Clinton need not be shut out of classified access

BBrGg2n

Let’s settle down just a bit, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan.

The Wisconsin Republican said Wednesday that Hillary Rodham Clinton should be denied access to “classified material” after she becomes the Democratic Party’s nominee for president of the United States.

Why? Because of her handling of the e-mails while she was secretary of state and because, according to the speaker, it “looks like” the FBI gave her preferential treatment in its yearlong investigation into her use of a personal e-mail server while she led the State Department.

It’s been customary for decades to allow presidential and vice-presidential nominees access to national security briefings while they campaign for the White House. Ryan got it when he ran for VP four years ago along with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

I thought the best response to this statement of outrage from Ryan came from famed defense lawyer and constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz. He said on CNN Wednesday that — in light of FBI Director James Comey’s stern tongue-lashing in announcing he would recommend no criminal charges be brought against Clinton — that the former secretary of state would be careful in the extreme in reviewing this classified material.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ryan-block-clintons-access-to-classified-materials/ar-BBu0Vt8?li=BBmkt5R

Ryan, of course, won’t be called off. Quite naturally — and expectedly — he’s angry that the FBI and the Justice Department have decided that Clinton didn’t commit any crimes. He’s going to proceed with a Republican investigation into the FBI probe to determine whether Comey and his staff of career prosecutors did their job fairly, without bias and without outside influence.

It’s quite obvious to me that Ryan’s mind is made up, that the FBI was in the tank for the Democratic presidential candidate. This GOP investigation won’t answer any questions.

For her part, Clinton needs to face the partisan outrage head-on. I hope she does so. Will she be able to quell the partisan anger? No.

In the meantime, ClintonĀ she should be able — as a candidate for president — to receive the national security briefings that has gone to previous nominees.

Time to condemn racists, too

trump mormons

Donald J. Trump isn’t bashful about condemning groups or people with which he has issues.

*Ā  Illegal immigrants? They’re “rapists, murderers, drug dealers. And there’s a few good ones, I’m sure,” he has said.

*Ā Radical Islamic terrorists? He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country just to be sure that none of those terrorists sneak in.

*Ā “Politically correct” rhetoric? Why, he just cannot stand those who hide behind his version of “political correctness.”

What about racists? White supremacists?

When he was asked about statements from longtime Klansman David Duke that seemed to support the Republican candidate’s views, Trump said he “didn’t know” Duke; he said he didn’t know about white supremacists.

And then, just recently, when the crap hit the fan over an ad that featured a picture of Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, a pile of $100 bills and a symbol that looked to many of us like a Star of David, Trump took the ad down. Critics jumped on the ad as an anti-Semitic statement. Then we learned that the ad first appeared on a white supremacist website.

Trump has yet to condemn Duke — other than to say he “condemns Duke.” And he has yet to issue anything resembling a declaration of condemnation of those groups.

Is the GOP nominee-to-be a flaming racist? I won’t say “yes.”

It is fair and reasonable, though, to wonder just why he doesn’t condemn those individuals and hate groups with the same zeal he condemns others.

Come on, man! I know you can do it.

If you want to.

Social media turn ‘friends’ into friends

social-media-people

Social media, particularly Facebook, have this way of turning acquaintances into something more significant than that.

If we’re not actual friends in the manner I prefer to use the term, then at least we are able to communicate on a little higher level than just exchanging banal pleasantries and talking about the weather.

Take for example what happened today.

I ran into someone with whom I’ve been acquainted on Facebook, although we knew each other very casually in an earlier part of our lives. We shook hands.

“I enjoy reading your blogs on Facebook,” he said. “I don’t comment on political things because I know I won’t change anyone’s mind, so what’s the point?” he continued.

“But I guess you’ve found out that our community is full of comedians,” he said. We both chuckled at that.

I told him I don’t write these blogs to change people’s minds. I write because it’s therapy for me.

Some people climb aboard motorcycles for what one biker-friend calls “throttle therapy.” Others go to the gym and pound on punching bags for another form of therapy.

