Emails, Emails!

Oooooh!

So, the wife of the Deputy Director of the FBI got significant campaign donations from Terry McAuliffe, part of Clinton Central!

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mr. McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from the political-action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons and, until he was elected governor in November 2013, a Clinton Foundation board member.

That’s a hell of a lot of money for a State Senate campaign……

What fun!

56 thoughts on “Emails, Emails!”

  1. Not seeing the fun.

    All US political campaigns are rife with money. That a Clinton ally has funds for campaigning is what I would expect. That they help their mates is what I would expect. What here is what a dozen Republicans haven’t done?

  2. Which Republicans have sent money to the wife of the deputy Director of the FBI Chester?

    Yes –all politicos are bad. But some are much worse than others. Ryan, Cruz and the rest of the cucks have proved that they are not merely as bad as the Democrats, they ARE Democrats in all but name.

    Trump is a different kettle of fish–so far. Once he is in he may disappoint. But even as King Log the things he won’t do will buy time for the good guys –like us–to arm ever more strongly against the scum of the left.

  3. Manus manum lavat.

    This is how corruption works in advanced societies. You don’t personally and specifically pay the person you want to influence. You get one of your cronies to cultivate the relationships you think will be useful one day.

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    It was just last week the Democrats were claiming that to even question the FBI was to undermine democracy.

    I also note that if the Democrats are unhappy about this happening so late in the campaign they only have themselves to blame. After all if Hillary had released her e-mails earlier, or not stone walled so long or so hard, this would have been resolved years ago.

  5. “After all if Hillary had released her e-mails earlier, or not stone walled so long or so hard, this would have been resolved years ago.”

    Quite. Sympathy, zero. They cultivated this by refusing to release, and now they find the timing inconvenient.

    World’s smallest violin, and all that…

  6. Bloke in North Dorset

    “And to think they called Richard Nixon a crook.”

    And it was the stonewalling of giving over the tapes that did him in the end, so it could be an interesting parallel if she gets elected and then impeached.

  7. So Much For Subtlety

    Surreptitious Evil – “But possibly not with Hillary being in a position to get the Democratic nomination?”

    It is hard to imagine what Hillary would have had to do to not get the nomination. She had the whole process sewn up – bought and paid for. There was no one who could have stood against her and her corrupt minions.

    Maybe if she peeled the fat old crone body suit off and revealed the baby-eating lizard from outer space beneath. Even then …..

  8. The Inimitable Steve

    BiND – Yarp. Ironically, young Hillary was a part of the Watergate investigation.

    I don’t think she’ll win though.

    Crooked, sick, and unlikeable – you can pick one or two and still get elected president. Three’s too big an ask.

    The media has done incredible work to keep her campaign going – Chomsky could write a new volume of Manufacturing Consent based on her North Korean style press sycophants and dodgy Numberwang polling – but there comes a point in polishing any turd that you just end up with a sticky, shitty mess.

    And that point is now.

    My prediction is still President Trump. He’s looming over the horizon like a yuge golden asteroid. As Michael Moore put it, “the biggest FUCK YOU! in history.”

    Future generations will marvel at the thought that an obviously corrupt habitual criminal and compulsive liar with serious health problems and the likeability of an escaped tarantula in a creche could be considered a serious candidate for president of the United States.

  9. It’s possible (though highly unlikely) that the immolation of Clinton before the election could turn out badly for Trump.

    If she is forced to quit the race there is a great deal of ambiguity around what will happen. Will the election be postponed while the Dems field another candidate? Does Kaine automatically become the nominee? How do those Clinton-hating Sanders supporters feel about that happening?

    There are a great many voters who would happily vote for anyone against Trump, but can’t bring themselves to vote for Shrillery. Her absence would be a blow to the Trump campaign. But presumably any ally or running mate of Clinton would be tarred by her corrupt brush.

    It could all get very complicated.

    The ame applies, but worse, if Hilary is elected and then impeached for lying. Which the mere existence of any of her emails on Weiner’s PC proves she has.

    That said, it’ll be fun to see her throw her closest ally, Abedin, under the bus to try and save herself.

