- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Hillary Milhous Clinton’s October Surprise

Of course it was Anthony Weiner, the Fredo Corleone of the Democratic Party. [1] Of course:

Federal law enforcement officials said Friday that the new emails uncovered in the closed investigation into Hillary Clinton [2]’s use of a private email server were discovered after the F.B.I. [3]seized electronic devices belonging to Huma Abedin, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.

The F.B.I. is investigating illicit text messages that Mr. Weiner sent to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. The bureau told Congress on Friday that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case — one federal official said they numbered in the thousands — potentially reigniting an issue that has weighed on the presidential campaign and offering a lifeline to Donald J. Trump less than two weeks before the election.

In a letter to Congress [4], the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that emails had surfaced in an unrelated case, and that they “appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”

The Clintons are compulsively dishonest. If she wins the presidency, as I assume she will (though I’m much less sure about that this afternoon than I was this morning), it will be one damn thing after another. Maybe these e-mails are innocent. Fact is, she was supposed to have turned them over, right? What was she hiding, and why was she hiding it?

UPDATE: May the good Lord preserve the New York Post. What would we do without it?

cv49vnjvmaau4kw

168 Comments (Open | Close)

168 Comments To "Hillary Milhous Clinton’s October Surprise"

#1 Comment By Pepi On October 30, 2016 @ 8:28 pm

Richard Painter, the chief White House Ethics Lawyer in the Bush Administration from 2005-2007, explains why he filed a Complaint yesterday against FBI Director James Comey with the Office Of Special Counsel, an independent Federal investigative agency which investigates possible violations of the Hatch Act (among others), and the Office of Government Ethics.

[5]

#2 Comment By Op-eds in Neverland On October 30, 2016 @ 9:31 pm

“Richard Painter”

I don’t know who Painter thinks he’s kidding. He says (apparently in all seriousness) “I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week.”

Anything following that ridiculous statement is necessarily drowned out by gales of laughter.

#3 Comment By The Lynch Mob On October 30, 2016 @ 10:30 pm

@Pepi – “Richard Painter, the chief White House Ethics Lawyer [under Bush II] … explains why he filed a complaint against … Comey with the Office of Special Counsel [for] violations of the Hatch Act.”

Painter says that in this latest election cycle he started out for Bush, moved to Rubio, thence to Kasich, and now supports Hillary Clinton.

Forgive me for chuckling over anyone so bold as to style himself “Chief Ethics Lawyer of the Bush II White House”. Not exactly an awe-inspiring legal or moral credential, is it?

His support for Hillary goes a long way in explaining why he filed his complaint, I’d say. Most of the way, in fact. As one would expect of a “Bush II White House ethics lawyer”.

The Establishment look out for their own, at the moment Hillary’s all they’ve got, and “Chief Bush II White House Ethics Lawyer Richard Painter” is doing his bit for the cause by trying to shut Comey up.

#4 Comment By Pepi On October 31, 2016 @ 12:23 am

Richard Painter is an attorney with many years of experience in ethics law including the Hatch Act. In addition, the AG and top DOJ officials were all against Comey sending the letter and lots of people in the FBI have been quite distressed by his action. It is not the way the FBI normally operates during an election.

Comey will have to answer for his actions this week and we will see what happens but his letter was nothing but insinuation and innuendo.

#5 Comment By Elijah On October 31, 2016 @ 8:28 am

“In addition, the AG and top DOJ officials were all against Comey sending the letter and lots of people in the FBI have been quite distressed by his action. It is not the way the FBI normally operates during an election.”

Would that be the AG who stealthily met with Bill Clinton during the DoJ/FBI probe of his wife? And there appear to “lots” of other FBI agents disgusted by the tepid support and response of the DoJ to the FBI’s investigation of both the e-mails and the Clinton Foundation. Besides, are they distressed because the action cuts against the overwhelming DC favorite, or because it’s not the “norm”?

Let me ask you to cast your memory back to 1992 when Lawrence Walsh indicted Caspar Weinberger a week before the election, with a strong implication that George HW Bush was by extension lying about Iran-Contra.

I don’t recall any Democrats crying out about breaking any norms. The fact is that no matter what Comey did, he’d be accused – rightly – of influencing the election. If you turn the situation around, how would Hillary supporters react to the news that President-elect Trump had been the object of an FBI investigation since he was still candidate Trump?

Not buying. As Rod pointed out some time ago, this is the model of a Clinton presidency – the lies will just keep dripping out.

#6 Comment By Bernie On October 31, 2016 @ 8:56 am

“Comey will have to answer for his actions this week and we will see what happens but his letter was nothing but insinuation and innuendo.”

Comey will have to answer for his actions not only this week but for the rest of his life. Not one commenter here knows fully the information on which he based his decision. To assume it is based only on insinuation and innuendo is to voice a biased opinion based on ignorance and inappropriate judgment – and this is an understatement.

#7 Comment By EliteCommInc. On October 31, 2016 @ 10:06 am

Laughing. So if I take these comments seriously, and that is but very thin slices,

Large numbers of the FBI were upset that the director did not prefer the matter to the AG for prosecution. Their complaints were dismissed as political posturing. Their contention that the director succumbed to political pressure was dismissed —

Now that the FBI has found some other cause to investigate further his champions are all fuss about political posturing. How dare he. This attitude sounds strangely familiar.

Here’s what is painfully obvious. The FBI is a sea of dissension and political internal turmoil. If I am to believe that the director the FBI found more than several instances of violations by Sec Clinton. It ain’t how one feels.

It’s the data. But feeling sorry for the Sec, the FBI director informed us that the FBI was not preferring charges – he neglected to remind us that the FBI’s role does not include that duty. No that is the duty of the AG, who’s ‘appearance of impropriety’ dos not include chit chats wit the subjects husband, former executive in the WH.

But no worries, “I feel good.’ I am sure I will be informed tat I am not a lawyer and should seek my own blog by rambling about legal matters.

#8 Comment By EngineerScotty On October 31, 2016 @ 12:31 pm

Would that be the AG who stealthily met with Bill Clinton during the DoJ/FBI probe of his wife?

Stealthily?

It was on an airport tarmac, in full view of Clinton’s press detail.

It was a bone-headed move on Bill’s part (Lynch seemed to be surprised by the contact, so I’m going to be less harsh on her), and very bad optics. But even Bill Clinton, whose poor judgment frequently is staggering, is not daft enough to conspire with a public official in a public place, with the cameras rolling.

#9 Comment By Accusator Erit Proprium On October 31, 2016 @ 1:17 pm

“But feeling sorry for the Sec, the FBI director informed us that the FBI was not preferring charges – he neglected to remind us that the FBI’s role does not include that duty. No that is the duty of the AG, who’s ‘appearance of impropriety’ dos not include chit chats wit the subjects husband, former executive in the WH.”

Right. Comey was in a sense had to do Lynch’s job for her because had she compromised herself with the “tarmac” meeting with Bill Clinton. By this tag team approach they are hoping to avoid the appointment of a special prosecutor – the solution this cries out for. Doesn’t seem to be working.

#10 Comment By JonF On October 31, 2016 @ 1:50 pm

Re: What zombie-like party process has brought her shambling to the fore?

A political rule so ancient it can be expressed in the original Latin: in suo anno. Basically, it’s her turn.

Re: Huma Abedim most definitely has very close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood

And your evidence for this is what? Please, no links to obscure, tin-foil bedecked websites. Or the ravings of Michelle Bachman.

Re: “John McCain and the Anti-Defamation League, neither notably friendly to Islamic radicals, …”

ROFL

????
What is amusing about stating that one of our leading Senate war hawks and a Jewish (!) legal organization are not favorable to Islamism?

#11 Comment By missh On October 31, 2016 @ 2:26 pm

This was not Huma Abedin’s laptop; it was her husband’s. That’s why these emails, whatever they contain, were uncovered. I don’t know how Hillary Clinton could have turned Anthony Weiner’s laptop over to anybody.

And you don’t know that these emails aren’t duplicates, which have already been reviewed. You’re just jumping to the conclusion that she’s guilty of, well, something, surely, because she’s Hillary Clinton, and nothing could exonerate her in your mind.

#12 Comment By Loudon is a Fool On October 31, 2016 @ 2:44 pm

@Anne

All I can say is it’s an odd turn of events –and a pretty clear sign of the smoke-to-fire ratio here — when Hillary Clinton herself demands the FBI tell people more, not less.

I kind of thought it was odd for Mrs. Clinton to request that, given that the emails might contain classified materials. But then I remembered that she doesn’t really care much for protecting classified materials.

Shillary: An otherwise reasonable person who, in the face of the awful tragedy of a Trump Presidency, engages in hilarious defenses of Crooked Hillary in apparent sincerity.

#13 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 31, 2016 @ 2:49 pm

What all the comments, plus the news coverage, add up to is, we have no idea if there is anything significant to this, or not. Those who WANT something significant, or desire to DENY any significance, are spouting the usual diatribes. Everyone else is simply waiting to see if there is anything there, and how it all comes to light, or why not.

I admit, the prospect of Tim Kaine being sworn in as president on July 4, 2017 does have its attractions.

#14 Comment By Elijah On October 31, 2016 @ 3:03 pm

@ Engineer Scotty – supposedly they had no idea that they were on the tarmac together at first, it was a total accident. And no, it was not a photo op, the news broke a couple of days later. Bill Clinton was not flying with his own press detail, BTW. You can argue with “stealthily”, but it sure wasn’t meant to be widely known about to the public. Where are the photos of that meeting? The transcript? It was a private meeting and meant to stay that way.

“Bad optics” is a nice euphemism for “every outward appearance of impropriety”.

#15 Comment By Elijah On October 31, 2016 @ 3:31 pm

“I admit, the prospect of Tim Kaine being sworn in as president on July 4, 2017 does have its attractions.”

@ Siarlys – so does Mike Pence.

#16 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On October 31, 2016 @ 11:04 pm

Well Elijah, when the dust settles, we will still have things to disagree about. But investigating Hillary will not lead to Mike Pence being sworn in on July 4, 2017. There are a few more degrees of separation there to deal with.

If Hillary were running against Mike Pence, I might have voted for the Workers World candidate (even though they are horribly rhetorical incompetent Trotskyites), just as a protest, or might have skipped the presidential ballot altogether. Each would be a disaster, in my seldom humble opinion, different types of disasters, but about equal in hazard.

I had to vote early because I’m working at the polls on election day. I put it off for a few weeks, but took a look at what sort of mendacity Trump represents, held my nose, and voted for Hillary. I tried to tell myself I was really choosing between vice presidents. I didn’t throw up, but that was out of consideration for the city hall cleaning staff.

#17 Comment By VikingLS On November 1, 2016 @ 10:24 am

If what you care about is character, Pence may be preferable to Trump, policy wise he’s the same kind of generic Republican that got rejected in the primaries.

#18 Comment By Elijah On November 1, 2016 @ 12:40 pm

“If what you care about is character, Pence may be preferable to Trump, policy wise he’s the same kind of generic Republican that got rejected in the primaries.”

Can’t argue with you.