(Ya think?): Comey drafted conclusion in Hillary Clinton probe before key interviews, top Republicans say

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Thu, 08/31/2017 - 6:28pm

Comey drafted conclusion in Hillary Clinton probe before key interviews, top Republicans say

Last Updated Aug 31, 2017 5:26 PM EDT

Fired FBI Director James Comey drafted a statement to announce the conclusion in the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server before the FBI interviewed key witnesses, including Hillary Clinton herself, top Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee claim.

Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, reached that conclusion from transcripts of interviews with people close to Comey and provided by the Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Those transcripts, the Republicans said in a Thursday letter to current FBI Director Chris Wray, show Comey had already drafted a conclusion for his investigation before interviewing 17 key witnesses, including Clinton, and before the DOJ had reached immunity agreements with former Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson.

Comey's sudden July 5 announcement that there would be no charges in the Clinton investigation -- despite his sharp criticisms of the former presidential candidate -- threw a wrench in an already-tumultuous election cycle.

*

One portion of the transcript from an unnamed interviewee reads as follows:

"The idea, I'm not entirely sure exactly when the idea of the public statement um first emerged," the interviewee said. "Um it was, I just, I can't put a precise timeframe on it um but [redaction]. And then I believe it was in early May of 2016 that the director himself wrote a draft of that statement …"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/comey-drafted-conclusion-clinton-probe-befo...

I'm going to have to think about this for a while. Try to figure out how, if this is true, Comey thought he was going to pull this off. Did he think the Clinton Creature had it in the bag so none of this would come out?

Is Comey really this stupid?

Tags:

Comey Clinton fixed the investigation?

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Outsourcing Is ... on Thu, 08/31/2017 - 7:04pm

Sounds like obstruction of justice to me.

Lock him up.

—

"Please clap." -- Jeb Bush

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Thu, 08/31/2017 - 7:26pm

I don't put this past the guy but how far can

@Outsourcing Is Treason
we trust these Repubs? Don't get me wrong, I knew Comey's investigation was rigged, no one will EVER convince me that is wasn't. But it's not like these guys don't have an 'agenda' themselves.

It will be interesting. And maybe this will get her out of the public's collective face. (One can always hope.)

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by SnappleBC on Thu, 08/31/2017 - 8:34pm

That's why I see all this as just kabuki theater

@Amanda Matthews

There is nobody "investigating" anything. There are no "crimes". What's going on is that the plutocracy is making up it's mind what to do with Trump.

In Clinton's case, clearly they chose to keep her. And how wouldn't? She was absolutely a loyal supporter of greed, money, and death. Trump, on the other hand, is.... more problematic.

What I know for sure is that whatever happens here will have nothing to do with "justice".

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 10:02am

@SnappleBC Who wouldn't choose

@SnappleBC Who wouldn't choose to keep Hillary? A logical plutocrat wouldn't. An oligarch with common sense.

They could have run any of a half dozen people who would have given total, unquestioning loyalty to them.

They could have run:

Joe Biden,
Claire McCaskill,
Jeanne Shaheen,
Cory Booker,
Deval Patrick,
Kamala Harris,
Martin O'Malley,
John Hickenlooper,
And, I'm biting my tongue as I'm saying this, Mark Warner.
Hell, they could have run Tom Perez against Trump and won.

That's ten people I came up with off the top of my head. Oh, I should have also thrown Elizabeth Warren into the mix. The financial sector doesn't like the way she talks, but it's all talk, so why the hell should they care. And think of the pleasure they could take in making Warren into their ventriloquist dummy (just like they did with Obama, although I think in his case, it was mostly voluntary. Except for that shit about Syria. He was scathingly contemptuous about that even as he did what they wanted--mostly).

There was no damned reason for them to stick to Hillary. None that is evident, anyway. I'm forced to look farther afield for the reason and start speculating, because what the oligarchs did made no goddamned sense. Who insisted on keeping Hillary? Did the Bushes insist on her? Did the CIA?
Did Saudi Arabia insist on her? Did Israel insist on her?

All they needed was a guy or a gal in a nice suit who was not already hated by the American people, whose loyalty they were certain of, who could also handle campaign politics. In other words, they needed someone who had not been much on the national stage, but who had a history of high-enough level political service (Senator or Governor) to be credible; they needed someone rather bland, to contrast with Trump's crass and florid style; they needed someone who was able to give a speech, work a rope line, handle a press conference or an interview, and debate other politicians. This would not have been hard to find. If Chris Van Hollen had run for the Senate back when Ben Cardin did, instead of meekly waiting his turn, he would have been in a good position for that. And, in fact, even Ben Cardin could have beaten Trump. Perhaps they should have run him.