  10. I was chatting to an in law across the water this weekend.
    Orphaned young, brought up by aunts in Brooklyn, rackety schooling, succession of jobs & redundancies.
    Now in another blue state, junior / middle management in international co.
    Putting his kid through engineering at FSU, hard to budget.

    Well apart from not having a gender studies degree you could hardly get more mainstream democrat, could you?

    And even he is undecided.

  11. TIS, you left out ugly old lady.

    The lesson of the 1960 election was that you better look good to be on TV. I’ve been wondering for a year why the Dems would nominate Granny Clinton.

  12. @Stuck-Record

    She’s not going anywhere. Her winning is required to keep the crime sindicate, sorry, I mean “charity”, going short to mid term.

    Longer term, expect Chelsea to be parachuted into a safe Senate seat.

    You can’t sell influence if you haven’t got any to peddle, of course…

  13. Hypothesis:
    Clinton and co. had a computer system that a child could hack.
    Ergo every government in the world, plus a lot of non government individuals and organisations have all the information that Wiki is dripping and the FBI is finding.
    That would be reason enough for US security people to want rid of her.
    She may have made the wrong enemies.
    BTW I suspect Wiki’s sources are disgruntled members of the US security services, rather than some foreign government, a foreign government would be concerned to pretend that it hadn’t been spying, and concerned to protect it’s sources and methods.

  14. So Much For Subtlety

    abacab – “She’s not going anywhere.”

    It is looking more and more like she is going to do jail time. Martha Stewart went to jail for less.

    It will only be Club Fed, alas, and not for life. But it is a start.

  15. @SMFS

    “It is looking more and more like she is going to do jail time. Martha Stewart went to jail for less.”

    She’s hoping that they’ll have to drag her kicking and screaming out of the Oval Office. The chances of her stepping aside with less than 2 weeks to go, short of an arrest warrant, are zero.

    Serious constitutional question – can a president pardon themselves?

  16. “if she gets elected and then impeached”; if she gets impeached she’ll be found not guilty because the Dems will have enough votes in the Senate to block a guilty verdict. Unless even the Dems turn on her e.g. for fear of losing their seats in two years time.

  17. “if she gets impeached she’ll be found not guilty because the Dems will have enough votes in the Senate to block a guilty verdict. Unless even the Dems turn on her e.g. for fear of losing their seats in two years time.”

    I suspect that, at a certain point, the dems and the media will not be able to spin it in their favour any more… And the senators will indeed fear for their own seats. Even the yellowest yellow-dog Dem must have their limits.

  18. Bloke in North Dorset

    Talking of Nixon, I was watching a program on Sky Arts about the whole affair and a serious commentator of the time made a point that it was quietly dying as a story but WaPo kept it alive.

    I don’t suppose WaPo will be applying itself to this subject with the same tenacity and earning a couple the Pulitzer prize for public service?

  19. Can the president really pardon himself?

    No one knows the answer. The Constitution says that the president “shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” This sentence, like many in the Constitution, can reasonably be interpreted in several ways. And since no court has ruled on this issue–because no president has ever tried to pardon himself–it remains an open question.

    The simplest interpretation is that the president can pardon any federal criminal offense, including his own, but cannot pardon an impeachment. In other words, Clinton is free to immunize himself from criminal prosecution, but has no power over Congress.

  20. Bloke in North Dorset

    What fun indeed.

    Topping that list [of Dem flip-floppers] is Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader who fired off a letter over the weekend to Comey informing him his actions may have violated a federal law known as the Hatch Act, “which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election.”

    Reid accused Comey of a “double-standard” in his treatment of sensitive information, saying: “Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law.”

    But Republicans argue it is Democrats showing a double-standard. Reid, after the bureau announced no criminal charges in the Clinton case back in July, previously called Comey a “fair, impartial director.”

    On July 7, Pelosi called Comey a “great man.”

    “We are very privileged in our country to have him be director of the FBI,” she said at the time.

    Interim Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile also has kept the pressure on, tweeting and retweeting a series of articles over the weekend that criticized Comey’s decision to go forward with this information now, days before the presidential election.

    Yet on July 7, Brazile defended Comey on Twitter against Republican questions.

    “Pathetic. Simply pathetic to watch members of Congress grill Director Comey because he’s not playing their game of gotcha. #Overreach,” she wrote.

    To be fair, Republicans seem to have done a bit of flop-flipping over Comey as well.

  21. “Republicans seem to have done a bit of flop-flipping over Comey as well”: Comey has handled all of this badly – now nobody trusts him.

  22. Bloke in Costa Rica

    As a quid pro quo to Congress, Comey made the at-the-time toothless pledge to keep them informed of any further revelations in the email affair came to light. I strongly doubt he intended this as anything other than don’t-call-us-we’ll-call-you kind of a deal, but now something really germane has come up and he has no choice but to comply.

  23. Which Republicans have sent money to the wife of the deputy Director of the FBI Chester?

    Which Democrats have come close to the Jack Abramoff scandal? That was money and influence peddling that Clinton can’t come close to.

    US politics need a good clean-up, but each side pretending it is only the other that is at fault is a significant part of the problem.

    I would support any candidate that was interested in having a serious go at the corruption, but Trump would be even less likely than Hillary, given his previous track record — his election funding of his own businesses is exactly the sort of feather-bedding that you are currently hating on Hillary for Ecks. He’s crony-capitalist to the core.

    Hillary will be no more impeached for the e-mails that Bush was when multiple millions of White House emails were conducted in illegal accounts by senior advisors like Karl Rove. If the Republicans just brushed it off as an unfortunate mistake, why would Democrats get all suicidal about their issues?

    Now if G W Bush had sacked all those staff, and thereby set an example, you might be talking. But he did nothing of the sort.

    Funny how all these conservatives up in arms about the e-mails can’t remember the distant past of 2007!

  24. So an impeached president can’t pardon themselves but could Obama pardon her before she takes office or could she be impeached before taking office which would derail that defence.
    Either way she’s a dead duck president it looks like, still she will have her place in history as first woman president so won’t care.
    Would be funny seeing the media play the she’s only being impeached because she’s a woman defence after her husband was the last president to be impeached

  25. Bloke in North Dorset, for those of us not familiar with news services of the era, who was WaPo and what channel were they on? Or were they a print reporter?
    Native American? Or foreign?

  26. @ Chester Draws
    Jack Abramoff was a lawyer, like Hillary, but not a president or presidential candidate.
    If the legal profession in the USA had an approach to ethical standards like my professional body we (even us insignificant persons on the east of the pond) would have less problems. A survey of voting reasons showed that the largest nuimber – 52% – of those saying they were voting for Hillary was because “she isn’t Trump” but that 60% of those intending to vote for Trump said that it was because “he isn’t Hillary”.

  27. Martin, WaPo is the Washington Post.

    Traditionally notoriously left-wing, once known as “Pravda on the Potomac”.

  28. Chester, Gamecock, the “everybody does it” defence is not applicable and unsuccessful, but she was only following Obama’s orders, so she’s OK.

  29. Thanks Richard.

    Fred Z – its funny, the American government was really not keen on ‘only following orders’ as a defence when they did murder sessions known as war trials.

  30. If she is forced to quit the race there is a great deal of ambiguity around what will happen. Will the election be postponed while the Dems field another candidate? Does Kaine automatically become the nominee? How do those Clinton-hating Sanders supporters feel about that happening?

    I assume she’d stay on the ballot, since early voting has been going on.

    I think one of the Amendments (12th or 25th) has something to say about if the President-elect is ineligible (especially due to dying), that the Vice-President-elect would become President.

    So the short answer is that voters who favor Democrats would still vote Clinton/Kaine, in the expectation that Kaine would be the one inaugurated on January 20.

  31. So Much For Subtlety

    John Galt – “At the time he explicitly said that if found guilty he would not pardon himself.”

    That depends on what the definition of “pardon” is

  32. So an impeached president can’t pardon themselves but could Obama pardon her before she takes office or could she be impeached before taking office which would derail that defence.

    Amazed the whole Presidential pardon thing still exists. What unique qualification does the POTUS possess to overturn apparent “judicial errors”? What a joke.

  33. The fact that the ever alert Tim has only just spotted this article from last week represents a new big problem for Hilary. No criticism of our great and glorious blogger, but these anti Hilary stories have largely been buried by the pro Hilary media. Now they are coming out and the middle ground are noticing. I have also noticed a few links appearing to Trump rallies that I have never seen before. he is far more impressive there than in the debates and his mantra of Drain The Swamp may be what carries him to the Trump House (as it will doubtless be called)

  34. Martin, isn’t it one of those irregular verbs?
    – I am fulfilling a constitutional mandate;
    – You are obeying orders;
    – He has been executed for war crimes.

  35. Re: BNiC

    A president cannot pardon himself out of guilty verdict from Impeachment trial at Senate. He could pardon himself from pretty much everything else.

  36. Mark T said:
    “the Trump House (as it will doubtless be called)”

    Will he redevelop it into a 63-story tower?

  37. Hillary will be no more impeached for the e-mails that Bush was when multiple millions of White House emails were conducted in illegal accounts by senior advisors like Karl Rove. If the Republicans just brushed it off as an unfortunate mistake, why would Democrats get all suicidal about their issues?

    Let’s not muddy the waters here by equating what Hillary did to all sorts of other mini-scandals that involved e-mail in one way or another. Moving classified information to a personal server is a crime, full stop, and that amount of classified data could not have gotten there by accident.

    Karl Rove did not have a personal email server with thousands of Top Secret emails on it, including the real names of undercover intelligence agents and spy satellite imagery. That’s what Hillary is in trouble for, not some bullshit about political fundraising on government time.

  38. Dreams, as they say, are free. Clinton will because she and the DNC (and sundry minions including DOJ) will do literally anything to ensure she does. Doesn’t matter how many dead or illegal voters are needed, they will be found.

    And once she is president no one will be stupid enough to attempt to further the investigations into her deal, they will all be parked, stonewalled and completely off-limits regardless of what evidence may or may not be found. Comey can and will be fired if he persists, and any FBI agents who don’t go along to get along will have very truncated career paths to say the least.

    Face it people, Clinton is untouchable, and doubly so once she gets her hands on the levers of power.

  39. Face it people, Clinton is untouchable, and doubly so once she gets her hands on the levers of power.

    Tinfoil hat come off has it?

    Hillary is a single-minded cnut, I’ll give her that but she’s made enemies and if they find that she’s actually committed a felony then she will be up in front of a judge, regardless of who she is.

    It only becomes different if she gets elected, as we saw with Nixon’s resignation, with Gerald Ford granting him immunity after Nixon left office.

    If the abuse of email and classified documents doesn’t bring her down then the Clinton Foundation will. That shit ain’t going away.

  40. While Obama could pardon her, you need to remember that impeachment is a political act, not a criminal one. Impeachment only removes from office. A separate criminal trial would be needed to imprison.

    The founders were very wise about distrusting both those in power and the masses. That is why the United States is a republic not a democracy. Changes to the constitution require a hefty supermajority to pass. So the removal of constitutional rights is difficult when the government is acting as designed. However it requires a honorable people to work properly. I’m not sure we still have that.

    I fear for the Republic.

  41. John Galt,

    > and if they find that she’s actually committed a felony then she will be up in front of a judge, regardless of who she is.

    Why on Earth would you think that? They have already found that she’s actually committed a felony and she is not up in front of a judge, because of who she is.

    As Jonah Goldberg keeps saying when people talk about looking through the emails for a “smoking gun”, the server is the smoking gun. It was unequivocally illegal. It was done deliberately and knowingly. Finding a particular classified email sent through it could well amount to evidence of another felony or make the existing felony even worse. But the felony is there regardless.

    > If the abuse of email and classified documents doesn’t bring her down then the Clinton Foundation will.

    Again, why? It’s already there. Everyone already knows about it. It hasn’t brought her down.

  42. Talking of Watergate, Bob Woodward has come out publicly against Hilary. He’s disgusted and appalled. And presumably a bit annoyed to discover that no-one’s willing to listen to him when he’s talking about a Democrat.

  43. What almost no one mentions is that in the U.S., a candidate is generally allowed to keep any unspent campaign funds, even if they lose. There’s very loose record-keeping on that, so conceivably they get the whole lot of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *