukasey's number 2, or should Mukasey's number 2 be scrapped in favor of Napolitano's number 6 (espionage).

Just looking for clarity, and I would have thought there should be something in there about the crime of "Conspiracy."


Mark Tapscott says keep hope alive regarding indictment.



Tom Maguire


7)---Non-compliance with FOIA


Aren't 2) and 6) the same?


Daddy about that conoco event in anwr.


HC got Billy Dale fired so her AR pals could take over the WH Travel Office. Then when that was immediately dubbed Travelgate, Dale was charged with embezzling and had to endure the cost and emotional devastation of a trial. After his acquittal, the IRS audited him. Such targeted persecution should be criminal and never forgotten as long as the persecutress lives.


Mitt Romney has instructed his closest advisers to explore the possibility of stopping Donald Trump at the Republican National Convention, a source close to Romney’s inner circle says.

From CNN via Hot Air.

"The 2012 GOP nominee’s advisers are examining what a fight at the convention might look like and what rules might need revising.

“It sounds like the plan is to lock the convention,” said the source…

But implicit in Romney’s request to his team to explore the possibility of a convention fight is his willingness to step in and carry the party’s banner into the fall general election as the Republican nominee."


All righty then, I was wrong. It's not going to be rally around little Marco, boys and girls--it's going to be rally around Mittens.



I think so but I'm not sure. That's why I'm looking for clarity:)


I am way, way behind and have missed the latest. Have you got a link?

Go JamesD!


Ah snorfle, the riderless horse.


Tonight's Michigan debate tickets were distributed by Romney's niece. who's the MI R-chair.


My respect for Romney just took a huge nose dive.


Fuel fix is the only place that seems to have, why would the daily news after all.


Romney's dead to me now.


But I saw on oann, I think.


Niedermeyer, marmalarf status.


more like michael and fredo C.


Chicago tribune, also has it.


good grief.

Romney couldn't win against Obama. Yet now he thinks he can take on Hillary.


I especially love this part: " . . . what rules might need revising."

They're really working overtime on testing my Not Hillary resolve. Keep it up, guys, and I'm going to be all, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"


Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war.


If Romney wants to be considered (delusional dude), he needs to show he can bash Democrats. Bashing Trump is not the same.


Santelli, whose rant on the floor of the Chicago Exchange many moons ago created the Tea Party, cranks up anther rant on Mitt Romney's comments:

John Harwood: I just want to know what you think of the substance of Mitt Romney's remarks. Do you agree with his critique or do you think it's wrong?

Santelli: Let me phrase it this way. I think a lot of the things he said are grounded in truth. But I also think in his argument against Trump and in the positives of other Republicans, my comment would be "What have they done that should make voters think Mr Trump and all his verbiage is going to not do something, or his foibles, when they have been in power? Okay, he brought up John McCain. Did he win? Did he (Romney) win? I think that he (Romney) is missing this. It's not necessarily what Trump says, it's what people think he's going to do after he gets elected, and that is things that are actionable. Now we can debate what that is and I'm not going to tell you whether I'm in favor or I'm against. I'm just saying that the political landscape that Mitt Romney is painting is in a strange, surreal sort of way exactly why he was rejected, and Moderates have rejected because they talk a good game, with high character and high morals, but they deliver zero. Isn't that the whole point?

Thomas Collins

It's not just Romney. It's any GOPer who stood silent in 2015, or pledged to support the GOP nominee, and is now trying to derail Trump. And it's dishonorable. Any GOP leader for whom Trump was unacceptable should have stated his or her case in November of 2015 at the latest, when it was quite clear that Trump was going to be a viable candidate (at the very least, prior to the Iowa caucuses). But no. They simply hoped that Trump would implode on his own, so they would be spared getting their finger nails dirty.

If they had stated their case before Iowa, whether one disagreed or agreed with the view that Trump was simply an unacceptable nominee, I don't think it could reasonably be classified as dishonorable. Now I do.

I say this despite the fact that my view of Trump has not improved. Those of you who have gone back and forth with me on Trump know my view of him, so I won't bore you with repetition. But no GOP leader who was silent until now about Trump's unacceptability deserves any respect.

I am clearly not a Trump supporter. But I'll say this to Trump supporters: If Trump doesn't secure a majority before the convention and another candidate is chosen, notwithstanding the actions of the GOP leaders, I would urge you to vote for the candidate that emerges (hold your nose if you must). But if Trump gets a majority and the leadership steals that majority from him in Cleveland, I wouldn't blame you for voting for a third party, writing in Trump, or not voting in the 2016 POTUS election.


What are you guys doing over here on this dead thread?


According to Tasman Anderson's Twitter she has a bunch of those damn Brits voting for her also.


None of this matters when one lives under a Chiquita Rule of Law where party elites really truly do not have to obey the laws. Those are for the little people.


Jim Lee

Laws are for the little people.

The comments to this entry are closed.