Jump to content
The Education Forum

Hillary blames FBI Director Comey for her loss


Douglas Caddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

34 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

CV: There were no rules against having a private server.

 

LOL, no kidding Cliff.

Great way to pivot and avoid the point.  You're a pro at that.

She didn't make a mistake.

You are wrong.

What you haven't grasped is that the Republicans would use any rationale to investigate her, private server or no.

We have a two party system where all one party does is investigate the other.

That's not democracy.

That's fascism.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

OMG, within one week, we are already into Peter Scott grand conspiracy theory.  Involving a British tabloid, Anthony Weiner, Roger Stone,  stolen emails, planted emails, underage sexting etc.  Where will it all end?  

I can see it now:  cover of the Globe, Nixon on a desert island,caption: NIXON LIVES, "Advises Stone on how to get to Comey with sexual blackmail."

At all costs we must avoid one key fact:  None of this would have ever happened if HRC had not used a private server.  That was her choice.

And it might be the reason that Mills advised her not to run.  It was Mills who approved that stupid decision.

 

 

Jim,

So let me understand the logic your position, you write books with the thesis that  the JFK assassination was a conspiracy involving the highest level of the government that has been covered up for the last 50+ years but somehow a national election is beyond being subverted by a dirty trick(s).  Are you familiar with the elections of 1968 and 1980?  In 1968, then Republican candidate Richard Nixon secretly( via Kissinger) sent the North Vietnamese delegation, who were actively involved in peace negotiations in Paris at the time, a message that if they waited until after the U.S. election that he would give them a better deal.  Remember Nixon's campaign promise in that election that he had a "secret plan to end the war"?  If the North Vietnamese would have made peace before the election, Nixon most likely would have lost the election.  In the election season of 1980, Jimmy Carter was on the verge of getting the American hostages released from Iran before the coming election.  Somehow the Iranians decided not to release hostages and Reagan got elected and, weirdly enough, the Iranians released the hostages  on the day of Reagan's inauguration.  Quite a coincidence wouldn't you say ?   This episode was originally dismissed as  a "October Surprise Theory" until the Iran-Contra scandal broke in Reagan's second term and then it seemed a lot less like a conspiracy theory and lot more like a reality. 

This what Ted Cruz said about Roger Stone in the primaries, "He is pulling the strings on Donald Trump. He planned the Trump campaign, and he is Trump's henchman and dirty trickster."  Trump hired Stone for Stone's field of expertise, dirty tricks.  To think that Comey's letter to congress on 10/28, 11 days before the election,  has no stench of a dirty trick operation is rather naive much like the LNers position in the JFK assassination.  Hopefully, the truth will surface but I wouldn't hold my breath because after 50+ years of looking for the smoking gun in the JFK case, there isn't one and all we are left with is only inference and supposition.

 

Here is the link that I based my previous post ........about Weiner's latest picadillo .

http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/09/anthony-weiner-investigation-15-year-old-girl/501416/

more to the point: "The teenage girl and her father spoke with the Daily Mail, and she said she had reached out to Weiner through Twitter in January".

 

Edited by Dan Doyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan:

My books are largely based upon declassified documents, government reports, my own interviews, and credible secondary sources.

The book in which I actually outline a conspiracy in detail, second edition of Destiny Betrayed, I am careful not to say anything I cannot offer some evidence for.  And I think in that book i presented enough evidence to demonstrate my case, if not beyond a reasonable doubt, then by the clear and compelling standard, which is the second most stringent standard.  And it took me years upon years of research to put together that case.  

In Reclaiming Parkland, I did something different, I did a refutation volume, attacking Bugliosi's inflated and pretentious volume.  That one took over a year to write.

Yes, I am aware of stolen elections:  Nixon and Anna Chennault, Casey and the October Surprise are two.  These were both exposed by Bob Parry, a journalist par excellence who I happen to work for at Consortium News. Again, it took him years to put together the evidence in those cases and to find the documents he uses in his books.

You are going to compare what you just offered to those instances?  To use one specific example:  Bob found the Walt Rostow memo on the LBJ/FBI surveillance of Anna Chennault in the LBJ Library a couple of years ago.  It was not until he found that document that he began to write about that election in any detail.

When you or anyone else finds an equivalent document showing the principals involved in back street skullduggery in the Clinton/Comey case, then I will listen and consider.  Until then, to me, this is just pre Peter Scott musings. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to keep the record clear, Nixon's act of treachery was with the South Vietnamese, our supposedly ally. It was the South Vietnamese who walked away from the peace talks after Nixon promised them a better deal, and told the American people he had a secret plan to end the war. One of South Vietnamese PresidentThieu's top advisers later wrote about this in a book entitled The Palace File. He presented Johnson's peace proposal circa 1968 side by side with Nixon's peace proposal 4 years or so later and showed that they were essentially the same proposal, and that Nixon had thereby lied his way into office and continued a war for four years for his own political purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

When you or anyone else finds an equivalent document showing the principals involved in back street skullduggery in the Clinton/Comey case, then I will listen and consider.  Until then, to me, this is just pre Peter Scott musings. 

 

 

We don't need a memo to reveal Comey's perfidy.