Writing is my bag, man.

I did it for nearly four decades back when I was working for a living. My full-time writing gig ended abruptly — and unhappily, for me at least — nearly four years ago.

I’m still at it. And gladly so.

Which brings me to my actual point.

This blog of mine isn’t intended to change anyone’s mind. I get that everyone’s bias informs their own world view. I also get that the media already are full of talking heads, “contributors” and “political strategists” who fill the air with their opinions.

The only time in recent memory I’ve heard of anyone mind being changed on an issue involved the Amarillo municipal election this past year. Former Amarillo College President Paul Matney came to our Rotary club and made a pitch for the multipurpose event venue. A friend of mine, a hard-nosed Amarillo businesswoman, told me later Matney’s presentationĀ changed her mind from a “no” vote to a “yes” vote on the MPEV.

I wrote about that event:

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/10/a-mind-has-changed-on-the-mpev/

No one has come to me ever and said, “You know, John, that blog you wrote about what a bozo Donald Trump is really got me thinking. I’m going to vote for anyone now other than that guy based on what you wrote.”

I do not expect that to happen. Ever!

That’s not why I write this stuff. I do it because I like doing it. It comes fairly easily … now that I’ve been writing many times daily since my full-time job ended.

I appreciated my Facebook “friend” saying what he did today. It means a lot that he gets something out of these musings of mine.

But, no, I don’t expect to convert anyone.

I call myself an idealist on a lot of issues.

On this one? I’m a hard-bitten realist.

I won’t stop offering my view of the world. You can take it or leave it.

See you next time.

 

Trump gives love to … Saddam Hussein!

trump

Let’s see if this is correct.

Donald J. Trump says in one breath that Saddam Hussein was a “bad guy, OK?” and then heaps praise on the one-time tyrant because he killed terrorists without reading them their rights.

The Republican presidential candidate thinks the world would be better off if Saddam and Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi were still in power.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-gives-saddam-hussein-a-shout-out/ar-AAi914h?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Gadhafi was pretty tough on his enemies, too, so I reckon he’d be getting some love from the Trumpenator if the moment presented itself.

Saddam Hussein brought zero redeeming quality to the world’s geopolitical situation. Do I agree with the decision to invade his country in 2003 on a phony pretext that he possessed weapons of mass destruction? No. But there can be nothing worth praising about the guy.

As for whether we’re tough enough in our war against international terror, I believe we’ve been quite ruthless in the hunt for Islamic State, al-Qaeda and other terrorists lurking in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Osama bin Laden’s corpse was dumped into the ocean after our commandos took him out. We’ve been launching drone strikes and manned air strikes daily against terrorists since we went to war with them after the 9/11 attacks.

Trump, though, is blathering utter nonsense if he thinks Saddam Hussein presented the model for fighting terrorists.

Public mistrust casts pall over FBI’s findings

06comeytranscript-master768

This is what it’s come to in this country.

The head of the nation’s leading federal investigative agency offers a compelling argument for why he isn’t recommending a criminal indictment against a candidate for president.

And yet there remains doubt over whether the FBI did its job with integrity and professionalism.

FBI Director James Comey offered a detail explanation of his agency’s findings today in determining that it wouldn’t recommend seeking an indictment against Hillary Clinton over her use of a personal e-mail server while she served as secretary of state.

Here’s his statement in full. It’s worth reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/transcript-james-comey-hillary-clinton-emails.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

Sure, he has scolded Clinton for being “careless” in her handling of e-mail messages sent from her server. But in his careful language, Comey assures us that no prosecutor worth a damn would find any reasonable cause to seek criminal charges over what transpired during Clinton’s tenure at the State Department.

Moreover, I also accept the declaration that the FBI director did his job with integrity.

As Comey said this morning: “I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.”

I accept those findings.

AMM has gone MIA

AMM

The thought occurred to me a bit earlier today.

Do you remember the Amarillo Millennial Movement? It was formed sometime this past year to speak for those young Amarillo residents who sought to create a more livable environment and to promote downtown revival as a reason to retain younger residents.

