^ fair point, of course.

mine, however, was more about whether or not he even really lives up to his chosen label, in any actually meaningful way. All the R's in the world won't make a difference if they aren't behaving accordingly, and he has at times essentially been the D's bitch while talking a big game about R this-and-that. I ask, somewhat rhetorically, whether he's really doing much/any good, whether he really even wants to, and what his priorities really are...

he is in a position of significant value, from a district in Wisconsin with only about 600k voters, somewhere around half of which (a teeny sliver of America) elected him. I agree that in many important ways party affiliations matter, but it's far more shades of grey than black and white. The label itself, as evidenced by too many examples to list, guarantees zip. And I think he's earned more doubt than not, and likely needs replacing or improving.

I'm not advocating a BigBore approach, necessarily, but his rants are not unwarranted. We (all of us, loosely) are more arguing about how or how quickly Ryan needs to go, and whether or not the risks of a quick exit are too high. Maybe. But he still sucks, a lot, IMO.

I think several of the popular politicians of late need to be sent home, including Ryan and Rubio. They've shown their ugly selves, and sometimes a tumor *must* be removed. Is he malignant yet? Maybe, maybe not, but that we're even considering it is very telling.

^^^^ Two words: Majority party. Once you start removing multiple "tumors" and ending up with Demokrats, you'll get Nancy Pelosi and Chuck You Schumer as majority leaders. Then you'll get someone Like Elijah Cummings as a committee chair.

An imperfect Republican is still better than any Demokrat.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...sion-clinton-emails/

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Tuesday she won’t answer any more questions about her decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for her mishandling of classified information, saying only that it would be “inappropriate” for her to get into details.

She put the onus on FBI Director James Comey, saying that she accepted his recommendation — but she refused to say how she herself saw the information.

“I would have to refer you to Director Comey,” she said.

Mr. Comey last week said Mrs. Clinton may well have broken federal laws by sending and receiving classified information on her secret server kept at her home in New York. But Mr. Comey, a former prosecutor and top Justice Department official himself, said Mrs. Clinton was too unsophisticated to understand the technology or the classification system for him to prove she intended to mishandling the information — and he concluded no prosecutor could make a case.

Ms. Lynch, who had the final say, said she agreed with Mr. Comey, and closed out the case. But she has not explained her own thinking.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte prodded Ms. Lynch, asking her whether she agreed with Mr. Comey’s conclusions that Mrs. Clinton may have broken laws. Mr. Goodlatte also asked Ms. Lynch to detail her understanding of the key parts of law that govern classified information.

She replied that the law speaks for itself , and refused to say any more.

Republicans were stunned that Ms. Lynch refused to answer questions.

“You are in charge of the Department of Justice. The buck stops with you,” said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican.
He said Ms. Lynch has created a credibility gap by prosecuting members of the military for sending emails with classified information, but failing to go after Mrs. Clinton.

“You have a problem, madame attorney general,” he said.

She replied: “Every case stands on its own separate facts.”

*********************

Comey is now the official "fall guy"

Well, Bernie just endorsed the hag & she's agreed to include many of his socialist ideas into her platform. Now all the Bernie wack jobs will be Hillary supporters. The Free Shit Army is going to take over the country.

On the other hand, maybe some of the moderate Democrats with a brain cell or two will see that electing her now will be the destruction of America & stay home in Nov, or even jump ship & vote Republican.

quote:

She replied: “Every case stands on its own separate facts.”

Yes it does, some animals are more equal than others, pfft!

I am beginning to suspect that I was led down the garden path by that master of subterfuge, William Jefferson Clinton. There is nothing new here, its happened before I think this can be called; snookered again!

I suspect that the meeting on the runway was a prearranged tactical master stroke.

Certainly Bill & Hill knew long before the airport incident that the fix was in, after all BHO had said long ago that Hillary had done nothing wrong.

Given that, why the meeting on the tarmac?

The meeting on the tarmac allowed Lynch to ostensibly avoid making the indictment decision, even though it was hers and hers alone to make.

After allowing the supposedly "caught-in-the-act" MSM blather to fester for a while, she announces that she will accept the recommendations of the "professionals" at the FBI. This is a sort of modified, limited recusal from a decision which was hers alone. Of course she certainly knew what the FBI recommendation was going to be long before this stunt, only fools think that bureaucrats don't keep their bosses informed and probably involved in what is a very important political matter.

Now BHO directs questions to Lynch, and she directs any inquiries to Comey, who in turn points to his prepared remarks.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:
I am beginning to suspect that I was led down the garden path by that master of subterfuge, William Jefferson Clinton. There is nothing new here, its happened before I think this can be called; snookered again!

I suspect that the meeting on the runway was a prearranged tactical master stroke.

Certainly Bill & Hill knew long before the airport incident that the fix was in, after all BHO had said long ago that Hillary had done nothing wrong.

Given that, why the meeting on the tarmac?

The meeting on the tarmac allowed Lynch to ostensibly avoid making the indictment decision, even though it was hers and hers alone to make.

After allowing the supposedly "caught-in-the-act" MSM blather to fester for a while, she announces that she will accept the recommendations of the "professionals" at the FBI. This is a sort of modified, limited recusal from a decision which was hers alone. Of course she certainly knew what the FBI recommendation was going to be long before this stunt, only fools think that bureaucrats don't keep their bosses informed and probably involved in what is a very important political matter.

Now BHO directs questions to Lynch, and she directs any inquiries to Comey, who in turn points to his prepared remarks.

You're a cynical SOB.....I should know.

some of Lynch testimony

Chaffetz: Does an individual need a security clearance to review or have access to classified material?

Lynch: Well, congressman, that issue would be dependent upon the agency for whom they worked and the nature of the work that they did with respect to…

Chaffetz: Can you give me an example where you don’t need a security clearance to view classified material?

Lynch: No, I believe as I was going to say, they would, but the type of clearance varies with every agency and the agency would make that decision and determination.

Chaffetz: Is it legal or illegal to share classified information with somebody who doesn’t have a security clearance?

Lynch: Congressman, it depends on the facts of every situation. You’d have to determine how that sharing occurred. You’d have to determine the means. You’d have to determine the reason, the intent, um, certainly depending on how you view the statute it could go any number of ways.

Chaffetz: So you think there is a scenario in which you could share classified information with somebody who doesn’t have the requisite security clearance?

Lynch: No, I would not draw that conclusion. I would say that I’m not able to answer it as a hypothetical but there are a number of factors that would go into the decision and one could have any number of results.

Rep. Chaffetz next asked about storing classified material in a non-secured location. AG Lynch again refused to answer saying, “I don’t have a hypothetical answer for that.”

Eventually Rep. Chaffetz pointed out that Lynch seemed unwilling to answer some pretty basic questions.

“You know, these questions are pretty simple. And you’ve got millions of people with security clearance. How are they supposed to go through the gyrations that you’ve laid out in order to make a simple determination?” Chaffetz asked. But Lynch again said it would be “unfair” to give a blanket answer to a hypothetical question.

“‘You can’t do this, it’s against the law!’ why can’t you say that?” Chaffetz asked. Lynch replied that each agency gave people guidance about sharing classified material but she refused to make a blanket statement.

“Someone asked me to consult an attorney and you are the Attorney General and I think you’re sending a terrible message to the world…the lack of clarity that you give to this body, the lack of clarity on this issue is pretty stunning,” Chaffetz concluded.

http://hotair.com/archives/201...-clearance-is-wrong/

^^^ IMO, someone in an appointed gov't office, especially a high office, that refuses to answer questions relating to their performance of the job, should be immediately dismissed. I'd welcome a law that requires that. If you can't even answer straightforward questions relating to your performance and decisions on the job, then you shouldn't have that job.

Her answers relating to sharing classified information with persons not having an appropriate clearance is a ssure indication that she should not be holding that job. The law is clear--NO classified can be shared with an uncleared individual under any circumstances! And she should (and no doubt does) know that!

flashguy

Lynch needs to have her head handed to her.

WTF Need to Know! You could have every clearance possible. But it is still illegal to share classified information to someone that doesn't have the Need to Know regardless of what clearances the person holds.

quote:

Originally posted by woods62:
WTF Need to Know! You could have every clearance possible. But it is still illegal to share classified information to someone that doesn't have the Need to Know regardless of what clearances the person holds.

Yeah, I know that, too, and thought about mentioning it, but didn't want to complicate my rant.

flashguy

It's just a tad bit infuriating the arrogance of these commies.

The contempt they have for the people they're supposed to be serving is just so very obvious. Prison would be too good for them.

Loose lips sink ships.

It's really not anymore difficult to understand than that.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
FBI confirms special secrecy agreements for agents in Clinton email probe

No big deal. Even for extreme carelessness, like leaving a copy of the internal reports on the hood of a Congressman's car, you're in the clear. Right?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
FBI confirms special secrecy agreements for agents in Clinton email probe

I don't see why any of the affected agents cannot give interviews to the media and tell us all what really transpired behind closed doors.

All they have to do is claim "it was a mistake" and promise not to do it again, right?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
< snip >
FBI confirms special secrecy agreements for agents in Clinton email probe

IMO this is much ado about nothing.

I have had to sign many non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) intended to cover unclassifed but still sensitive information.

For example, in my career I drafted a statement of work for a fed.gov solicitation to provide support to a BRAC'ed installation that was going to increase its population of workers by over 10,000 people, on three geographically separate, but nearby sites, none of which had sufficient mass transit, parking, or road infrastructure to handle the daily commuting load.

So the Headquarters organization responsible for BRAC hired my employer to help the BRAC office write a contract for a firm to provide integrated master planning to that installation. Part of the information I needed to read was classified because of one of the new tenants, but the rest, while decreed "unclassified" was nonetheless considered "procurement sensitive." Hence, in addition to the usual clearance paperwork I had to sign a separate NDA. That one was very interesting because I was prohibited from telling my immediate supervisor and the project manager the details of what I was doing (no NtK, plus the NDA). But that is the way of the world.

Now nothing save for my personal honor and the fear of retribution (no matter how remote) kept me from blabbing all I learned during my assignment. Believe me, I was shocked when I read all the documents involved because it was clear that the decision was monumentally stupid. No one in the preceding two years thought about the consequences of this BRAC decision - as was borne out by the insanity that reigned after the BRAC round decisions were announced.

The same is true for the FBI people who worked Clinton's criminal investigation. They must consider both the clearance level of the document and their NDA covering unclassified by sensitive information in deciding what they can tell or not.

All this thread means is that we must elect Trump, then all these vermin will be gone.