Weiner's e-mails could have been checked out in a matter of hours (they have these things called computers, folks, that perform such tasks rapidly).

Comey killed Clinton's campaign.

If he'd have pulled that stunt with Trump, and then Trump went on to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, I'd have to say Comey rigged the election for Clinton.

Instead it was the other way around -- he rigged it for Trump..

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Dan:

My books are largely based upon declassified documents, government reports, my own interviews, and credible secondary sources.

The book in which I actually outline a conspiracy in detail, second edition of Destiny Betrayed, I am careful not to say anything I cannot offer some evidence for.  And I think in that book i presented enough evidence to demonstrate my case, if not beyond a reasonable doubt, then by the clear and compelling standard, which is the second most stringent standard.  And it took me years upon years of research to put together that case.  

In Reclaiming Parkland, I did something different, I did a refutation volume, attacking Bugliosi's inflated and pretentious volume.  That one took over a year to write.

Yes, I am aware of stolen elections:  Nixon and Anna Chennault, Casey and the October Surprise are two.  These were both exposed by Bob Parry, a journalist par excellence who I happen to work for at Consortium News. Again, it took him years to put together the evidence in those cases and to find the documents he uses in his books.

You are going to compare what you just offered to those instances?  To use one specific example:  Bob found the Walt Rostow memo on the LBJ/FBI surveillance of Anna Chennault in the LBJ Library a couple of years ago.  It was not until he found that document that he began to write about that election in any detail.

When you or anyone else finds an equivalent document showing the principals involved in back street skullduggery in the Clinton/Comey case, then I will listen and consider.  Until then, to me, this is just pre Peter Scott musings. 

 

Jim,

Don't get me wrong here, I totally respect your work.  Destiny Betrayed(2nd ed) is one of my all time favorite reads on the JFK case.  I was somewhat disappointed with Reclaiming Parkland because, in my mind, Bugliosi's volume doesn't deserve the attention that someone like you gave it.   I am not a professional researcher or academic and could never write a book.  Hanging out all day in the archives( virtual or not) is not my cup of tea.   I think of myself more of an amateur analyst who tries to see patterns in the data not discover and document the primary data.     As a retired design professional, all this stuff is interesting food for thought for me; a hobby if you will.

As for the legitimacy of my original post in this tread, just because I have no "pedigree" as a researcher, that in itself does not necessarily invalidate my supposition.  I was actually hoping that someone within this community with serious research skills might have their interest peaked enough to run it to ground......... especially before the Electoral College votes because some much is at stake.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

We don't need a memo to reveal Comey's perfidy.

Weiner's e-mails could have been checked out in a matter of hours (they have these things called computers, folks, that perform such tasks rapidly).

Comey killed Clinton's campaign.

If he'd have pulled that stunt with Trump, and then Trump went on to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, I'd have to say Comey rigged the election for Clinton.

Instead it was the other way around -- he rigged it for Trump..

We so rarely agree, Cliff, that I thought I'd chime in some support. There's a political tactic that is rarely acknowledged--and that is the tactic of accusing the other side of the crime of which you're guilty, so that when they respond it looks like they are simply trying to engage in misdirection. This tactic has been particularly successful for the Republicans. Nixon and his supporters, for example, bellyached for years that JFK stole the 1960 election, and this distracted from the fact Nixon had lied his way into the Senate (calling his opponent "pink") and that he'd tried to steal the 1960 election (he didn't ask for recounts in Illinois and Texas because he knew JFK would ask for one in California.) This pattern continued into 1968, when Nixon whined that LBJ's last-minute ceasefire was an unfair ploy, when he was secretly undermining the peace process, and even into 1980, when Reagan's supporters worried Carter was gonna give away the farm to bring the Iranian hostages home before the election, and made secret deals to make sure this didn't happen.

In all cases, the dirty tricksters sought to portray themselves as the victims. So when Trump started claiming the election was rigged I felt there was a good chance he was up to no good. I now think this was correct. It's not a coincidence, for example, that this man whose numbers soared after he promised to "drain the swamp" and impose term limits on the largely Republican congress now seems to have forgotten about this altogether, and is now appointing the leader of the party as his chief of staff.

He is an unrepentant xxxx. He is a professional con man. And he is capable of anything. Except, so it seems, keeping a promise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point Pat, the Palace File is an overlooked book.  It really shows the perfidy Nixon was involved with on Vietnam.

Dan, I never criticize anyone because they have not written a book. I appreciate people who post on this case here and at other places.  I always hold out the example of Charles Dunne.  To my knowledge he never wrote a published article or a book. We did not always agree, but he was astute and knowledgeable.  A much better writer and researcher than many book authors.

All I am saying here is that no one knows anything about there being any deliberate violation of the Hatch Act by Comey.  I am not a lawyer, but I think to commit a crime there has to be intent.  IMO, Comey is a fairly honest guy.  To compare him with Hoover is kind of wild. At least as far as I can see.  He explained what he did before he appeared before congress. And he kind of had to since Lynch compromised herself with that meeting with Bill Clinton. He said that because of all the controversy, he was trying to be transparent in the process.  