There are plenty of guys and gals in nice suits willing to shove their heads up the asses of the elites. We have no deficit of those. And quite a few of them are able to give speeches, shake hands with voters, handle the press, and debate with other politicians, or at least make a presentable facsimile of a debate, which is all that matters these days.

I guess I should be grateful they stuck with Hateful Hillary, because if they'd picked Biden or McCaskill or any of the others above, most of the country would have settled in with a resigned sigh and there would have been little or no backlash against status quo neoliberal politics.

But there's no logic to their actions, Captain.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Dr. John Carpenter on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 12:14pm

The only thing I can figure

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal The Clintons are the lode bearing felons. Take them out and the whole thing comes tumbling down either due to gravity or that they will take as many others with them when they go. Maybe I'm naive, but when you look at the intersection of money, influence and power, it seems like a Clinton is never too far behind.

#1.1.1 Who wouldn't choose to keep Hillary? A logical plutocrat wouldn't. An oligarch with common sense.

They could have run any of a half dozen people who would have given total, unquestioning loyalty to them.

They could have run:

Joe Biden,
Claire McCaskill,
Jeanne Shaheen,
Cory Booker,
Deval Patrick,
Kamala Harris,
Martin O'Malley,
John Hickenlooper,
And, I'm biting my tongue as I'm saying this, Mark Warner.
Hell, they could have run Tom Perez against Trump and won.

That's ten people I came up with off the top of my head. Oh, I should have also thrown Elizabeth Warren into the mix. The financial sector doesn't like the way she talks, but it's all talk, so why the hell should they care. And think of the pleasure they could take in making Warren into their ventriloquist dummy (just like they did with Obama, although I think in his case, it was mostly voluntary. Except for that shit about Syria. He was scathingly contemptuous about that even as he did what they wanted--mostly).

There was no damned reason for them to stick to Hillary. None that is evident, anyway. I'm forced to look farther afield for the reason and start speculating, because what the oligarchs did made no goddamned sense. Who insisted on keeping Hillary? Did the Bushes insist on her? Did the CIA?
Did Saudi Arabia insist on her? Did Israel insist on her?

All they needed was a guy or a gal in a nice suit who was not already hated by the American people, whose loyalty they were certain of, who could also handle campaign politics. In other words, they needed someone who had not been much on the national stage, but who had a history of high-enough level political service (Senator or Governor) to be credible; they needed someone rather bland, to contrast with Trump's crass and florid style; they needed someone who was able to give a speech, work a rope line, handle a press conference or an interview, and debate other politicians. This would not have been hard to find. If Chris Van Hollen had run for the Senate back when Ben Cardin did, instead of meekly waiting his turn, he would have been in a good position for that. And, in fact, even Ben Cardin could have beaten Trump. Perhaps they should have run him.

There are plenty of guys and gals in nice suits willing to shove their heads up the asses of the elites. We have no deficit of those. And quite a few of them are able to give speeches, shake hands with voters, handle the press, and debate with other politicians, or at least make a presentable facsimile of a debate, which is all that matters these days.

I guess I should be grateful they stuck with Hateful Hillary, because if they'd picked Biden or McCaskill or any of the others above, most of the country would have settled in with a resigned sigh and there would have been little or no backlash against status quo neoliberal politics.

But there's no logic to their actions, Captain.

—

Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 09/02/2017 - 11:46am

@Dr. John Carpenter You mean, if they

@Dr. John Carpenter You mean, if they don't get what they want, they'll bring the roof down on everyone else?

That's certainly possible.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by SnappleBC on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 1:50pm

Wow... insightful analysis. Thanks

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

I think my thinking had stopped along the lines of "Dr. John Carpenter" above. I just assumed that the Clintons were at the hub of some massive favor bank so cutter them out would've been... troublesome if nothing else. But even then, "troublesome" should've been something they could've overcome. So another less sinister possibility than yours is that they really did drink at least some of their own Kool-Aid and simply couldn't conceive that the nation would elect Trump.

#1.1.1 Who wouldn't choose to keep Hillary? A logical plutocrat wouldn't. An oligarch with common sense.

They could have run any of a half dozen people who would have given total, unquestioning loyalty to them.

They could have run:

Joe Biden,
Claire McCaskill,
Jeanne Shaheen,
Cory Booker,
Deval Patrick,
Kamala Harris,
Martin O'Malley,
John Hickenlooper,
And, I'm biting my tongue as I'm saying this, Mark Warner.
Hell, they could have run Tom Perez against Trump and won.

