For the Record: Yes, Hillary Clinton Should Have Been Prosecuted for Willful Gross Negligence

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0d2bc74410568a147a7b85da4408a7979df06dea4739ed6366a5f287bd99dd75.jpg

Image via texasmonthly.com

 

Townhall

Guy Benson

Late last week, as the furor over the Inspector General report was raging, I devoted a fair amount of my radio show to arguing that Hillary Clinton should have been charged and prosecuted over her email scandal — the DOJ’s handling of which was the subject of the IG’s findings. I’ve already written extensively about Mrs. Clinton’s egregious misconduct, highlighting the reasons why it wasn’t just a series of stupid mistakes, and pushing back against unpersuasive arguments about the nature of her actions. It seems as though this same sticking point has also been bothering Harvard-trained attorney, former JAG officer, and former Cornell Law School lecturer David French, who made his case for prosecution at National Review Online on Friday. His indictment, rooted in personal experience and deep understanding of the relevant statutes, is compelling:

After reading the analysis, I just flat-out don’t buy that Hillary’s conduct — and her senior team’s conduct — didn’t meet that standard. The key reason for my skepticism is the nature of the classified information sent and received. Remember, as Comey outlined in his infamous July 5, 2016 statement, Hillary sent and received information that was classified at extraordinarily high levels…If you’ve ever handled classified information, you understand that there are often judgment calls at the margins. When I was in Iraq, I often made the first call about classification. In other words, I determined whether to send information up the chain via the unclassified system (NIPRNet) or the classified system (SIPRNet). Entire categories of information were deemed classified by default. Other categories were commonly unclassified. But sometimes, I had to make a choice. And sometimes, the choice wasn’t clear.

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com

Any question why he was called “Meat Head” and always will be

Jim Campbell's

By Jim Campbell

June 17, 2018

Rob Reiner is quick with sound bytes yet likely knows little about that which he speaks.

A Hillary Clinton suck up Reiner tells us how liberals are more open-minded than Republicans.

Yep, please call when you can tell me anything the liberal agenda has had legislation signed into law that was good for all Americans.

He still bloviates calling the President Trump  being a racist.

Reiner is still battling his own version of the Trump Derangement Syndrome, perhaps he should be removed from society before he really blows his cork and is taken in advance to a home for the criminally insane.

Reiner and his ilk are so blind that are incapable of giving the Trump administration for their accomplishment in a year and a half which has totally eclipsed the Obama’s attempted taking the U.S. economy into the financial abyss.

View original post 226 more words

The Deep State and Tyranny

Frontpage mag

by Bruce Thornton

The Department of Justice Inspector General’s Report released last week didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know, but merely added more damning evidence for the corruption of the FBI and its investigations over the last few years. More worthy of comment, as Andy McCarthy writes, is its refusal to use common sense and note the obvious interconnections among the various bad actors, and the bond of political bias, seasoned with careerism and arrogance, that united them.

But the problems we are confronting reflect deeper dangers than the professional corruption of some functionaries of corrupt executive agencies armed with the coercive power of the state. The true moral of the story is the dangers to freedom of centralized and concentrated power––the very dangers consensual governments, including our own, were created to minimize.

 

The issue of political bias, which the IG report scanted, has to be understood in the larger nature of the large-scale bureaucratic public institutions that comprise the Deep State. In other words, the structure and functioning of the institution itself creates a bias that selects progressive employees. The bias insidiously becomes a second nature of which they often are no more conscious than a fish is that it’s wet.

Leftist ideology from Marxism to Progressivism is particularly useful for creating such self-serving agencies. American progressivism was founded on the conceit that “technopolitics,” the notion that modernity requires specialists and experts in the “human sciences” who can most efficiently manage the state. Progressives rejected the old democratic and republican notion that virtue, practical experience, and common sense, none of which is dependent on university credentials, are adequate for citizens to govern no matter their wealth, lineage, or education.

This debate about whether men in general are capable of self-government runs throughout the whole history of political philosophy. The antidemocrats denied that the masses are capable of acquiring the knowledge required for participating in government. The champions of democracy, like the Greek philosopher Protagoras, countered that for social life itself to exist, all men must be capable of acquiring the skills of managing relationships with other people. That task always necessarily involves hierarchies of power, common sense borne of experience, and notions of fairness and justice that form the heart of politics.

Two thousand years later, James Madison in 1792 defined the nascent political parties, the Federalists and the Democrat-Republicans, in the same terms. The former, Madison argues, hide their aggrandizement of power to an elite behind the ancient charge “that mankind are incapable of governing themselves,” even as the elites use government to further their own interests. The latter believe people “are capable of governing themselves” and can recognize that the opposite view is “an insult to the reason and an outrage to the rights of man.” Thus they oppose any measure “that does not appeal to the understanding of the general interest of the community” or “is not strictly conformable to the principles, and conducive to the preservation of republican government.” All men are capable of thought, and recognize the principles of political equality and freedom, the “rights of man” that government is created to protect and preserve.

Progressives, of course, for all their talk of “equal rights” and “equality” and “democracy,” in fact have more in common with the antidemocratic tradition. Rejecting the permanence of human nature and its vulnerability to the temptations of power and its corrupting influence, they argued that the new technologies and economic institutions had created problems beyond the understanding of the average man, but also created new understandings of how to improve human nature. Now power must be centralized and concentrated, and the federal government expanded with new agencies and offices staffed with credentialed technocrats who understand the “new sciences” of human nature and society, and so can create policies and rules that better serve the citizens now shrunk into wards of government agencies.

Having pursued these aims for over a century, progressives have midwifed the bloated Leviathan that now encroaches into our lives, communities, and businesses. The costs to our freedom and autonomy, as well as the weakening of the Constitutional order, are obvious. But the bureaucratic structure of government agencies leaves them vulnerable to the long-documented pathologies of bureaucracies equally malign to the common good.

Continue reading

They’re calling you stupid. That’s right: you.

https://socialismisnottheanswer.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/f6c63-hillaryjail.jpg

Image via elmtreeforge.blogspot.com

 

American Thinker

By Tom Trinko

Every time you hear some young hip woke leftist at a technology company like Facebook telling you he needs to protect you from fake news, remember that what he’s saying is that you’re a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who is too stupid to figure out that it’s okay for good people like Hillary to break the law.  In fact, he’s saying the majority of Americans are too intellectually challenged to discriminate between fact and fiction.

Historically, “common” folk were able to figure out that the National Enquirer’s stories about two-headed alien Elvis clones are fake and even that professional wrestling is staged.  They were able to see through the lies of Nazis and communists.  Yet for some reason, we’re now being told that we need our betters to protects us from what they think we shouldn’t read because we’re just too stupid to differentiate between what’s true and what’s not.

The truth is that leftists are not interested in protecting us from lies.  After all, if they did that, they’d all have to stop writing.  Rather, the left wants to convince us that lies are the truth and that the truth is lies.  Leftists need that to advance their agenda, which is ensuring that they can run every aspect of our lives.

The reality is that when leftists talk about fake news, they’re really talking about the truth, and when they talk about the truth, they’re really talking about fake news.

Look at the Mueller investigation.  It’s supposedly about Russia colluding with Trump to swing the election.  Yet, to date, there is no evidence that that happened at all.  But the woke leftists who want to censor your news declare that it’s a “fact” that Trump did illegally collude – even though collusion is not a crime – with the Russians.

Continue reading