Clinton-Style Corruption

It’s inevitable when you mix big government and sleazy people.

Yup. Too many opportunities for graft.

[Update mid-afternoon]

In this banana republic, Hillary couldn’t get indicted if she tried:

The Democratic party in Texas is a criminal enterprise (my friend Michael Walsh describes the Democrats at large as a crime syndicate masquerading as a political party, which isn’t inaccurate) that is sustained by corruption and old-fashioned ward politics that would have been familiar to a Chicago boss in the 1920s or a denizen of Tammany Hall. The Democrats happen to run Washington, too, which is why Hillary Rodham Clinton knows that she can violate the law, at will, for obvious personal political reasons, with very little fear of official sanction. And the fact is, the Democrats prefer their politicians a little crooked, a little dirty. It helps them, a Chavista party constrained mainly by the temperamental (rather than ideological) conservatism of the American electorate, to make up in viciousness what they lack in policy ideas appropriate to the 21st century.

That lack of policy ideas isn’t really very important. The Left isn’t interested in policy; it is interested in power, and the things you can do with it, meaning rewarding one’s friends and punishing one’s enemies. Barack Obama has been, in his less guarded moments, fairly plain about that. For the Left, all justice is Wonderland justice: decision first, arguments afterward as necessary. There is seldom if ever any doubt about how the so-called liberals on the Supreme Court (who are not liberals at all) will vote on any question: They will vote the way the Left wants them to. Elena Kagan, you may recall, testified in her confirmation hearings that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage lurking in the penumbras to be discovered. Once confirmed, she reached a little deeper and pulled one out. Conservatives can never really guess which way a Kennedy or a Roberts is going to come down on a question, but you know how the judges of the Left are going to vote. Arguments do not matter; only outcomes matter. That’s another way of saying that the law does not matter.

Yes. And it’s exactly how they behave.

7 thoughts on “Clinton-Style Corruption”

  1. So now she’s out their claiming that Comey was wrong, she and her folks knew what they were doing when they sent classified email on her unprotected servers.

  2. What do you mean “she” (i.e. the former Secretary of State and current presumptive Democratic Party nominee for President)?

    That Director Comey is wrong was uncovered right here, on Rand’s fine Web site, by our esteemed fellow participant “Jim.” Secretary Clinton is plagiarizing our Jim, and I am offended by this lack of acknowledgement of Rand and his corps of blog contributors, which also includes me.

    The point that that hundred’s of State Department workers and other government officials were e-mailing the Secretary, knowing full well about her private serve, meaning that if you indict the Secretary, you would have to indict hundreds of other people. Jim found that out and now the Secretary is saying the exact . . . same . . . thing . . .

    1. The old you would have to arrest too many people defense. The entire State Department was corrupt under Hillary so nothing can be done to the woman who was in charge. Of course, the larger argument is that the entire federal government operates this way under Obama. How do you clean that up?

      1. OK, what about the “air gap” question. It is claimed that some of the classified material would had to have been taken from its secure location and somehow transferred to the unsecure e-mails, and it is also claimed that some material had its classification stamp removed in the process.

        Did Director Comey speak to any of this? Did he confirm that what I described is one of the “fables” promulgated by the “haters”? Just how did this material end up in e-mail if not by deliberately and intentionally taken across the “air gap.”

        1. It was only alluded to in Comey’s statement.

          None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

          Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

          It was remarkable to reread that and see how his statements mimic’s Hillary’s talking points. In the beginning, he says

          Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

          Then never comes back to it. He never got into how classified information made it from one system to the other or how it lost its markings along the way. Probably because it wouldn’t have backed up his conclusion.

      2. Hillary only has to point out that one person knew, Obama, to guarantee her protection.

  3. Also, like when the the Obama admin kept insisting that the AHA wasn’t a tax. And then when it gets before the Supreme Court they argue that — it’s a tax.

Comments are closed.