Tuesday, November 1, 2016

What’s in Those Hillary Emails?

I refer to the Hillary emails sent to Huma found on Weiner’s laptop (that’s laptop as in computer – get your mind out of the gutter).

According to Scott Adams (HT LRC):

…Comey learns that the Weiner laptop had emails that were so damning it would be a crime against the public to allow them to vote without first seeing a big red flag.

I suggest reading Adams’ entire post, as it is well-reasoned.

And Mike Rozeff offers a list of “general possibilities” of what might be hiding in those emails.  I have greatly narrowed the list, as several of the items – all of which should be enough to disqualify her from any position of trust in a moral society – do not pass through the filter offered by Adams.

But a few items on Rozeff’s list do:

·        Her role and knowledge concerning Benghazi.
·        Her role and knowledge concerning arms shipments to Syria from Libya.
·        Her dealings with donors to the Clinton Foundation.
·        The methods by which Bill Clinton and she benefited monetarily and personally while she was Secretary of State, especially through the Clinton Foundation.
·        Her involvement in having e-mails deleted and bleached.

Returning to Adams:

…no matter who gets elected, we’ll eventually learn of something disqualifying in the Weiner emails.

All items on Rozeff’s list I find disqualifying.  However, the general public doesn’t have my filter.  The handful of items above are the “disqualifying” items, it seems to me.


  1. "....all of which should be enough to disqualify her from any position of trust in a moral society"

    Greetings from the resident, er, "nihilist" here! :-)

    If I may -false assumption [1]:

    that there can ever be a majority of individuals who all generally agree on what is "moral" or "immoral".

    And....false assumption [2]: that any government anywhere can be "moral' [i.e. capable of holding only 1 morality.] Governments are always going to be amoral, by nature, seems to me.

    Therefor, Clinton's moral nature is entirely irrelevant, although I'm equally sure that most people, [who will automatically deny false assumption [2]as being false ],will vehemently disagree with me.

    Who cares what's in her frickin' emails?

    To my "mind" we don't need no stinkin' emails- Clintons a crook merely by "virtue" of having been in the employ of a criminal gang known as the USG for 24+ years.

    Isn't that enough?

    By comparison, Trump appears to be a small time semi-"private" crook looking to go "major league"; unless, possibly he's not going to accept any of his federal income if elected pres.; although even that would not get him off the hook, given he'd inevitably still be bombing _some_foreign countries, signing off on killing individuals via drone, covert ops etc., detaining US citizens indefinitely without charge or trial, or, killing them without charge or trial via drones etc., etc etc.] .

    Making any sort of a moral issue out of all this seems to me to be a tad "irrational", and a waste of time, to me, at least.

    With either scumbag victorious, the freedom of individual in the US will _still_ be greatly threatened.

    So whatchagonnado. [Besides watch the river flow]?

    Regards, onebornfreeatyahoo.

  2. "Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock

    Which means that, contrary to Scott Adams childishly naive fantasies about the supposed patriotism of Comey, the current head of the FBI [Comey] is ultimately no less of crook than Clinton herself, or any other federal employee,[and that therefor his motives are no less nefarous], and that Clinton would be just as much a crook even without the expose of her foundation and its shenanigans, and even without us having access to any of her email records.

    And to expect Trump to act in any significantly different manner if he becomes the new temp. figurehead of this " professional-criminal class." would be to pile foolishness on foolishness, as far as I can see.

    Regards, onebornfreeatyahoo

  3. One item missing from that list is rumors that the NYPD, having been the first to review the contents of Weiner's computer, found evidence of a child sex slave ring, including videos, linked to the Clintons and other Washington and international notables.

    It has been alleged that officials within the NYPD handed this information to the FBI and threatened to go public with it if Comey did not immediately reopen the case and move aggressively against the Clintons.

    Mishandling classified documents is old news. Would the FBI have reopened the case for that when they didn't do it earler? Or was something new of a profoundly disturbing nature uncovered which, if disclosed, would immediately destroy Clinton, even in the minds of her free stuff supporters who are otherwise unmoved by all the other crimes and scandals swirling around her?