Thursday, July 07, 2016


I saw blood in their eyes, as I heard the theme song to Jaws, surely we had her now… but they didn't

Listening to the condescending tone of the prosecutors, excuse me, Republican attack dogs today, felt more like the Nuremberg Trials as opposed to a hearing to discuss how FBI Director Comey could come to his now historic decision.
The FBI Director, fresh from his big reveal the other day, was now testifying over how he decided on the FBI's Clinton's email probe. So we are getting a hearing, to discuss results of a FBI probe, after the most recent hearings had found her innocence of the latest conspiracies. So I guess, if something comes out, we can start another one. I mean yesterday, Paul Ryan was discussing 5 separate hearings. 
I must note, watching the Democratic voices in today's inquisition was seriously a shock to the system. Just listening to them discuss the law and the facts. They weren't being defense attorneys protecting their client, they were political officials discussing FBI's Comey's decision. And they weren't being Democrats, they were doing their jobs, simply responding to the legality of the attacks. I must say, the fact that we had alternating political parties asking questions of the FBI director made watching it at all possible. Other wise I probably would've lasted 10 minutes, at the most. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, one of the chief attack dogs against her, started the ball rolling, railing against her, as if her crimes warranted the worse of all punishments. Hammering at each one of the accusations that Comey brought up in his public declaration, Jason tried his best to make Hillary sound like the worse person who has ever walked the planet. Continuously driving home how illegal this all must be, how terrible she is, how much danger she put our nation in, by being so deceitful, and refusing to listen to Comey's justification for his decisions. They kept bringing up all Hillary's past statements in the debates where according to them, she "lied" to the American people about the emails. Then the inquisition began. One by one they came at FBI Directer Comey, and several times acted like they had found the smoking gun! Thats right, the big Oh my God moment seemed to be coming at any second. And finally we got one that actually sounded like, man they actually got her.
Lets discuss the classified emails. Seems that there were 3! Three emails, with a with parentheses () on them,  which means they were classified… there you go! See, guilty as sin, put her up against the wall and shoot the bitch dead! I listened to their logic and went, you know, they actually sound like they have evidence. Giving us Hillary fans, all a deep, wait a minute, maybe she is guilty of sin moment. Oh my God, I now get it, I now see the light. Burn the witch. Well, then we got the first of many Democrats who smacked back at the question and at Comey's original statement and the actual total number of documents and oh, about that (c), not so fast. Mr. Cartwright, a Democrat hammered the fact that the emails under question, that seem to be the crux of the attack against Hillary were not exactly obvious. He pointed out, that there was no header, on top of the email, which is standard. 
So were they classified? And was it "so easy" to see the (c)  as they kept suggesting it was? Turns out, the (c) was somewhere inside the body of the email. So out of thousands and thousands of emails, they found 3, and of those 3, the (c) was inside the body of text, not the header. And this is what they want to use to burn her as the witch they all think she is. Or as I like to call her, our next President. Mr. Hurd, someone who I've never seen before was practically foaming… he actually said, "I'm not a lawyer" as he questioned the FBI director about the law. It was almost laughable  as we watched him arguing with a lawyer about the law. As as he was' getting the answer her expected, his agitation obvious on his face, when his understanding of the law were in disagreement with the legal scholar.  
"My judgement is" Clinton did not break the lawExcept, in the eyes of the law, cause the opinion of Director Comey was, nope, forget it fellas, you haven't got a legal leg to stand on. Well, thats my interpretation of what he said. His response throughout the Q and A was strictly by the book. And I must say that after my last couple of comments about him over the last few days, where I implied that he was in bed with the powers that be in the Republican party, that maybe I was getting a little a head of myself. I thought to myself, how else could you explain his public flogging of Hillary? Which in turn, opened up this whole new can of worms. Well, after todays hearing, my estimation of Director Comey has jumped ten-fold, After seeing how the Republicans went after him, as gleeful prosecutors on their own, OJ trial. What I witnessed to day, was the grown-up in the room, truing to explain as nicely as he could that, kids, I'm sorry, but your wrong, get over it.  
It seems beside the (c) on 3 emails we've got FBI Director Comey's "Assumption that some deleted emails were classified" wait… so, you're basically suggesting that the odds are that maybe out of all the thousands of emails that there could have been some classified. One, two, a few, how many? Cause you know the Republicans are gonna say all of them! And that is presuming the 3 you already assume were, are. This is what we got, a bunch of powerful people, being partisan, attacking the laws they don't understand. Throwing out punishments for crimes that weren't committed to satisfy personal opinions. Doesn't sound very Democratic, excuse me, don't want to upset up the Republicans… it doesn't sound very American.
Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu, someone whom after seeing this, made me go, hey Hillary, why isn't he on your short list of possible VPs, point blank mentioned that all the Democrats had endorsed Hillary Clinton, just as all the Republicans were doing their best to stop her. How could it not be a political exercise? In other words, why are we wasting even more money on this? He also pointed out the biggest fallacy of this entire conversation. Not one of these accusers of her, these legal scholars who swear on their bible how righteous they are, have seen one spec of the evidence that they are discussing. So they are basically trying to condemn her on hearsay and innuendo. Hm, sounds a lot like Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. 
We're gonna be getting another investigation. It was interesting watching as Republicans such as Congressmen John Mica, pretty much came out with their headline making moment, trying to get their face on the airwaves, we are going on to another hearing on this… you can bet on that.
Rep. Blake Farenthold, Republican from Texas, wanted to discuss cyber security, so he went after the fact that some of the people that Hillary associated with were hacked. But as Deputy Comey explained  "We were not able to conclude that they were successful", in other words, Republicans you are assuming things that didn't happen except in your delusional minds. Basically let's  condemn her because people might have attempted to hack her, but they failed, since there is no record of any success. Question: How is this a problem?
Why should any person follow the law if our leaders don't?  Good question Representative Blake, since it seems you and your Republicans friends keep not following it. At least this putz, as he proudly proclaimed "he used to practice the law" So he of all people should know about the law and how to follow the law. Maybe that's why he entered politics, cause he couldn't, just my opinion. As it seems thats all the attack is, a partisan political attack theatre. Mr. Hice, a clever little Republican rat, who've I also never heard of either, went after the fact that The FBI Director would have reprimanded or worse anyone who works for the FBI, so isn't there a double standard that Hillary wasn't reprimanded? Watching Comey listen to the barrage of word play, trying to trick him was impressive, as he wouldn't fall victim to the bull.  As he kept trying to imply, she doesn't work for the FBI, its not his job to penalize her, even if she had done anything wrong. And just to double down, A Mr. "Rod" Blum, asked again, was Hillary's server hacked, as if Comey's answer would change. And again, his answer was "I do not know" and again, Rod proclaimed that we  "could assume that she was!" and "Life could have been in harms way, if that server was hacked!" But it wasn't!  Enough. Jeez, I guess they got her… not. Remember the old expression 'When you assume you make an ass of yourself…' It could've happened…but it didn't. I can already see his commercial for November.
Democrat Ms. Wason Coleman queried if there was any evidence that our National Security has been breeched in anyway by her email or by her server. "There is no direct evidence of an intrusion" was Comey's point blank response. We also had a Mr Scott DesJarlais who tried to throw out legal precedent, saying that a lot of people are saying that because of this other case, there was a double standard for her, since it was similar to her case. Comey basically said 'No it wasn't'. He then actually offered to explain the case and the facts and why the two instances had noting to do with each other. In other words… which pretty much shut up DesJarlais.
One of my favorite laughs was when a Mr. Buddy Carter, a Republican announced "I'm not a lawyer, I'm a pharmacist" and he couldn't understand why no one queried Hillary about her server. I mean shouldn't anyone have done that? Seems everyone knew sir, maybe if any of the previous Secretary of State's had done it, maybe then she would have. But they hadn't. As "As a non lawyer, as a non investigator, it would appear to me that you have got a hell of a case." Comey's response was brilliant… "And I'm telling you we don't. And I hope the people will take the time to understand why."
A Republican Mr. Mick Mulvaney, kept trying to imply that Comey's decision set a new precedent. And this was after he had already answered several times that he hadn't set any. He was using preexisting laws, he wasn't setting any new precedent. "Why did you do, what you did?" thats what Rep. Jason Chaffetz asked Comey. Not about his decision, but about his decision to come out and make his public flogging of Hillary. And as he asked it, I could see his eyes glare at him with daggers.
So basically we had a lot of what ifs, could haves and maybe's but nothing again that does anything to hurt Hillary. So basically we got another Benghazi style grilling, but this time, Hillary, was not in the hot seat. And it seems  that if you are not a fan of Hillary this event hasn't changed their minds in the least. All I can say is thanks to the Republicans for forcing another hearing down our throats, because by the end I felt better about Hilalry then I did before. So thanks haters. You did your job once more. Helping to show how partisan you are and why we definitely need her in office to stop any further advancement of their heinous agenda.

Just one man's opinion
© Neil Feigeles, Neilizms, Thursday, July 7, 2016

1 comment:

Larry Conley said...

Excellent synopsis of the latest Republican-led House Inquisition! Comey did a man's job and this is no mistake!