That's ten people I came up with off the top of my head. Oh, I should have also thrown Elizabeth Warren into the mix. The financial sector doesn't like the way she talks, but it's all talk, so why the hell should they care. And think of the pleasure they could take in making Warren into their ventriloquist dummy (just like they did with Obama, although I think in his case, it was mostly voluntary. Except for that shit about Syria. He was scathingly contemptuous about that even as he did what they wanted--mostly).

There was no damned reason for them to stick to Hillary. None that is evident, anyway. I'm forced to look farther afield for the reason and start speculating, because what the oligarchs did made no goddamned sense. Who insisted on keeping Hillary? Did the Bushes insist on her? Did the CIA?
Did Saudi Arabia insist on her? Did Israel insist on her?

All they needed was a guy or a gal in a nice suit who was not already hated by the American people, whose loyalty they were certain of, who could also handle campaign politics. In other words, they needed someone who had not been much on the national stage, but who had a history of high-enough level political service (Senator or Governor) to be credible; they needed someone rather bland, to contrast with Trump's crass and florid style; they needed someone who was able to give a speech, work a rope line, handle a press conference or an interview, and debate other politicians. This would not have been hard to find. If Chris Van Hollen had run for the Senate back when Ben Cardin did, instead of meekly waiting his turn, he would have been in a good position for that. And, in fact, even Ben Cardin could have beaten Trump. Perhaps they should have run him.

There are plenty of guys and gals in nice suits willing to shove their heads up the asses of the elites. We have no deficit of those. And quite a few of them are able to give speeches, shake hands with voters, handle the press, and debate with other politicians, or at least make a presentable facsimile of a debate, which is all that matters these days.

I guess I should be grateful they stuck with Hateful Hillary, because if they'd picked Biden or McCaskill or any of the others above, most of the country would have settled in with a resigned sigh and there would have been little or no backlash against status quo neoliberal politics.

But there's no logic to their actions, Captain.

—

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Sat, 09/02/2017 - 11:49am

@SnappleBC Sure thing. As

@SnappleBC Sure thing. As someone who used to be in campaign politics, a bit, I found last year not only toxic, but frustrating. I know it's illogical, because I didn't want the Dems to win once they ditched Bernie, but they were running such an incompetent and horrible campaign that sometimes I thought it was all a ruse and they were trying to get people to hate her more (I didn't really believe that, but I toyed with the idea, because the incompetence was legendary. Although they were right to keep her off stage and off camera as long as possible. Thing is, though, when you have to do that, that means that person shouldn't be the one in front of the cameras. Therefore, they shouldn't be running for office.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 09/02/2017 - 5:59pm

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

... I guess I should be grateful they stuck with Hateful Hillary, because if they'd picked Biden or McCaskill or any of the others above, most of the country would have settled in with a resigned sigh and there would have been little or no backlash against status quo neoliberal politics.

But there's no logic to their actions, Captain.

Unless the idea was, or became at some point, to ensure that the Republicans had the majority to ensure a Constitutional Convention, writing out all human and citizen rights, to 'legalize' all TPTB do against them to drain that last drop of life-blood from the American people and country in that ruthless quest for maximized corporate/billionaire profits at the cost of the world. They do want it all, you know, and grudge The Poors anything they might still possibly have, whether money/property, health or rights.

#1.1.1 Who wouldn't choose to keep Hillary? A logical plutocrat wouldn't. An oligarch with common sense.

They could have run any of a half dozen people who would have given total, unquestioning loyalty to them.

They could have run:

Joe Biden,
Claire McCaskill,
Jeanne Shaheen,
Cory Booker,
Deval Patrick,
Kamala Harris,
Martin O'Malley,
John Hickenlooper,
And, I'm biting my tongue as I'm saying this, Mark Warner.
Hell, they could have run Tom Perez against Trump and won.

That's ten people I came up with off the top of my head. Oh, I should have also thrown Elizabeth Warren into the mix. The financial sector doesn't like the way she talks, but it's all talk, so why the hell should they care. And think of the pleasure they could take in making Warren into their ventriloquist dummy (just like they did with Obama, although I think in his case, it was mostly voluntary. Except for that shit about Syria. He was scathingly contemptuous about that even as he did what they wanted--mostly).

There was no damned reason for them to stick to Hillary. None that is evident, anyway. I'm forced to look farther afield for the reason and start speculating, because what the oligarchs did made no goddamned sense. Who insisted on keeping Hillary? Did the Bushes insist on her? Did the CIA?
Did Saudi Arabia insist on her? Did Israel insist on her?

All they needed was a guy or a gal in a nice suit who was not already hated by the American people, whose loyalty they were certain of, who could also handle campaign politics. In other words, they needed someone who had not been much on the national stage, but who had a history of high-enough level political service (Senator or Governor) to be credible; they needed someone rather bland, to contrast with Trump's crass and florid style; they needed someone who was able to give a speech, work a rope line, handle a press conference or an interview, and debate other politicians. This would not have been hard to find. If Chris Van Hollen had run for the Senate back when Ben Cardin did, instead of meekly waiting his turn, he would have been in a good position for that. And, in fact, even Ben Cardin could have beaten Trump. Perhaps they should have run him.

There are plenty of guys and gals in nice suits willing to shove their heads up the asses of the elites. We have no deficit of those. And quite a few of them are able to give speeches, shake hands with voters, handle the press, and debate with other politicians, or at least make a presentable facsimile of a debate, which is all that matters these days.

I guess I should be grateful they stuck with Hateful Hillary, because if they'd picked Biden or McCaskill or any of the others above, most of the country would have settled in with a resigned sigh and there would have been little or no backlash against status quo neoliberal politics.

But there's no logic to their actions, Captain.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 9:35am

@Outsourcing Is Treason If only.

@Outsourcing Is Treason If only.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 09/02/2017 - 5:53pm

@Outsourcing Is Treason

@Outsourcing Is Treason

As cell-mates with Hillary please? And lots of videotape of whatever ensures?

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Thu, 08/31/2017 - 7:22pm

The answer is of course...

He of course drafted another one which was not used, and thus discarded.

Nothing to see, really! We just accidentally discarded the files which were not used...

I'm certain there's some SOMEWHERE on the servers, but only a really dedicated hacker could find that...

(If the Deep State had any brains, this would be their story. Create the suggestion that there's more data which is not available. Everybody will hunt for it, and conveniently forget about the information we already have. Of course, I expect that they'll tie this into RUSSIA!!!!!! if they can...)

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 10:07am

@detroitmechworks This ride might be

@detroitmechworks This ride might be connected to Ruuuuussssiiaaaa.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Sun, 09/03/2017 - 9:29am

"Warmongers don't get to play the

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
Feminism card."

EXACTLY. How many women and (female) children is her arrogant, incompetent self responsible for killing?

Jimmy Dore is what Cenk What's-his-face always wanted to be.

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by Bollox Ref on Thu, 08/31/2017 - 8:03pm

Protecting The Establishment

is key for an Establishment Man.

And Comey is very much an Establishment Man.

—

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Thu, 08/31/2017 - 9:43pm

This was okay. Herheinous won the primary before anyone voted

This is the new way things are going to work in Washington now.

Is anyone following the Awan case? This article has lots of good links in, including how many congress members used their services, how someone in congress might have told them that the Capital police were going to arrest them.

But here's the kicker:
Comey and McCabe told the Capital police and other agencies to stand down and not arrest Awan's wife. They watched as she boarded her plane.
Nope, no covering up for the Awans and the members of congress who might have committed treason by allowing Pakistan to have access classified information.

Media Silent As Awan Scandal Deepens

Submitted by Wink on Thu, 08/31/2017 - 11:09pm

That story, like Seth

@snoopydawg
Rich going away. Well, it's ALL going away, except "They" seem to need to keep that Russia! Russia! Russia! story alive. I still get, "Wink, you dumb fuck, The One won by FOUR Million Fucking Votes! The Russians stole the ones drump needed, otherwise our Queen would be president!!" yep, many still buying that.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Submitted by Outsourcing Is ... on Thu, 08/31/2017 - 9:45pm

One other thing

When Comey drafted the Hillary exoneration in May 2016, that was before the ex parte meeting on the tarmac between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, before Loretta Lynch recused herself from the case. Comey was therefore usurping the role of Attorney General.

—

"Please clap." -- Jeb Bush

Submitted by snoopydawg on Thu, 08/31/2017 - 9:47pm

Here's the collusion with Russia

And Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and, and, and,...

This comes just weeks after reports emerged indicating that federal authorities had opened an investigation as to whether the Awans stolen sensitive data, which they may have then sold to Russian or Pakistani intelligence. Disobedient Media previously reported that the scope of the scandal may be much wider than has been covered thus far by establishment press, with intelligence potentially having being passed to countries including Israel, Saudi Arabia and China via Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI.

But Trump wanted to build a tower in Russia during the general election. This is what is going to get him impeached!

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 10:11am

@snoopydawg I don't get it. We share

@snoopydawg I don't get it. We share intelligence with Israel anyway. They're practically like the British--their spies joined at the hip with ours.

As for Saudi Arabia, can't they get intelligence from the Bushes, who have CIA clearances and long close alliances with Saudi royalty?

China and Russia, I admit, are something else again.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 09/02/2017 - 9:43pm

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal

Think they might possibly have been selling carefully prepared propaganda to Pakistan or elsewhere? Not that that would guarantee that the Awans would sell only that.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Thu, 08/31/2017 - 10:25pm

So Comey gave Mills and Samuelson immunity....

before the DOJ had reached immunity agreements with former Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson.

for no (legitimate) reason.

Why give immunity to witnesses if you've already decided there is no crime?

—

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

Submitted by MsGrin on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 9:23am

@Not Henry Kissinger Nothing to see here. Move

@Not Henry Kissinger Nothing to see here. Move along.

—

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 10:12am

@Not Henry Kissinger [INSERT Beatles voice

@Not Henry Kissinger [INSERT Beatles voice here] "That's sort of the question, then, isn't it?"

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Strife Delivery on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 12:54am

Power protects Power.

Simple as that.

The window dressing of Democrat and Republican are meant to fool people into believing there is a difference.

There isn't.

Submitted by dkmich on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 7:31am

Two Americas - nothing has changed.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 9:22am

I can't believe this.

I thought the mainstream of the Republican party was part of the Bush/Clinton cartel. Are some of the rats jumping ship?

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 11:27am

Well, the Top Rat is having a conniption

@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
Trump's Tweet

(Tried to post it, just couldn't get it to show up)

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by Deja on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 12:51pm

Ack! That line of responses to Trump's tweet

@Amanda Matthews
I just can't keep reading it. It's full of Shillbots screaming Russia!!!!! And posting his (dis)approval rating. One actually implies he's having sex with another tweeter's mother, and then sister. Ffs, it's a mix of dkos and 4chan. I just can't do it.

What was not mentioned, at least not as far as I got, were the contents of the emails the bots were poo pooing Trump about. Not even the deplorables brought up the primary rip off scam, when the bots claimed that Trump colluded with Putin for the win.

Gross! So glad I don't do Twitter anymore.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 09/03/2017 - 10:34am

@Deja

@Deja

This only works as long as TPTB can maintain the long-running conditioning which keeps the bulk of the horses endlessly running back into one of only two burning barns, believing that no other choice is possible. And now that Homeland Security is running the Top Secret electoral henhouse, what comes out will be bags of flaming fox-poop designed to 'legally' force them all into whichever barn TPTB prefer at the moment to 'have its turn'.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 9:15pm

@Amanda Matthews He's a rat on a

@Amanda Matthews He's a rat on a different ship. The Exxon Valdez. While Hillary is busy captaining the Titanic.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 9:34am

And of course he thought she had it in the bag.

Let's just say I have a hard time believing that someone who committed election fraud in the primary would be willing to play the general election straight. The only argument that makes that idea make sense is if Hillary had such huge hubris that she couldn't conceive of a world in which Trump beat her, despite the data. I might believe that, but I have a hard time believing that all her staff and advisors and other operatives were equally out of touch--to say nothing of her donors. Or the Bushes, for god's sake, who we know were supporting her and helping her, once it became clear Jeb was going nowhere. If Hillary weren't willing to engage in fraud in the general, for reasons like this:

certainly someone among her operatives or donors, or even the Bushes themselves, would arrange some insurance for her, without telling her if necessary, to protect her ego and avoid a shouting match. It's almost unthinkable that a candidate like Hillary Clinton, dirty as hell and backed by most of the wealth in this country, would have to wait till the votes were counted to find out if she won. Of course she would have insurance of some kind. After all the different kinds of fraud she engaged in in the primary, it's clear neither she nor her political machine has any compunction about using such methods. Why would she leave it to chance? And even if she did, for her pride's sake, the people around her--and behind her--wouldn't.

So sure, Comey thought she had it in the bag.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by ggersh on Fri, 09/01/2017 - 10:15am

So the unintended consequence of this

is we now have tinyhands as prez instead of Bernie
but what if her heinous had won.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/01/if-hillary-had-won/

“Trump won the election by 77 electoral votes and he still screamed about 5-8 million phony voters and hired Kris Kobach and Hans Van Spakovsky to ensure that Democrats were barred from voting. Had he lost in a few states by 1%, he would have said the election was fixed and demanded recounts. Hilary — showing the dearth of sense for which she is known and reviled– would have demanded that there be no recounts (‘Al Gore don’t get a recount– why should he?’). Since a number of those states were in Republican hands, you would have had [Wisconsin Governor] Scott Walker, [Michigan Governor] Rick Snyder and maybe [Ohio Governor] John Kasich working against her. That would have gone on for months.”

and that is only the beginning

—

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley