Tag Archives: political parties

Holding out for Perfection

Posted on by
Reply

William McGurn, of The Wall Street Journal, had some thoughts on this as it concerns NeverTrumpers [emphasis added].

Give the Never Trumpers their due: most do not shy away from the implication that anyone who would vote for Mr Trump is as low and base as he is. Their problem is that the argument doesn’t seem to be having much traction with Republican voters. …

One reason may be that the argument about morally corrupt GOP voters is not really an argument. More precisely, it’s an argument Republicans typically hear from the left. Instead of weighing the prosaic facts—i.e., the practical ramifications of having Mrs Clinton sitting in the Oval Office versus Mr Trump—how much easier it is to try to end all discussion by pronouncing the GOP nominee repellent.

Because forming a rational argument on the matter is as repugnant to NeverTrumpers as it is to Progressives like Clinton and Obama (and Reid and Schumer and Pelosi) and to Democrats generally.

This will only get NeverTrumpers Clinton as president.

It’s hard to believe these folks—grown, adult, rational human beings all—don’t know that.  Maybe NeverTrumpers just don’t care one way or the other.  Maybe they’re just abdicating their responsibility by hiding behind their demand for purity rather than doing what’s least damaging.  Or what’s possible.

State Department and Quid Pro Quo

Posted on by
Reply

Another thought on State’s quid pro quo offer to the FBI occurs to me based on an exchange between Fox News‘ Catherine Herridge and State Department spokesman Mark Toner concerning the FBI’s 302 (interview summary form) containing the apparent offer.  The relevant part of the exchange began with Herridge calling out Toner on his denial of certain facts.

“[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by PATRICK KENNEDY, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.’ “[Redacted] advised that in exchange for marking the email unclassified, STATE would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden.”

“I mean, this conflicts directly with what you’re saying today,” Herridge said after reading it aloud.

“I’m sorry,” Toner said, smiling. “I could speak to the fact that 302s are simply interviews conducted by the FBI.”

“So you’re saying the FBI agent either got it wrong or is lying in this 302?” Herridge asked.

“I can’t speak to what his or her intentions were, saying these kinds of things, but clearly expressing a personal opinion about what happened,” Toner said. “Any, really, assertion that this was somehow tit for tat or quid pro quo, exchange in that manner, really, frankly is insulting.”

No, Toner, what’s insulting is your cynical, Alinsky-esque refusal to answer the question and your attempt at deflecting by insulting the questioner.

Clinton Quid Pro Quo?

Posted on by
3

Via Fox News‘ Catherine Herridge and Pamela K Browne comes this statement from the FBI.  The statement concerns a subject exposed in the FBI’s release to Congress of several more 302s IFBI interview summaries) last Friday:

allegations of a “quid pro quo” between a senior State Department executive and FBI agents during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, two congressional sources told Fox News.

The FBI statement follows:

Prior to the initiation of the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s personal email server, the FBI was asked to review and make classification determinations on FBI emails and information which were being produced by the State Department pursuant to FOIA. The FBI determined that one such email was classified at the Secret level. A senior State Department official requested the FBI re-review that email to determine whether it was in fact classified or whether it might be protected from release under a different FOIA exemption. A now-retired FBI official, who was not part of the subsequent Clinton investigation, told the State Department official that they would look into the matter. Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official, during the same conversation, the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad. Following the call, the FBI official consulted with a senior FBI executive responsible for determining the classification of the material and determined the email was in fact appropriately classified at the Secret level. The FBI official subsequently told the senior State official that the email was appropriately classified at the Secret level and that the FBI would not change the classification of the email. The classification of the email was not changed, and it remains classified today. Although there was never a quid pro quo, these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review.

This sure sounds like the State official (separately identified as Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy) and the FBI discussed a quid pro quo—those extra overseas slots.  That the FBI seems in the end to have rejected the quid is irrelevant to the apparent existence of the discussion.

Distractions

Posted on by
5

Here’s one, from the files of Democrats.

John Podesta, one of Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s most senior advisors, says WikiLeaks and Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump are in cahoots over the former’s leaks concerning Podesta’s, Clinton’s, and the Clinton campaign’s emails.

Clinton adviser John Podesta pointed the finger at Trump adviser Roger Stone, who he said has been in touch with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Podesta also raised as evidence an August tweet in which Stone said Podesta’s “time in the barrel” was coming. The tweet was sent shortly after WikiLeaks published scores of hacked emails from other Democratic officials.

Because a simple prediction that comes home must be proof of collusion.  Sure.

He also worked in the Democrats’ fantasy of a Russian Connection:

[H]e also suggested the driving force could be “Mr Trump’s deep engagement and ties with Russian interests in his business affairs.”

As usual when the Left can’t form a coherent argument on a subject, they try to distract with accusations and character assassination.

Is this what we want in the White House?