Was that the right decision? Who knows.  Maybe, but considering hindsight, probably not.  But again, if Comey had not made the second announcement, someone would have leaked it to Giuliani who would have.  Because the renegades in the FBI wanted to start an inquiry into the connection between the E Mail server and the Clinton Foundation. To my knowledge, it did not get that far.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I have to add, did no one notice how the last minute maneuverings betrayed what was happening with the internal polls?  I mean the liberal blogosphere very much missed it.

On the last night, HRC was in Philadelphia and Raleigh.  Trump was in Michigan.

Let me say that again:  Trump was in Michigan on his last night!  And he drew 30,000 people!

In other words, he was assaulting the Democratic base on November 7th.  He was not trying to secure his own base.  That is using tactics for a strategic game.

Now, do I think we should dump the Electoral College?  Yep.  I think it should have been dumped many years ago.  But that is beside the point.  HRC vs Trump was run under the Electoral College scheme.  And Trump knew that and his tacticians knew that.  And they outplayed HRC and the Democrats in tactics, strategy, and thematic resonance.  If I could I would fire Pelosi and Schumer also.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

All I am saying here is that no one knows anything about there being any deliberate violation of the Hatch Act by Comey.

 

What?

Comey flat out lied when he said they were examining Clinton's e-mails.

They'd had those e-mails for a month -- they'd already been checked out.  FBI guys were leaking quietly that the e-mails were largely duplicates.

It took one day -- tops! -- to find out the e-mails were duplicates, and none of them had anything to do with Clinton.

Comey is guilty of more than a violation of the Hatch Act.

Comey is guilty of treason.

 

Quote

 I am not a lawyer, but I think to commit a crime there has to be intent.  IMO, Comey is a fairly honest guy.

 

.Are you kidding me?

Comey has acted as a partisan Republican operative the entire e-mail investigation.

His July announcement of no charge was a bend-over-backwards attempt to make Clinton look as bad as possible.

The entire State Dept was guilty of "extreme carelessness", not just Clinton.

Finally under oath Comey had to admit any reasonable person would have made the same mistakes not identifying the e-mails as classified.

That whole Benghazi/E-mail fiasco was a railroad job, the political assassination of Hillary Clinton, coup d'etat.

Quote

To compare him with Hoover is kind of wild. At least as far as I can see.  He explained what he did before he appeared before congress.

 

 

He said that any reasonable person would have made the same mistake Hillary did.

That wasn't the impression he created in his July statement.

He aided and abetted the Republicans branding Clinton as a prevaricator and she didn't lie about anything.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/here-are-fbis-files-hillary-clinton-email-investigation

 

Quote

And he kind of had to since Lynch compromised herself with that meeting with Bill Clinton. He said that because elf all the controversy he was trying to be transparent in the process.  

 

Jim, is there any fascist talking point you won't embrace?

There is nothing transparent about announcing a review of e-mails which could have been conducted during the time he wrote the letter.

The idea that Bill Clinton could influence an FBI investigation and would do so in public is mind-boggling idiocy.

 

Quote

Was that the right decision? Who knows.  

You don't know whether or not the FBI director determining the outcome of an election is right?

Truly disgusting.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, I have to add, did no one notice how the last minute maneuverings betrayed what was happening with the internal polls?  I mean the liberal blogosphere very much missed it.

On the last night, HRC was in Philadelphia and Raleigh.  Trump was in Michigan.

Let me say that again:  Trump was in Michigan on his last night!  And he drew 30,000 people!

In other words, he was assaulting the Democratic base on November 7th.  He was not trying to secure his own base.  That is using tactics for a strategic game.

Now, do I think we should dump the Electoral College?  Yep.  I think it should have been dumped many years ago.  But that is beside the point.  HRC vs Trump was run under the Electoral College scheme.  And Trump knew that and his tacticians knew that.  And they outplayed HRC and the Democrats in tactics, strategy, and thematic resonance.  If I could I would fire Pelosi and Schumer also.

 

Trump was dead in the water before the Comey letter.

He spent a lot of time talking about losing.

CNN/MSNBC/FOX were talking about nothing but Trump's hidden tax returns and pussy-grabbing.

Comey changed the entire campaign.

Clinton had to change campaign tactics, depriving her of a chance to make a final positive closing argument.

The e-mail story dominated the final 11 days of the campaign, and she still only lost by 107,000 votes over Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania.

Over the last 11 days she had to play defense, didn't have the full opportunity to emphasize her economic plans to re-invigorate the Rust Belt -- the Democratic platform was great in that regard.

Comey deprived her of the chance.

The man is a traitor.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

There's a political tactic that is rarely acknowledged--and that is the tactic of accusing the other side of the crime of which you're guilty,

Johnson got elected in 1964, to give us a big war in Vietnam, by claiming that if Goldwater got elected he could give us a big war in Vietnam.

Naturally I voted for the peace candidate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Cliff

I've been reading up on the GW Bush administrstion, the private email server set up for the administration by the RNC and the roughly 22 million "lost" emails that still remain unaccounted for. You seem to know quite a bit on the topic of emails. Would you comment on this, and perhaps draw a parallel to the HRC email controversy? Thanks.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...