The Fix

There are indeed Two Americas, as John Edwards used to say.

There’s the America where reguliar schnooks get crucified in court for “crimes” that exist only as federal regulations…

…and there are people who are  immune to the law.

It seems Obama ordered Comey to sandbag the “investigation” into the email server:

In his April 10 comments, Obama made the obvious explicit: He did not want the certain Democratic nominee, the candidate he was backing to succeed him, to be indicted. Conveniently, his remarks (inevitably echoed by Comey) did not mention that an intent to endanger national security was not an element of the criminal offenses Clinton was suspected of committing – in classic Obama fashion, he was urging her innocence of a strawman crime while dodging any discussion of the crimes she had actually committed. As we also now know – but as Obama knew at the time – the president himself had communicated with Clinton over her non-secure, private communications system, using an alias. The Obama administration refused to disclose these several e-mail exchanges because they undoubtedly involve classified conversations between the president and his secretary of state. It would not have been possible to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for mishandling classified information without its being clear that President Obama had engaged in the same conduct. The administration was never, ever going to allow that to happen.

We fought a revolution over less.  Not less than one fixed conviction – but less than “two parallel systems of justice”.

9 thoughts on “The Fix

  1. I would agree that the fix was in–as our friends at Powerline and elsewhere have demonstrated, there’s no reasonable explanation for Comey’s blatant misstatement of the law in his conclusions–but the evidence NR provides here is really post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Yes, Obama made the exact same error in law as did Comey before Comey did, but you’ve got to prove that Comey’s idiotic decision not only followed, but was compelled, by Obama.

    Good Godfathers like Obama tend not to leave a paper trail that works in court, to put it mildly.

  2. It’s a bit like the time Obama said that there was not a smidgeon of corruption in the IRS when Lois Lerner was under investigation. He was supposed to be entirely out of the loop on the investigation; he should not have known whether or not a smidgeon of corruption existed in the IRS. Imagine if, during the investigation of the Valerie Plame leak, Bush had said that the investigation was going to find no wrong doing. Unimaginable that it would have been given a pass by the press the way the press routinely gave a pass to Obama when he announced what the results of ongoing investigations would be.

  3. When Comey created a “lack of intent” loophole in law that specifically exempted it, he created a precident that will be used by traitors with the financial wherewithal to hire lawyers skilled enough to use it.

    I’m sorry, but memaw was in no ways worth that.

    I would almost be happier seeing Comey in prison than memaw Clinton.

  4. The people who think Comey was out to save Hillary really should have a cage match with those who think he was out to defeat her.

  5. Quoting an editorial page as a fact source is sort of like quoting President Trump. The FACTS, outside the right-wing hate chamber, seem to point to a President (Obama) who, unlike Trump, was trying to obey the law. He was trying to ensure that the FBI did what it was supposed to do under the Hatch Act. He didn’t come out at libel the President by accusing him of illegally tapping phones, a story the DOJ has now said was wrong (and therefore since Trump has full access to DOJ data, undoubtedly knew was a lie). So, you compound it here by quoting the National Review’s editorial board’s fatuous conclusion and claiming it is somehow proof of conspiracy by Obama to protect Clinton when it’s pretty obvious Comey’s actions just prior to the election were harmful to her. So, it’s funny to hear you, fact-light Berg, complaining about a interference by a President into an investigation. Mr. Berg, you have a log in your eye. I wouldn’t excuse Obama IF your assertion were true, but it’s not. Where is your voice on Trump?

  6. Pen, the simple fact is that Presidential candidates are NOT exempt from prosecution for crimes, and the mishandling of classified information is a crime, as anyone who’s ever worked for a company that handles it knows very well. I’ve worked for two such companies, and the simple fact is that simply leaving it on your desk while you get coffee, even in an area where everyone has a clearance, is grounds for revoking your clearance. Put it in a place where those without a clearance can see it—say at your home or on an unsecured server–and you’re talking jail time unless you’ve got someone covering for you in the White House.

    If you read the law, you’ll see that the relevant section, contra Obama and Comey, does not require intent to apply. So the notion that they were following the law is, politely speaking, nonsense. They created an “out” that, as Swiftee notes, anyone who can hire a New York lawyer IS going to use.

    Thanks, guys, for making all of us less safe by creating precedent for ignoring our laws on the handling of classified information.

  7. It is pretty funny reading Penigma referring to someone else as “fact-light” while bolstering his fact-a-liciousness with CAPS.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.