Alton Sterling and Philando Castile

Two days, two police killings caught on video. The first was of Alton Sterling, who was selling CDs outside a store. Based on a tip, the police showed up to arrest him. Sterling, who had a gun, was being held pinned down by two cops when one shouted, “He’s got a gun!” The other officer then shot him point blank in the chest, killing him. There is horrific video of the shooting which you can find at the links but I won’t embed.

The second shooting was yesterday of Philando Castile, a man who worked in a Montessori school, had no record and had a concealed carry permit. His girlfriend claims that they were pulled over for a broken tail light. He informed the officer that he had a weapon, then reached for his wallet when instructed, at which point he was shot and killed. The video starts after the shooting and you can hear the officer yelling that he was going for his gun while the girlfriend says he was going for his ID. Later, they cuffed both the girlfriend and the four-year-old who was in the back seat. It was eerily reminiscent of the South Carolina shooting of a man going for his license.

Naturally, we have to wait until more information comes out. But both of these incidents look very very bad. In both cases, we have cops who reacted to what they thought was a dangerous situation but probably wasn’t. In both cases, they had guns drawn in situations where it’s not clear that was necessary. Sterling did not appear to be going for his gun and we don’t have any information that Castile was either. But in both cases, the officers reacted to the presence of a gun — one in an open-carry state, one with a concealed carry permit — as if the presence of the gun was automatically a threat.

Balko, who thinks the Sterling shooting may have been the result of a miscommunication between the officers:

Was Sterling resisting? It’s difficult to say, as is often the case with these videos. He may have been. But what looks like resisting often isn’t conscious fighting back or an affirmative attempt to hurt or injure police officers so much as instinctual self-defense. If the cops bend your arm in a way that it doesn’t want to bend, you feel pain. Your body tells you to resist whatever or whoever is bending your arm in that manner. So you push back. That isn’t aggression; it’s a natural product of our aversion to pain. Similarly, a suspect flat on pavement with a knee in his back or with multiple officers putting their weight on him may try to lift his chest. That can look like the suspect is trying to get up, resisting orders, and possibly trying to attack the officers. But he may also simply be trying to create some space to breathe. Many people panic when trapped under a lot of weight. Panic isn’t also aggression. It’s an attempt to survive.

All of which is why training police in de-escalation is so important. Physical confrontation like the kind we see in this video immediately raises the stakes and narrows the margin for error for everyone involved. A misheard directive, a misinterpreted gesture, or any other miscommunication can quickly become fatal.

If we really want to reduce fatal police shootings instead of merely adjudicating them, we need to train officers in tactics that subdue threats, reward those who resolve threats without violence, and discourage actions that create unnecessary confrontation, violence, and escalation. And when these shootings are investigated — be it by the DOJ, internal affairs departments, local prosecutors or an outside agencies — it’s time to start looking beyond whether or not the shooting was justified under the black letter of the law. It’s time to start asking whether the shooting was preventable — and if it was, whether the failure to prevent it was due to poor training, bad policies, or police officers acting in contravention of policies or training.

Was it legal? is the question we ask when deciding whether or not to prosecute. Was it preventable? is the question we need to ask to save lives.

That’s the key point. We are constantly told the policing is the most dangerous job in America (it isn’t in the top ten), that there is a war on cops (policing is safer than it’s been in over a century) and that there is a constant danger of ambushes (literally less than one in a million chance). We give officers pseudo-military training and tell them to react before they think because the world is full of people who want to kill cops. We give them military weapons and send them on SWAT raids. And then we act all surprised when a thousand people get gunned down by cops every year.

If you watch the videos, listen to the officers’ voices. They are nearly hysterical. Their reaction is nothing so much as, “What the hell just happened?” They are trying to justify what they just did. That’s a key point that’s missing here — the emphasis on aggressive policing creates bad and dangerous situations for civilians and cops. When you are in an emergency situation, you react on instinct. If that instinct is to be aggressive, you will be aggressive because you don’t have time for thought to intervene. If policing tactics emphasized de-escalation, not only would we have less civilians on the ground, we’d have less cops holding a smoking gun wondering what the hell they just did. And maybe a few less getting shot by deranged or scared civilians.

There are other issues here, of course. We need to decrease the number of laws and the number of interactions between cops and civilians. We especially need to rid ourselves of laws governing non-violent behavior, like selling CDs or having busted tail lights. The issue of race will be at the heart of this. And all the Second Amendment advocates should be appalled by a conceal-carry holder being shot like this (modulo any other facts that come out).

But the main thing we need to do is stop treating our country like it’s a war zone. Twenty years ago, crime was out of control. It has fallen precipitously since then. Even if aggressive tactics were justified in the 90’s — and I would argue about that — they are no longer necessary. If we’re going to give cops guns and body armor and send them out to enforce the law, if we’re going to make sure that citizens can exercise their Second Amendment right, we have to emphasize ways that these two things can co-exist without a law-abiding man bleeding to death in front of a handcuffed four-year-old girl.

Me Make Nice To Trump

I’ve been slagging Trump pretty heavily on the blog lately. It’s not like he doesn’t deserve it. But I don’t want to go all-in on hate like I’m a Democrat or something. So to lighten the mood, I’ll say five positive thing about Donald Trump. And I’m not being sarcastic. These are five things that are genuinely good about his candidacy.

  • Trump doesn’t care about the Culture War. Trump has fumbled the abortion issue because it doesn’t matter to him. He’s been semi-pro-LGBT. He’s punted on issues of bathroom access and drugs. Maybe one good thing that could come out of this is that the Culture War goes back to being something in the culture, not something in politics.
  • He would almost certainly defer to conservatives on SCOTUS appointments. The appointment of SCOTUS justices over the next four years is the issue for this campaign. Trump might appoint some lunatic but the Senate would have a thing or two to say about that. Most likely, he would do what he did earlier this year: grab a list from the Federalist Society and go down it, name by name. That would not be good for civil liberties, but it would be OK for restraining government power.
  • I don’t think he’s a bigot. Trump has been accused of racism, anti-Muslimism and anti-semitism. I don’t think he’s any of those. He’s tone-deaf on issues or race and religion and is clearly blowing some dog whistles that the racists are responding to on social media. But I don’t think reflects what he thinks.
  • I think he’s tapping into a very real and important backlash against elites. This is the big issues that is driving the Trump campaign and every time the elites work themselves into a fainting spell over the last Trumpism, it only strengthens this argument. I don’t believe in direct democracy. Our founders created a constitutional Republic because they distrusted mob rule. But I do think we’ve developed a huge disconnect between the ruling class and the people. And Trump is riding that wave.
  • He may break the idea that money == political power. Trump is being massively outspent by Clinton and was outspent in the primary. We’ve had indications for many years that money has, at most, a small impact on elections. If Trump wins or even comes close, the narrative that elections are bought and sold by special interests takes another big blow. Not a decisive one, since Trump’s celebrity has made up some of the money gap. But a big one. That’s not to say that special interests wield no power, because they clearly wield a lot. But money isn’t the problem. Access to politicians is the problem. The size of government, which mandates that people give oblations to politicians, is the problem. Campaign donations and campaign finance reform are red herrings (which is precisely why politicians talk them up so much).

Like I said, not much. I still won’t vote for him. But the idea that Trump is America’s Hitler or the quintessence of evil is just ridiculous.

Thus dies democracy

If you had any doubt that the inept, corrupt, and totally evil credentialed aristocracy that today pretends to run the western world could hold its laws, its system of government, and its very people in more contempt than it does, just read about how they have again proven that they consider themselves above the law that they would use to crucify us peons, as Hillary gets away with a crime none of us would survive:

FBI Director James Comey announced Tuesday that the FBI will not recommend federal prosecution of Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server to store what turned out to be thousands of classified documents in her emails.

The U.S. Justice Department has the final say, but Attorney General Loretta Lynch said last week that she ‘fully expects’ to act on whatever the FBI recommends. The FBI doesn’t expect any criminal charges to result, Comey said.

‘We are expressing to the Department of Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case,’ he said.
‘In looking back into our investigations into the mishandling or the removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.’

Just WOW!. Comney has basically made the case that someone that compromised national security, and broke laws that have destroyed other people for far less, gets off because she is part of the inner circle that fancies itself above these laws and thus gets a pass. I have for a long time held the legal system in contempt and have wondered if I would trust it to be fair if I were up against it. I now have the clearest answer possible to that question, and it is a resounding “Not a fucking chance”. And the fucking idiots wonder why we had the Brexit vote or the rise of Donald Trump in the US, whom by the way proceeded to say exactly what people like me have said repeatedly about this case:

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump fired back almost immediately on Twitter.

‘The system is rigged,’ he wrote. ‘General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment.’

‘FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem,’ a second tweet read.

As Trump points out, Petraeus got fucked over by this very administration of all things, which used a far lower bar to to throw the full weight of the law at him and make sure he would never be able to run for political office or pose the threat they perceived in him, after they made him a criminal and a security issue. Note that Obama’ administration has set new records for using the espionage act against its enemies. Yet Hillary does far worse and Comney comes back and gives us the following shit:

‘Although we did not find clear evidence that sec Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws,’ Comey said, ‘there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.’

Comey said the FBI determined that before Clinton deleted tens of thousands of her ‘personal’ emails, her attorneys deleted several work-related messages. The lawyers didn’t read them all but searched keywords to determine which of them might qualify as government records.

But despite her incomplete submission to the State Department, he said, ‘we found no evidence that any of the additional work related emails were intentionally deleted.’
Comey acknowledged that rank-and-file government employees might not receive a clean legal bill of health in similar circumstances, and might also have their security clearances revoked.

‘This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions, but that’s not what we’re deciding now,’ he said.

And, he insisted, ‘all the cases prosecuted’ in other instances of mishandling classified files ‘involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice.’

Since when was ignorance of the law an excuse to be let off the hook? Ask yourself if a normal citizen, or better yet republican politician, after the revelations we have of abuses of power, would have been allowed to be given a pass while a republican held the White House. Ask yourself if They would be given a pass while running for the highest office in the land, especially if they had made the idiotic argument that they not only broke the law but helped our enemies spy on us and compromise our efforts around the globe, while using the excuse that it was their incompetence that allowed it to happen, and not a willful disrespect for the legalities that would have maybe exposed the nefarious and criminal activities they were involved in and decided were only possible to hide by not following the law that would prevent the very things we got. Ask yourself if the media and the corrupt left would ever have resorted to contorting themselves into pretzels to excuse the inexcusable.

Remember that the revolution we celebrated just yesterday on the 4th of July had everything to do with people feeling their rulers basically held them in contempt and had a legal system they felt themselves above. Have no doubt that our credentialed political class no longer serves anyone but their own interests and needs. We now have had our legal system bless the criminal activities of a woman that has sold access to her and her influence to any taker with enough money, including foreign powers, as nothing but carelessness. This women, if she wins what is sure to be a rigged election, will then not only get the ability to sell more of us out, but be in a spot where they can blackmail her.

I guess we deserve these people as our leaders, considering how far we have fallen and how much we have let them get away with. When this ends badly, we shouldn’t blame anyone but ourselves for letting this happen. A bunch of credentialed buffoons that have sold us down the river and basically given up all pretense of doing what they do for any other reason but to enrich themselves now run the western world, and we are all going to pay for that. Tragic.

Of Course Not

The FBI has recommended that the DOJ not seek charges for Clinton’s e-mail scandal. Here is Comey’s statement. I expected this, as did most people. Law are for plebs, not monarchs. Although I expected maybe a few low-level grunts to be the fall guys.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

Now maybe this would be acceptable if it came from someone who was not James Comey, who has pressed felony charges in far less clear circumstances. Comey admits that Clinton deliberately set up her own e-mail servers to shield her e-mails from FOIA. He admits she mishandled classified evidence, enormous amounts of it, including at least seven piece of Top Secret information and that there is no way she couldn’t have known this information was classified. He admits she tried to conceal what she did. But he focuses heavily on intent, which is something the FBI never focuses on with the rest of us.

Inadvertently breaking the law can get you indicted. Covering up what you did, even if you didn’t break the law, can get you indicted. But Clinton, who deliberately broke the rules and tried to cover it up, won’t even get a wrist slap. And people wonder why Trump is so popular.

Happy Fourth

240 years of freedom*. Happy Birthday, America.

(*Note: “Freedom” does not apply to cigarettes, alcohol, sex work, guns, “hate speech”, insensitivity, salt, sugar, fat, raising children, education, farming, catering, baking, self-incrimination, privacy, papers and persons, driving, hiking, boating, fishing, hunting, flying and anything else we think of that should be banned or regulated for your own good.

It does however, include the freedom to pay for sports stadiums, drug wars, prisons, TSA beatdowns of disabled teenagers, SWAT raids, corporate welfare, “alternative energy”, bullet train boondoggles and faux FBI investigations.)

Elie Wiesel, RIP

The man who came to embody the idea of “Never Again” has died. Elie Wiesel lived a long and full life and his work is so important that most people can’t remember what it was like before him. There was a period of time — about ten to twenty years after the war — where the Holocaust wasn’t talked about much. Survivors would be told that they were exaggerating and most people just didn’t want to hear about it. Wiesel was the key part of the movement that drew the Holocaust out of the shadows to the point where most people today can’t imagine not knowing about it.

I’m always sad when a Holocaust survivor dies. But a part of me is so happy that they lived so long in defiance of evil. RIP.

Honor The Heroes, Scorn The Cowards

Just watched “13 Hours” last night, all I can say is ,”DDDDAAAAMMMMNNNN!!!!”

This is one of those movies (Black Hawk Down, another) that every single American should see. Running towards the guns, risking your lives so that others might live, these men must never be forgotten.

Because of the politicized nature of the event (all of this on Obama, BTW, and his bullshit narrative about a spontaneous demonstration over a video) many people will probably think this movie has an agenda, a political agenda, not even remotely so. Questions are asked by those getting theirs asses shot off why help never came, no answers are put forth. But this in no way detracts from the heroic stand these CIA operators made in protecting the lives of the 2 dozen or so trapped CIA officials stuck in the annex.

One complaint {spoiler}, the movie gave scant attention to Glen Doherty , this was an oversight. From all accounts that I have read Doherty was in the thick of it and between him and Tyrone Woods killed over 60 terrorist attackers.

In contrast to the heroes of Benghazi, the Navy just published their report on embarrassing capture of the US sailors by Iran, it does not hold back. What ever could go wrong, did. But this was a catastrophe of their own making. Lousy seamanship, a lackadaisical approach to the mission, dereliction of duty, and as the report stated, “lack of preparedness and warfighting toughness.” The worst part was how they behaved after detection. After surrendering their vessels, they comported themselves poorly (crying in the face of the enemy) and offered up information beyond name, rank, and serial number. Essentially they acted like pussies, and embarrassed the US Navy. Yeah, the customary heads rolled, but what a black eye for the military, we have to do better.

The SEAL Code

• Loyalty to Country, Team and Teammate
• Serve with Honor and Integrity On and Off the Battlefield
• Ready to Lead, Ready to Follow, Never Quit
• Take responsibility for your actions and the actions of your teammates
• Excel as Warriors through Discipline and Innovation
• Train for War, Fight to Win, Defeat our Nation’s Enemies
• Earn your Trident everyday

Heroes still exist, the military is filled with them.

Obamacare providers got screwed, and are too big to fail..

So at the time when the collectivists held all 3 branches of our government , and were telling us they had to pass Obamacare for us to see what it was about, many of us, when asked, pointed out that the vilified insurance industry went along with this nonsense because they bought the campaign of lies that these crooks were selling. Somehow those that had to know better accepted the contention that Obamacare would actually result in cost reductions, and thus by extension, bigger profits for them. Who cares if it was blatantly obvious that what this democrat shit sandwich would really do was incentivize primarily the people most likely to drive costs through the roof, while those that didn’t need it, despite the penalties, would stay away? well the morons in the health insurance industry should have cared, but they, like so many others, were basically fooled by a false narrative.

As anyone that understood human nature could point out, in a country where medical professionals can’t turn away anyone that needs urgent care, why would someone very unlikely to need anything but urgent care, buy damned health insurance? And why would they expect that someone that was previously unable to get insurance due to something that was going to cost a fortune not sign up for free shit? Fast forward 6 years. Obamacare now has clearly shown us that nothing that was promised would actually come to pass, and that we all would pay more for crappier service. The health insurance industry has been forced to jack rates continuously to cover their massive shortfalls, and now, we have these companies looking for a tax payer subsidy to cover the ass rape they have experienced thanks to a bad law:

Insurers helped cheerlead the creation of Obamacare, with plenty of encouragement – and pressure – from Democrats and the Obama administration. As long as the Affordable Care Act included an individual mandate that forced Americans to buy its product, insurers offered political cover for the government takeover of the individual-plan marketplaces. With the prospect of tens of millions of new customers forced into the market for comprehensive health-insurance plans, whether they needed that coverage or not, underwriters saw potential for a massive windfall of profits.

Six years later, those dreams have failed to materialize. Now some insurers want taxpayers to provide them the profits to which they feel entitled — not through superior products and services, but through lawsuits.

Earlier this month, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina joined a growing list of insurers suing the Department of Health and Human Services for more subsidies from the risk-corridor program. Congress set up the program to indemnify insurers who took losses in the first three years of Obamacare with funds generated from taxes on “excess profits” from some insurers. The point of the program was to allow insurers to use the first few years to grasp the utilization cycle and to scale premiums accordingly.

As with most of the ACA’s plans, this soon went awry. Utilization rates went off the charts, in large part because younger and healthier consumers balked at buying comprehensive coverage with deductibles so high as to guarantee that they would see no benefit from them. The predicted large windfall from “excess profit” taxes never materialized, but the losses requiring indemnification went far beyond expectations.

In response, HHS started shifting funds appropriated by Congress to the risk-corridor program, which would have resulted in an almost-unlimited bailout of the insurers. Senator Marco Rubio led a fight in Congress to bar use of any appropriated funds for risk-corridor subsidies, which the White House was forced to accept as part of a budget deal. As a result, HHS can only divvy up the revenues from taxes received through the ACA, and that leaves insurers holding the bag.

They now are suing HHS to recoup the promised subsidies, but HHS has its hands tied, and courts are highly unlikely to have authority to force Congress to appropriate more funds. In fact, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services formally responded by telling insurers that they have no requirement to offer payment until the fall of 2017, at the end of the risk-corridor program.

I say fuck them both. HHS is a criminal entity as far as I am concerned, far worse than anything else out there in the real world. But these insurance companies should feel the pain. After all, they were stupid enough to buy into another massive campaign of lies from the marxists and their promises to insulate these companies if the not only went along but cheerlead for the marxists, from the consequences of bad economic policy that then also ignored human nature (what else that caused us all some huge pain recently does this sound exactly like, huh?). Wishful thinking is not enough, as this clearly points out:

That response highlights the existential issue for both insurers and Obamacare. The volatility and risk was supposed to have receded by now. After three full years of utilization and risk-pool management, ACA advocates insisted that the markets would stabilize, and premiums would come under control. Instead, premiums look set for another round of big hikes for the fourth year of the program.

Get used to this people. There are no free lunches. Someone pays, and while the collectivists, but especially one of the politicians, would like you to be dumb enough to believe their promise it will be someone else, the fact is that you will always pay in one form or another, unless you are one of them, that is. Greedy assholes in the insurance industries bought the bullshit the left sold when they should have known better, and now they are up the creek without a paddle and looking for someone else to pay. Hence the following news:

Consumers seeking to comply with the individual mandate will see premiums increase on some plans from large insurers by as much as 30 percent in Oregon, 32 percent in New Mexico, 38 percent in Pennsylvania, and 65 percent in Georgia.

Yup, we will all pay. Perverse incentives will produce perverse results, but hey, collectivists will tell you the right people pushing the right way will finally make that happen.

California’s White Elephant, The Saga Continues

I’ve written several times about California’s massive high-speed rail boondoggle. This project, which supposedly will allow travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in three hours (or about twice the time it takes to fly), has been praised to the skies by liberals and condemned by anyone with two brain cells to rub together. It is massively overbudget, massively behind schedule, has not secured all of its funding and doesn’t even have most of the land it needs to build.

Oh, it gets worse:

The total construction cost estimate has now more than doubled to $68 billion from the original $33 billion, despite trims in the routes planned. The first, easiest-to-build, segment of the system — the “train to nowhere” through a relatively empty stretch of the Central Valley — is running at least four years behind schedule and still hasn’t acquired all the needed land. Predicted ticket prices to travel from LA to the Bay have shot from $50 to more than $80. State funding is running short. Last month’s cap-and-trade auction for greenhouse gases, expected to provide $150 million for the train, yielded a mere $2.5 million. And no investors are lining up to fill the $43 billion construction-budget gap.

Now, courtesy of Los Angeles Times reporter Ralph Vartabedian, comes yet another damning revelation: When the Spanish construction company Ferrovial submitted its winning bid for a 22-mile segment, the proposal included a clear and inconvenient warning: “More than likely, the California high speed rail will require large government subsidies for years to come.” Ferrovial reviewed 111 similar systems around the world and found only three that cover their operating costs.

The truly damning revelation, however, isn’t just that Ferrovial’s research flatly contradicts the California authority. It’s that the company’s warning on subsidies disappeared from the version of the bid posted on the state’s website. The Times obtained a copy of the full document on a data disk under a public records act request.

In short, the government of California has gone from relying on insanely optimistic estimates of the light rail program (they project 117 million riders a year, approximately 40 times the ridership of Acela) to editing studies to make sure the claim that it’s going to work. And at least few outlets are now admitting that the program is in serious trouble but are saying it’s worth it because reasons.

And you know what? They have a point. Because as far as the Democrats are concerned, none of this is a problem. The California high speed rail program is fulfilling all of its objectives:

  • It’s spending lots of money on “infrastructure” and “jobs”.
  • It provides a convenient piece of virtue signaling so that supporters can prove how much they care about the environment.
  • It’s spendings lots of money.
  • If it ever actually gets built, they’ll be able to point to it and say, “we built his thing!”
  • It’s spending lots of money.

A bottomless money pit that shows how morally superior Democrats are too Republicans? We’ll take two please. Or maybe one for the price of ten.

Well, that’s because it is all lies you tools!

WaPo has a laughable article titled Hillary Clinton’s email story continues to get harder and harder to believe where they actually contort themselves into pretzels trying to avoid saying the obvious: She is a liar and lying about the fact she broke the law and is trying to stall the required prosecution and incarceration. From the article:

On Monday night, the Associated Press published a piece noting the release of an additional 165 pages of emails Hillary Clinton sent from her private email address while serving as secretary of state. These were emails that had never been previously released and only were made public because of a court order in response to a request from a conservative group.

And yet again, the emails poke holes in Clinton’s initial explanation for why she decided to exclusively use a private email server for her electronic correspondence while serving as the nation’s top diplomat.

Let’s start with this from the AP story: “The emails were not among the 55,000 pages of work-related messages that Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence.”

Remember that Clinton and a small group of people working for her reviewed all of the emails she sent from her private server and made the decision about what was solely personal and what was work-related. She handed over the work-related email and permanently deleted those that she and her team decided were purely personal. She wound up deleting more emails than she turned over to State.

The latest batch of emails suggest that Clinton’s filter to decide between the personal and the professional was far from foolproof. That these emails never saw the light of day before Monday — or before a conservative legal advocacy group petitioned for their release — opens up the possibility that there are plenty more like them that Clinton chose to delete but shouldn’t have. And it provides more fodder for the Republican argument that Clinton appointing herself as judge, jury and executioner for her emails was, at best, a very, very bad decision and, at worst, something more nefarious than just bad judgment.

Yeah, see the issue here is the language being used. Chizilla seems to go out of his way to make this something passive instead of pointing out that this was done, and done on purpose to hide what these scumbags were doing, which obviously leads one to the only actual and accurate conclusion, that Hillary and practically everyone else in the Obama administration related to this have been lying their asses off. I find it insulting when the democrat agents with bylines in the MSM all go out of their way to make Hillary innocent in this case, even going so far as presenting her as some technophobe and old doggering fool.

I guess saying she is just an old grandma and not the shyster she is seems to make the left feel they have an out, but as a voter, I wouldn’t be inclined to cast mine for someone that seems to, from the media’s attempts to hide her criminal activity, be suffering from dementia. She could just press that button and nuke somewhere in Arkansas where one of Bill’s ex-mistresses is hiding, or Chicago to get the Obamas, in a fit of anger.

I ask again, do you think a republican candidate – other than Trump whom seems to be the LSM’s kryptonite – get away with this shit? If you can answer honestly, you know how insulting it is to others that actually followed the law or were hammered for breaking or appearing to break it by this administration.

Hillary needs to be wearing orange or stripped jumpsuits and pursue a career making license plates. That would be justice in this case. And she needs to be joined by people like Lerner whom now clearly is in contempt of congress and a criminal.