Here’s General Colin Powell, ex-Secretary of State, on Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s claim that the Powell made her do it.
Her people have been trying to pin it on me. The truth is, she was using [the private email server] for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did.
Plainly, Clinton in channeling Jinx: Now c’mon—it’s time for you to be a standup guy.
Hmm….
A Massachusetts citizen and Trump supporter has had his Trump yard sign repeatedly stolen by a Clinton supporter. In the citizen’s latest effort to protect his sign, he put it several feet up a tree in his yard. “S” stole it again and left a braggadocio note that said in part:
[I]t would appear that you thought that you were outsmarting me when you put the sign on the tree. This is clearly false, because there is no way that a trump [sic] supporter can outsmart anyone. People of your kind are in fact the most dimwitted, low level simpletons that any well-developed nation has to offer.
This is the sort of bigotry and assault on individual liberty we can expect from a Clinton administration.
Elections have consequences.
As Florida state and local officials scramble to contain a Zika virus outbreak in Miami Beach—a serious threat to the region’s $24 billion-a-year tourism industry—congressional lawmakers from both parties continue to be locked in battle over a billion dollars in vital funding that experts say is needed to keep the virus from breaking out across America.
This is a misleading opening paragraph in the Fox News article. Congress isn’t deadlocked. The House already has passed a Zika funding bill. Democrats in the Senate are blocking the bill over wholly unrelated matters: Planned Parenthood funding, which the Zika bill cuts off, and birth control funding in bankrupt Puerto Rico, which the Zika bill provides.
No, Democrats are holding the welfare of the citizens of Florida and Puerto Rico, and our citizens in the other States at risk, hostage both over Democrats’ fight to have Federally funded abortions and their hypocrisy in demanding health coverage providers provide premium-free birth control coverage while denying access to birth control in one of our territories.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is looking to reach inside corporate governance some more because it Knows Better how to run a company than do the leaders and managers of that company. The latest travesty is a new rule requiring disclosure of the diversity—by which the SEC means ethnic and gender diversity—of a public company’s board of directors. This would be an expansion of the SEC’s existing 2009 rule requiring companies to disclose their plans for diversity.
Berkshire Hathaway took the correct position in its SEC disclosure regarding those plans:
Berkshire does not have a policy regarding the consideration of diversity in identifying nominees for director. In identifying director nominees, the Governance Committee does not seek diversity, however defined. Instead, as previously discussed, the Governance Committee looks for individuals who have very high integrity, business savvy, an owner-oriented attitude and a deep genuine interest in the Company.
This, though, isn’t politically correct enough to suit the SEC; hence the new rule under consideration. It isn’t enough that a company should seek actual talent and skill, it must seek the government-directed correct balance of gender and ethnicity.
This raises a question in my mind: would that be biological ethnicity and gender or self-identified ethnicity and gender?
For the record, I self-identify my ethnicity as American, and I self-identify my gender as The US Male.
The perjury case officially has been referred to the US attorney for the District of Columbia by the House of Representatives. In their letter to the DA, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R, UT) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R, VA) pointed out that
[Then-]Secretary [now Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary] Clinton stated “there was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received.”
But
FBI Director James Comey said July 5 that a “very small number of the emails containing classified information bore the markings indicating the presence of classified information.” At least three emails had a (C) for Confidential which is the lowest level of classification. Fox News first reported in June that classified markings existed, despite Clinton’s public claims.
And
Clinton told [Benghazi Select Committee member Jim (R, OH)] Jordan that her team “went through every single email.”
But
The FBI Director said his investigators found that Clinton’s lawyers did not read all the emails, and relied on a narrow set of search terms to identify which emails were work-related.
“The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all her e-emails,” Comey said July 5. Instead, they “relied on header information and used search terms.”
And
Clinton also testified to Congress there was only one server.
But
[T]he FBI Director said investigators found “Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department and used numerous mobile devices to review and send e-mail on that personal domain.”
And
“I provided you, with all my work related emails, all that I had. Approximately 55,000 pages. And they are being publicly released,” Clinton testified.
But
FBI investigators found “several thousand work related emails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.”
Keep in mind that Clinton’s claims made before those two committees were made under oath.
Second question: will President Barack Obama’s (D) DoJ, which owns the DC District Attorney and the James Comey FBI, do a more thorough job of investigating this than the DoJ and the FBI did of Clinton’s classified email handling gross negligence (which Comey was pleased to call “extreme carelessness”) with her private email server, which she used for official State Department business? Steven Pomerantz, “a retired assistant FBI director and 28-year-veteran of the bureau,” said that
…a perjury review is generally straightforward for agents.
“They look at the transcript of the testimony they provided in light of what they know to be, suspect to be the truth. They investigate both sides and take the aggregate and turn it over to the prosecuting authority for a decision.
“Since the Director (Comey) already established what she (Clinton) said and the investigation is complete, it would be a relatively simple matter to make a decision about perjury…given the history of this, it’s hard to say—it would seem to me a matter of weeks not months in this case.”
We’ll know soon, especially regarding the second question.