The Worm Turns – Clinton Campaign No Longer FBI Fan

It wasn’t long ago that Hillary’s minions were singing the praises of FBI chief James Comey after he declared that Mrs. Clinton’s email conduct did not warrant criminal prosecution.  In fact, despite the FBI’s conclusion that she had displayed “extreme carelessness”, her supporters proclaimed that the decision not to charge was vindication.

Imagine, then, the shock felt when the worm turned – Comey declared that the Democratic nominee was being investigated once more.  The former glowing reviews of the FBI head were promptly reversed.  It’s amazing to think that a person can possess a high sense of integrity and a keen sense of judgment at one moment and that such attributes will disappear just a few months later.

But maybe the transformation isn’t with the person but rather with the people whose evaluation of the conduct is based not upon it’s propriety but, rather, whether it supports one’s “side”.  And, in fairness, such bias is not confined to the left side of the political divide.

 

Yet the media can usually be counted on to give more prominence to its side of the story.

So why did James Comey announce – a week and a half before election day -  that additional emails were to be examined?

Hillary Clinton and her surrogates pounced on the FBI’s statement as “unprecedented” (and implicitly improper) since the Department of Justice’s protocol bars action involving political candidates within sixty days of the election date.  True.

But last July, events were also unprecedented when the FBI chief decided that the Agency investigation had not uncovered evidence sufficient to charge Mrs. Clinton with a criminal violation regarding her treatment of government secrets.  That was odd since the Justice Department is responsible for making federal prosecution decisions, not the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Further, Comey explained that, nonetheless, “extreme recklessness” had been displayed by the former secretary of state.

That, too, was peculiar since the relevant U.S. statute includes “gross negligence” as a violation.  (Extreme recklessness does not qualify?)  [See The Sensible Conservative blog of 7/10/16.]

Perhaps the simple answer was that Mr. Comey was trying to right a previous wrong.

Unprecedented?  What part of this election year hasn’t been?

Wikileaks Emails – Receiving Stolen Property

Wikileaks, an apparent conduit for Putin’s Russia, released emails stolen (a blunter, more descriptive term than “hacked”) from prominent Hillary Clinton booster, John Podesta, a former Congressman.

The American press, particularly Fox News outlets, highlighted sections that would reflected poorly on the Democratic nominee.  Should that have happened?

 

Of course, the subject matter was topical but the source was not legitimate.

In a criminal context, receiving known stolen property is a crime.  Correspondence, in electronic form or otherwise, qualifies.

However, for several reasons, media firms publishing purloined material will not be prosecuted.

But the newsworthy nature of the emails and the lack of liability for publishing them is not adequate justification for their dissemination.

To give Wikileaks/Russia what it wants – the distribution of the stolen material – encourages more thievery.

To be sure, supposedly responsible publications (for some) from the conservative Wall Street Journal to the liberal Washington Post will reply that they have no journalistic choice.  Other media will publish the information anyway so there is no harm in their doing so as well.

 

But how about taking a seemingly anachronistic position:  it’s wrong!

Perhaps if media companies re-adopt standards of determining what’s fit to print (and stolen emails do not qualify), change may come.

As an example, information contained in the National Enquirer, however current it may seem, is viewed with suspicion by the general media because of its source.  If a more jaundiced eye were taken by them of Wikileaks releases both as to reliability and propriety, perhaps media in general would be forced to adhere to standards to avoid the shame and ridicule that would accompany irresponsible behavior. 

Alas, The Sensible Conservative, as hard-headed as he wishes to be, must concede that this may be a flight of fancy.  But then, President Obama is not the only one possessing hope and wishing for change.  

Is Trump Part of the Clinton Campaign to Win the White House?

Wait!  That’s not necessarily the fevered question it might seem to be on first impression.  Consider:  Clinton campaign insiders have long known that they had a deeply flawed candidate both in terms of personality and integrity.  The 2016 contest to come was viewed with intense worry, even dread.  According to John Podesta, Clinton campaign chief (in a Wikileaks email), even Senator Ted Cruz, considered the most polarizing and weakest of the prospective GOP contenders, had a 50-50 chance against her.  So what to do?

Enter Donald Trump.  He was a long-time New York Democrat on record in support of various liberal causes and candidates, including Hillary Clinton.

 

Did his leftist friends and acquaintances urge him to run?

Unknown.  But a year or so before announcing his candidacy in June of 2015, the TV reality star registered as a Republican.  The media attention he received up to and through the primary season was extensive and generally friendly with regular appearances on, ironically, Fox News as well as liberal outlets.

Donald Trump, as a result, in a year’s time was catapulted from a fringe, joke candidate into the GOP nomination for president.

 

The Clinton campaign was elated.  And well they should have been.  John Podesta’s fears had been prescient, indeed.

As this blog is being written, Mrs. Clinton holds onto a slim four percent national lead in a Washington Post poll.  This is after several weeks of Trump’s repeated blunders and hostile (surprise!) media coverage.

Is it reasonably conceivable that any serious nominee would be losing to her now?  No.  Hillary Clinton has demonstrated once more America’s intense dislike for her.  Only Donald Trump, even more unpopular, is able to save her.

Did not the Clinton campaign foresee that as well? 

For conspiracy theorists, the basic query remains:  did the Democrats simply “luck out” in running against Trump or was the crude, vulgar billionaire in on it from the start.  Or, to phrase the question another way, is Trump’s dismal campaign performance the result of a compulsive, undisciplined personality or intentional self-destruction?

Liberal Media Goes Crazy Over Foul Trump Audio

The liberal media, led by CNN, has gone crazy in calling on Donald Trump to withdraw because of a disclosure that he had made recorded lewd comments over a decade ago about his relationships with women. 

Shocking?  Maybe for those who previously believed that the billionaire GOP nominee was a polite, well-spoken gentleman who had heretofore been respectful and chivalrous toward members of the fair sex.  [Are there any such people?]  If the audio had been released in 2012 and featured squeaky clean Mitt Romney uttering such things, that would have merited such a reaction.  But Donald?  That seventy year old who acts like a  thirteen year old boy where sexual matters are concerned?  Give me a break…

Do you remember the calls from the Left in 1999 demanding that Bill Clinton step down from the presidency because his sexual activities with an intern disgraced America?  Neither do I.  No, the consistent message from the Democratic Party and its media backers was to draw a distinction between private peccadillos and public misconduct.

Hypocrisy seems an inadequate label.

Liberals, when faced with the email evidence against Hillary Clinton’s  blatant dishonesty and her endangering national security, now find personal character flaws more damning than public misdeeds.

A note on reactions by some Republican leaders:  Unfortunately, some important office holders have been intimidated by the press drumbeat and have backed off previous endorsements of Trump.  Why do some on the right almost instinctively recoil from leftward critics?  Does Hillary deserve the moral high ground?  Yeah, sure.  Weakness emboldens the left and dispirits its foes.

Conservatives are not obligated to defend Donald Trump’s juvenile words and antics.  [The Sensible Conservative finds him to be an appalling individual – a view not exactly recently acquired.]  But given the horrific alternative, it’s certainly appropriate to point out the flaws in that candidate, too.

Did Trump Have Debate Nerves?

Donald Trump’s questionable debate performance appears to have been the result of nervousness.

How else to explain his repeated defensiveness and apparent inability to counter Hillary Clinton’s personal attacks?  Also missing was a sense of humor.

Relying on my many courtroom experiences, I can tell you that nervousness is the foe of relaxation.  When at ease, the speaker’s friend is flexibility.  He can think on his feet and crack a joke.  Tenseness, however, causes one to stick to the script in one’s head.  And if, like Trump, the script is missing, the verbal wandering is aimless. 

So why did the candidate who seemed so comfortable on the debate stage during the primary season have a brain freeze?  Does Donald Trump finally realize that, although his foes may laugh at him, his candidacy is no longer a laughing matter?  He might actually become President of the United States!

A note on media bias:  Pre-debate reviews of moderator Lester Holt were generally favorable, the consensus being that he was a low-key straight-shooter.  The accolades were undeserved.  Trump was the sole target of aggressive questioning.  The GOP nominee was forced to deal with challenges to his prior statements on tax returns, “birther” comments and Iraq (none of which he handled effectively for the reasons noted above).  Hillary?  She was asked to respond to criticisms of her email activities.  She called them simply “a mistake”.  The moderator’s question wasn’t even phrased in a manner which suggested the damning nature of her conduct.

And why have there been no references to the disrespectful act of Hillary Clinton’s repeatedly calling her opponent by his first name?  This was, after all, a debate between the two main presidential contenders.  Of course, they are hardly friends so nothing more than minimal courtesy should have been expected.  Surprisingly, given Trump’s penchant for rude and vulgar speech, he actually said, at the outset, that he would refer to his opponent as “Secretary Clinton” and consistently did so.  Hillary did not reciprocate the courtesy. 

The media either didn’t notice or chose not to recognize that Donald Trump could actually be polite.