It had a young, energetic spokeswoman whose energy earned her special recognition by the Amarillo Globe-News as a “Headliner” winner for the year. Her efforts on behalf of the multipurpose event venue planned for downtown and the success of the citywide referendum that decided the fate of the MPEV won her lots of pats on the back and high-fives.

Meghan Riddlespurger, though, has moved on. She’s now living in Fort Worth. I trust — and hope — she’s doing well in Cowtown.

But this “movement” …

What’s become of it?

I admit I don’t get out as much as I did back when I was working full-time for a living. My media job required me to keep ears and eyes open. Now that I’m transitioning — albeit quite slowly — into full-time retirement mode my ears and eyes aren’t as wide open as they used to be.

AMM was a great idea. Its young energizer spoke eloquently for those things in which she believed. Riddlespurger managed to anger some of her then-fellow Amarillo residents. However, most folks with a lot on their minds and who are unafraid to speak on behalf of their own ideas do tend to tick others off. So, I don’t hold that against the young woman.

I’m curious about the status of this so-called “movement” she founded.

Aren’t there others who can pick up the banner? If so, they’ve been verrrry, verrrry quiet.

I don’t believe the need to keep young Amarillo residents involved and engaged in the city’s future has lessened any over the past year.

Or has it?

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/04/movement-founder-makes-her-exit/

 

‘Not indicted’ doesn’t mean ‘in the clear’

james-comey

I just love social media responses to big news stories.

It’s usually pretty hysterical. Take the announcement today that the FBI will not seek an indictment of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her use of a personal e-mail server while she was in that highly sensitive public office.

FBI Director James Comey said Clinton was “extremely careless” in her use of the server; he said she did plenty of things wrong, but nothing on which he could seek criminal charges.

It has given social media users all over the nation reason to extol the Democratic presidential candidate’s “guilt” over a variety of transgressions.

They’re saying she “lied,” that she’s “corrupt,” that Comey and the feds were “bought off by Clinton money,” that the Clintons’ privileged status among the political elite bought her leniency that others would have received.

None of that, of course, has been proved. The accusers will say, “Who needs proof? I just know it’s all true!” It all rests in the hearts and minds of those who are disposed to, well, hate the former secretary of state.

What about the rest of us? Folks such as, oh, yours truly?

I’m going to take Comey at his word that his career prosecutors — the individuals who are not political appointees — came up empty in their search for criminal culpability. To my way of thinking, when investigators cannot offer proof to merit aĀ charge of wrongdoing, then that’s the endĀ of the criminal aspect of this on-going controversy.

Oh, but its political element still burns white-hot.

Clinton will have to call a press conference and face the music publicly about the things Comey said about how she conducted herself while leading the State Department.

I know those media confrontations make Clinton uncomfortable. Indeed, one gets the sense she detests reporters generally, although no one has ever asked her directly, in public, for the record about what she thinks of the media.

I also am aware that no matter how forthcoming she is that it won’t quell the critics. They’ll continue to find holes in her public statements; why, they’ll even create holes in them just to foster their own arguments against her presidential candidacy.

We live in the social media age. For better or worse, Americans are forming a lot of their opinions about public figures based on 140-character messages sent out on Twitter, or on messages posted on Facebook or other social media platforms.

Hillary Clinton has known this about our world and I trust she understood it when she decided to seek the nation’s highest office.

It’s tough out there, Mme. Secretary. Deal with it.

No indictment over e-mails

hillary

Hillary Rodham Clinton won’t be indicted for her use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state.

That’s the conclusion of the pros, the career prosecutors and investigators at the FBI.

So, that’s the end of the controversy, correct? Clinton now can campaign for president of the United States without the sniping, carping and conspiracy-minded criticism leveled by her foes?

Excuse me while I bust a gut.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-recommends-no-charges-for-clinton-over-email-system-at-state-department/ar-AAi7Py6?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

No, FBI Director James Comey’s own words today have given the anti-Clinton cadre plenty of ammo to sling at the Democratic candidate for president.

