Eight Thoughts About Comey and Clinton

cpt_0111-620x330The hypocrisy of the Democrats going after James Comey and defending Hillary Clinton reached a fevered pitch over the past 96 hours. What a difference a month, or a week, makes, when James Comey was such their hero—despite deleted tweets by Democratic Party operatives, like Donna Brazile, praising Mr. Comey. But In Re: All This, eight thoughts:

1.  If Hillary Clinton had never set up her private server, against all common sense and law, we would not be here.  But this is part and parcel of the Clintons thinking the laws do not apply to them. Or, as George Will once put it: “The Clintons can find a loophole in a stop sign.” Jake Tapper was certainly right when he asked/told John Podesta over the weekend: “Do you accept the fundamental premise that the reason we’re here is because Hillary Clinton and her inner circle, not including you, made a horrible decision to set up her private e-mail server and everything that has happened since then is her fault?”

2.  Slowly, but surely, the complaints by the Clinton defenders against what Mr. Comey did are melting away.  For example, over the weekend it was, “There isn’t even a search warrant.”  Well, now there is.

3.  For all the Main Stream Media’s hounding of Mike Pence about whether he stands by statements he has made in light of various of Donald Trump’s statements, will the media start asking Tim Kaine about whether he stands by any of his previous statements, like, oh, say, this one a week ago:  James Comey is “a wonderful and tough career public servant… he’s somebody with the highest standards of integrity.”

4.  For that matter, for all the commentary about newspapers and Republicans that endorsed Hillary Clinton for the first time, how much attention will be paid to the comments of the likes of respected Democratic operatives such as Doug Schoen who said he is reassessing his support of Hillary Clinton and “I’m deeply concerned that we’ll have a constitutional crisis if she’s elected.” Will there be other Democrats? Shouldn’t there be?

5.  For all the hand-wringing about James Comey dropping a bombshell like this investigation before the election, should not the question and prospective hand-wringing go the other way? In other words, if James Comey had opened this investigation and said nothing, and then, say, Hillary Clinton won the election, and then the investigation turned out to bear fruits of illegality, and then we were all informed the investigation began before the election, wouldn’t we all be up in arms for such concealment? That is: shouldn’t we want to know if a presidential candidate and/or his or her top aide is under FBI investigation? Isn’t it interesting Democrats—today—don’t think we should?

6.  This is a reminder of what you get with the Clintons. This is the Clinton dialectic, this is Clinton, Inc: Allegations of wrong-doing, claims of innocence that blame the accuser(s) or prosecutors, temporary media reprieves due to those claims, investigations, then, soon after, evidence of even more wrong-doing. This is what you get with the Clintons, all the time.

7.  It’s also a reminder of who the Clintons surround themselves with. Huma Abedin may be a great aide-de-camp.  But that she chose, and for too long chose to stay with, Anthony Weiner says one thing about her. Her background and involvement with the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs says another.  The Clintons hiring her in the first place and keeping her around says yet another.

8.  If Hillary Clinton is elected, do we honestly think we won’t see more of this kind of thing All. The. Time? (See Point 6, Supra.).

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

7 responses to “Eight Thoughts About Comey and Clinton”

  1. So given that one way or another, we will have a weak Commander in Chief, will Congress take up the cudgel to re-balance the power of the Executive Branch by pruning the administrative state and doing serious reform to entitlements?

    Trends say no.

  2. Leibsohn rightly suggests (“reminder”) that, though the recent particulars are new information, the ruthless criminality and deception are nothing new under the sun for Clinton Inc. It has been known all along even by–especially by–by Hillary backers that she is entirely unfit for the office (indeed for any office). Over a year ago I argued elsewhere that the Left’s entire purpose in installing Hillary in the Oval Office is precisely and solely to demonstrate to the nation and the world its power. What better way to demonstrate your power than to successfully install a person who is utterly unfit and unqualified, over the clamoring objections of a majority or near-majority of the country? A person with absolutely no political intelligence or acumen. The Left is going to see to it that this person is installed in office no matter what revelations come out. That is the basis for their support of Hillary. Not even the zealots on the Left are unaware of her unfitness. They simply are playing a much different and longer game.

    The power comes, not from persuading people of the superiority of their ideas or policies, but from the Left’s successful conquest of the nation’s media and educational institutions and their entrenchment in the termite mound that is the federal government bureaucracy. They have weaponized those institutions and are wielding them openly and with abandon. Consider just two examples from today’s headlines: a NYU professor was placed on paid leave for his temerity in publicly questioning the PC zealotry at US universities. And an op-ed writer in Oregon didn’t wait for Wikileaks to reveal the true and only goal and motivation of the Left: “So yeah, I don’t want the GOP defeated. I want it immolated.I want it razed to the foundation, reduced to a moonscape, left unlivable even for cockroaches, much less newts. I want it treated like boot heels treat ants and furnaces treat ice cubes, treated like a middle-school basketball team playing the ’71-’72 Lakers. Defeat is not enough. Let there be humiliation. Let there be pain.”

    This has absolutely nothing to do with any esteem for Hillary. The Left is doing this because it can.

  3. The last question is fascinating. Why, exactly, do the ruling classes think for a nanosecond the biggest grafter in American political history wouldn’t double down if in the White House? Or does our Imperial City find graft acceptable?

  4. As regards number six, this is perhaps the most painful element of an election in which the American public seem to be choosing Hillary Clinton. Conspiratorial secrecy is the lingua franca of Clinton Land and voters seem poised to say “yes please” to ushering these grifters back into the White House.

    As regards number seven, where do you think Huma Abedin learned the stratagem of staying with a sleaze ball hubby to further political ends hmmm?

  5. Why on earth does Scott Carroll think Clinton will be elected, and why in heaven does ‘Unclassifiable’ think Donald Trump will be a weak leader? They seem like fossilized NROutcasts. Man up, gentlemen.


    The New York Times has a story out that pretty much says there is no connection between Donald Trump and Russia.

  7. Maybe giving the presidency to a brilliant sociopath lawyer wasn’t a great idea after all.