He called her “extremely careless” in her use of the private server. He said he found no “clear evidence” of criminality.

Right there, you’ll see foes translate “careless” into words like “incompetent” and “inept.” No “clear evidence” will be parsed to mean that there’s something smelly, but that the feds just couldn’t find anything with which to hang a criminal charge.

The Clinton campaign, of course, will spin these findings differently. They’ll congratulate the FBI for its professionalism. Indeed, James Comey remains high on most observers’ lists of impartial, hard-nosed and fair-minded law enforcement authorities.

Hillary Clinton no doubt will have steeled herself for the onslaught that awaits. Her enemies will quite naturally suggest or imply that her husband Bill’s meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch in Phoenix played some sort of role in the FBI’s decision to forgo seeking an indictment. That’s how conspiracy theorists work.

What the heck? Hillary and Bill Clinton ought to have developed rhino-hide by now, given all the hideous accusations they have faced dating back to when Bill Clinton was Arkansas governor.

From my perch, I believe James Comey is a pro and that the FBI did its job with due diligence.

He did, though, toss out a couple of red-meat morsels for Clinton’s enemies to chew on — which I believe they’ll do with great gusto.

Star of David or ‘sheriff’s star’?

Donald+Trump+Hillary+Clinton+Star+of+David

Gosh, I always thought I knew what the Star of David looked like.

It’s an important symbol of the Jewish faith. I saw it daily while I was touring Israel in May-June 2009. The Israelis fly their national flag proudly and, yep, it has a Star of David on it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-star-of-david-tweet-225081

I must have been seeing things.

You see, a campaign ad for Donald J. Trump showed up on a tweet that showed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and an image that looked for all the world like a Star of David, along with the words “Most CorruptĀ Candidate Ever.”

The ad drew immediate criticism from those who complained it was anti-Semitic. Trump’s campaign took it down immediately and then said the star on the ad didn’t portray the Star of David; Trump — the Republican presidential candidate — called it a “sheriff’s star.”

Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who now works for CNN, said the uproar is nothing more thanĀ “political correctness run amok.”

What … ?

Two quick points and then I’m out.

One is that the ad first appeared on a white supremacist website and we all know what many white supremacists think of Jews.

Two, Trump took the ad down right away after criticism arose about its tone and tenor.

If the ad was as innocent as Trump’s campaign says it is, why did the white supremacists run it and why was the campaign so quick to remove it?

Just asking, man.

Hillary won’t get reprieve if she escapes indictment

la-1463522501-snap-photo

I think I can predict this with some confidence.

If Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail controversy doesn’t result in a federal indictment, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee won’t get a moment’s reprieve from her critics.

The FBI is examining whether Clinton violated any laws when she used her personal e-mail server while she was secretary of state. An indictment would have to come from a federal grand jury on the recommendation of the FBI prosecutors.

There’s that problem, of course, with former President Bill Clinton’s impromptu meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch the other day in Phoenix. Clinton should have stayed away; Lynch should have shooed him off her plane. Why? The investigation looms as a serious problem for the ex-president’s wife — and he should have known better than to go anywhere near the AG, who oversees the FBI.

Hillary Clinton’s headaches won’t end if the FBI decides there’s nothing for which to indict her.

But the way I look at it now, she’s been through enough hell already from those who hate her that she’s likely immune from too much further damage.

Heck, she’s been hectored and harassed since before her husband ran for president in 1992. She’s been examined, grilled and persecuted ever since.

And spare me the canard that the media have been soft on her.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/07/01/ag_lynch_will_adopt_clinton-probe_recommendations_131081.html

If only the candidate’s husband had stayed away from the attorney general. But he didn’t.

It’s up now to the career prosecutors and investigators at the FBI to do their job. I have confidence they’ll do what they have to do.

I realize the futility of this request, but I’ll make it anyway: Whatever their conclusions, how about we just accept them and move on?

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience