Former FBI Director James Comey must be held accountable for his actions.

Since the beginning of the Justice Department's investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private internet server, we've been treated to a parade of politicians, journalists, and analysts, all trying to spin the mess into a political weapon.  Occasionally we would get a glimpse of a well-groomed bureaucrat here and there, stuck in the unenviable position of trying to answer questions without sharing classified information.  Most of us were introduced to former FBI Director James Comey sometime in the summer of 2016, which speaks highly of his ability to stay out of the spotlight, considering the number of high-profile investigations in which he was involved.  In my experience, anyone with that level of authority who has been able to avoid becoming a familiar face, is doing something right.

How things have changed for Mr. Comey.

During the Hillary Clinton investigation, Comey was put under a tremendous amount of pressure by Congressional Democrats, who were acutely aware of the damage the controversy was causing her presidential campaign.  Although the left will claim otherwise, fro the most part, the GOP let the investigation evolve and expand on its own, as new revelations provided room to grow.  Many Democrats believe that Comey's decision to publicly announce new developments in the investigation during the presidential campaign eventually cost Clinton the election.  Clinton has echoed that allegation, along with her list of at least thirty-six other "reasons" that Donald Trump unfairly won the election.  At the time, Comey was vilified by Democrats on Capitol Hill, amid the usual calls for investigations you usually get when two or more Democrats are in the same room.  It was obvious to me that Comey took the accusations to heart, and this once stoic, professional bureaucrat allowed himself to become personally involved.

When Donald Trump arrived in DC, he made the decision to keep James Comey on as Director of the FBI.  The Justice Department and the Bureau had become highly politicized during the Obama Administration, and Trump thought it was important to keep some level of continuity, especially as ongoing investigations were concerned.  For anyone who might need a reminder, when I recall the last eight years of the Department of Justice, I think of the "Fast and Furious" debacle, the decision not to investigate the IRS audit targeting controversy, the choice by Congress to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt, and the "coincidental" meeting on the Phoenix Airport tarmac between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton, whose wife at the time was the subject of an ongoing Justice Department investigation.  During the eight years of the Obama Administration, which include three years with James Comey as the Director of the FBI, the Bureau had a crisis of personnel, as highly-respected, experienced Special Agents and Supervisory Special Agents were choosing early retirement or just flat-out quitting.  Off the record, the decision to leave usually involved the politicization of the Justice Department.  Just how would this "politicization" reveal itself?  Possibly with the request for FISA authority to conduct surveillance and listen-in on phone conversations being conducted by Russian authorities.  The never-ending leaks are another example of what can happen when a sensitive government agency has been seeded with political appointees and activists.  When President Trump and his advisers realized the level of politicization in the FBI, and the probability that one investigation after another sans justification would be focused on his Administration, he used his authority to make a change in Bureau management.  No doubt President Trump was also considering the possibility that the investigation of his campaign staff and Russian contacts would continue as long as the distraction negatively impacted the Trump Agenda.  Keep in mind that no evidence has yet been discovered which implicates anyone in the Trump campaign with Russian espionage activities, but for some reason the investigation goes on and on and on.

The one surprise Comey saved just for me was his admission to leaking classified information.  Comey claims that once he realized he was getting the ax, he decided to pass notes from his private conversations with President Trump to a college professor, with instructions that she share the notes with the press.  His justification?  Comey asserts that he was concerned Trump might squash the Russia investigation, therefore the public release of the notes might force the naming of a Special Counsel.  What a load of horseshit.  Everyone with even a modicum of political common sense knows that Comey released his notes in order to "get back" at President Trump.  Who would have envisioned that the top Law Enforcement Officer in the country, the person who is tasked with locating and prosecuting persons who leak classified information, would openly admit to Congress that he had knowingly shared classified information with an acquaintance for the express purpose of delivering that information to a journalist?

During his opening remarks to the Congressional Committee, Comey claimed he was angry with President Trump, because of Trump's alleged criticism of the FBI's rank-and-file officers.  Sorry, but I have to call horseshit once again.  A review of the statement Trump released to announce Comey's termination, makes it clear that all and any criticism was reserved for Comey.  President Trump rightly expressed concern regarding the effectiveness of the FBI with Comey in charge, and in no way maligned the hard work being done by Bureau personnel.  At the end of the day, Comey's appearance before members of Congress only reiterated what the Trump Administration has been saying from the beginning.  No persons involved with the Trump Campaign colluded with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign.  The mainstream media, which continues to prove that "anything goes" in the war against the Trump Administration, was unable to spin Comey's appearance into the Russian espionage narrative, so they've moved on to Plan B, which is to introduce the world to "Trump the Obstructionist".  The talking points must have been prepared quickly, because I noticed the term "obstructionist" on the websites of the NY Times and the Washington Post, and heard it on MSNBC and CNN.  The media is a formidable opponent, folks, as they answer to no one, and can print whatever allegation comes to mind, as long as it comes from an "unnamed source".  To demonstrate that respect for the rule of law is paramount in today's FBI, the Department of Justice needs to make an example of James Comey, and prosecute the former Director for providing the media with classified information.  Since he's admitted his guilt, this case should be open-and-close, which would go a long way to discouraging potential leakers in the future.      

Media attempt to distract voters from Clinton email scandal falls flat.

Just as we predicted, the arrival of Halloween this year was accompanied by a determined effort on behalf of the mainstream media to change the political comversation.  Late last week, the FBI announced that its imvestigation into Hillary Clinton's use of an illegal email server was actually ongoing.  The investigation, which most of us believed was no longer active, received a new jolt of adrenaline with the discovery of hundreds and thousands of emails on the laptop Clinton Campaign Vice Chairman Huma Abedin shared at home with her husband.  Given the media's obsessive and blatant determination to see Hillary Clinton win the Presidency, we surmised that a full-blown effort would be made to launch a personal attack against Clinton's opponent, Republican Donald Trump.  Actually, the press dropped two separate attacks on Trump today.  On CNN, in the Washington Post, on ABC, and in the New York Times, voters were reminded that the FBI was interested in Trump's connections to Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Before you could take a breath, some of the same media organizations were rehashing the issue of Donald Trump and his unwillingness to release his income tax returns.  Surely one of these stories would catch hold and quickly push the Hillary email scandal from the minds of voters.  Guess what, folks?  It didn't happen.

It didn't take long for the Trump Campaign to remind the various media outlets that the FBI had already cleared Donald Trump and his campaign of any connection whatsoever to the Russian government and efforts by Russia to create havoc with the presidential election.  With regards to the income tax issue, Trump has explained time and again, including in the first debate, that he is presently being audited by the IRS, and as soon as the process is complete, he will be happy to disclose his tax records.  To be honest, I expected something better from the press.  Is this all they could come up with over the weekend?  No doubt they have a few more shots to take, and they may be saving their best shot for last.

Today's effort, I'm pleased to say, fell flat.  The electorate seems to have made up its mind as to the integrity and honesty of both candidates.  I don't think that the Clinton Campaign, or the media for that matter, will have much success with headlines accusing Trump of innapropriate behavior with women- that line of attack has used up its usefulness as well.  On the other hand, Trump seems to be sitting in the catbird seat, because his campaign doesn't have to attack Hillary Clinton's character or truthfulness.  History and the FBI are doing the job already.  Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have established particular reputations in Washington, not only with rank-and-file government bureaucrats, but with White House Staff and the Secret Service.  During their years as civil servants, they enriched themselves through the abuse of access to people with ample resources and influence.  They created an army of sycophants whose best interests are directly tied in to continued Clinton access to the tools of government.  The Clinton Foundation is stuffed full of former Clinton aides, support staff, legal advisors, and political workers, who receive a fat paycheck because of the donations Hillary was able to solicit durimg her time as Secretary of State.  Probably for the first time, average Americans are beginning to see what the Clintons are all about, and many former supporters are deciding that retirement is in order.  The next seven days will determine if the long ride on the back of the American people is finally over.

Whose fault is this mess?

Just when we thought we had heard the last of Hillary Clinton's email controversy, on Friday FBI Director James Comey announced that the investigation is still active.  It appears that Clinton confident and Vice Chairman of the Clinton Campaign Huma Abedin had saved a number of emails on her home laptop that the FBI determined were pertinent to the investigation.  Huma Abedin's husband, former New York State Representative Anthony Weiner, is currently the subject of a sex crimes investigation.  Weiner is suspected of engaging in innapropriate "Social Media" conversation with an underage girl; the authorities were examining the Laptop he shared with his wife when the emails were discovered.  Apparently over one thousand emails that might pertain to the email investigation were discovered.  On Friday, Comey sent a letter to both Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders, informing them of this new development.  

Historically the FBI has chosen not to release politically damaging information during an election, but Comey chose to make this announcement because of the controversy surrounding his previous decision not to indict Clinton.  Not surprisingly, the Democrats, who previously sang the praises of Director Comey, are incensed.  The Clinton Campaign has accused Comey of purposely interfering with the election, and demanded that Comey release all information relating to the discovery of the new emails.  True to its nature, the media has jumped in feet first, defending Clinton and questioning Comey's motivation.  The Washington Post and CNN have taken the lead on this front, helping Clinton to circle the wagons by giving airtime to one Clinton apologist after another.  The one fact that they conveniently chose to avoid, is that this entire mess can be laid at the feet of one person: Hillary Clinton.

When Clinton chose to accept the position of Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, she was determined to have total control over all her correspondence and communication.  In furtherance of this goal, she chose to install a personal server im her New York residence.  While Secretary of State, Clinton knowingly passed classified information on this unclassified server, in direct violation of State Department policy.  Clinton was eventually subpoenaed regarding the issue of classified intelligence and her personal server, and she responded by having a technician "bleach" the server, which effectively erased as many as thirty-three thousand emails.  How many of those emails were classified?  We will probably never know.  In addition, Clinton destroyed all thirteen of the Android cellphones and Blackberries that she used during her time as Secretary of State.  Not only is that wanton destruction of taxpayer's property and evidence, it is the type of action taken by someone with something to hide.

If Hillary Clinton is looking for someone to blame for this new development, she need only look as far as the nearest mirror.  Its not just hyperbole when I say that just about anyone else would have been arrested for security violations of this caliber.  Knowlingly destroying evidence pertinent to a Federal Investigation is a Felony.  How else would you describe bleaching of the server and the destruction of the communication equipment?  Expect Clinton to respond with both barrels.  With only nine days left before the election, and Donald Trump threatening to sprint past Clinton in all the battleground states, you can be sure that the Clinton Campaign has cooked up a personal attack on Trump.  As is their modus operandi, the media will take whatever they are given and use it to bury the email investigation.  You may recall that the last time Trump started getting traction, we were inundated with women accusing Trump of innapropriate behavior.  Every one of those accusations have been discredited, but the damage almost cost Trump the election.  We can only hope that in the end, people will remember the issues and vote accordingly.  This election is about change versus the status quo.  If you are happy with the direction we are headed, then you shouldn't vote for Donald Trump.

Voter fraud: the latest electoral disease introduced by the Democratic Party.

Everyday new evidence is uncovered which details the level of corruption in the Democratic Party.  For many years, both the Republican and the Democratic Parties were plagued with a small but embarrassing amount of bribery and fraud.  1960 was the year that the Democrats put the pedal to the metal and zoomed right past the GOP in the electoral corruption sweepstakes.  Many historians today accept that John F. Kennedy only beat Richard Nixon because of voter fraud in Texas and Illinois.  In an election that was decided by less than 119,000 votes, serious questions remain to this day regarding the eighty-nine percent turnout in Chicago's suburbs (Kennedy won Illinois' huge electoral prize by just 8900 votes, and won Texas with a razor-thin race due to documented cases of ballot-box stuffing).  Since then, Democrats have consistently topped the GOP with regards to fraud allegations.

The contested 2000 presidential election between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore was a question of electoral law as opposed to fraud, but the 2008 election between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama included numerous allegations of intimidation and ballot-box stuffing, especially in Ohio.  2012 saw a repeat of the problems in Ohio, with even more claims of irregularities.  In 2012, unlike 2008, Republican officials in Ohio were able to collect evidence of multiple cases of ballot-box stuffing, precinct worker intimidation, and precincts reporting one-hundred percent counts for one candidate.  The Justice Department, which has the obligation to investigate electoral fraud, announced that the allegations did not meet the threshold that would trigger a federal investigation; this decision was made before any of the evidence had been examined.    Eventually someone was convicted, but the great majority of the cases were never prosecuted.

In the run-up to the 2008 election, the national Democratic Party really got their act together.  They realized that many traditionally Democratic voters were not registered, while others were not being encouraged to vote.  Others needed assistance to reach the polling station.  Kudos to the Democrats who put together a well-organized plan to register new voters in heavily urbanized areas, and to guarantee that those voters showed up at the polls on election day.  Special emphasis was put on registering African-American citizens, who have traditionally voting for Democratic candidates over Republicans by a wide margin.  Democratic activists have expanded this effort to include Hispanic-Americans, who also traditionally support Democrats.  This nation-wide drive has had a significant impact on electoral politics.  Experts point to Virginia and Florida, both former Republican states but now leaning Democrat, as a good example of the impact of this effort.  Both states voted Democratic in 2008 and 2012.

In 2016, the Republicans finally discovered a game-changing strategy of their own, and it had everything to do with the candidates themselves.  Well-known businessman and billionaire Donald Trump announced his candidacy as a Republican, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared as a Democrat.  It would have been difficult to find two more polarizing candidates, at least as far as Republican voters were concerned.  Republicans went wild over Trump's brash style and willingness to speak his mind, even if it meant insulting his opponents.  On the other hand, the average conservative voter seems to have a special animus towards former First Lady Hillary Clinton.  Vote totals in one GOP primary after another would set a new record.  It became apparent that the number of Republican votes was bound to increase substantially, and Hillary Clinton did not inspire the same kind of excitement amongst Democrat voters.  The Democrats had no other option but to fall back on their other reliable method for increasing votes: fraud.

With just over two weeks to go before the election, reports are popping up in Virginia, North Carolina and Florida of vote tampering and other forms of electoral cheating.  Evidence of fraud has turned up in Texas, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Ohio.  To add gas to the fire, Independent Filmmaker James O'Keefe produced an undercover documentary highlighting the Clinton Campaign's efforts to train its volunteers in how to commit voter fraud.  The Clinton Campaign subsequently fired two of its campaign coordinators, but the cat was already out of the bag, folks.  This election will probably be decided by the electoral votes from one or two of the batleground states.  On that list are North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida.  Acceptance of this organized effort to steal an election is not only un-American, its criminal.  Now we understand why Democrats are so opposed to instituting a photo identification requirement at polling stations, and allegations that the Democratic Party supports amnesty as a method to increase the number of Hispanic-American voters doesn't seem so unreasonable after all.  Not only does Donald Trump have to deal with a politically-biased national media, he now must confront potentially rampant electoral fraud and a Justice Department that is determined to protect his Democratic opponent.

More evidence that efforts are underway to impact the presidential election above and beyond simple campaigning.

I had planned on taking a day off from the blog, but developments with the Wikileaks email dump obliged me to stay on the job.  Late last night a friend informed me that Julian Assange's internet access had been disrupted.  Let me give you a bit of background on Assange and Wikileaks.  Julian Assange is an Australian citizen, computer programmer by occupation, who created the organization known as Wikileaks.  Since its inception over ten years ago, Wikileaks has been dedicated to hacking into private government and business computer systems, and releasing to the public confidential information.  The organization claims no political bias, and only releases information that it decides is in the public interest.  You may recall that former U.S. Army soldier Bradley Manning was Court-Martialed for sharing Top Secret military intelligence with Assange and Wikileaks.  While Wikileaks was making a name for itself in the Bradley Manning affair, Assange found himself in "unrelated" difficulty with the Swedish police.  Two women accuse Assange of sexual assault, relating to the time period that Assange was living in Sweden.  Assange, who was in England when the accusations became public, has been hiding out at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in order to avoid extradition to Sweden to face trial.  While he has been holed up in the Embassy of Ecuador, Assange has continued to control Wikileaks.  In fact, Assange claimed that Wikileaks had hacked into Hillary Clinton's server when she was Secretary of State, and that Wikileaks intended to release these emails in October, just prior to the U.S. presidential election.

When October rolled around, and Wikileaks started releasing Clinton emails, the U.S. media was busy giving airtime and legitimacy to a string of slanderous, false stories about Donald Trump.  A number of us noted with anger the "coincidental" timing of the stories about Trump, but we also realized that the media could not distract the American public forever.  The Wikileaks emails would eventually be disseminated, and barring any unforeseen developments, the release would take place before the November election.  Imagine my surprise when I discovered Sunday night, that Assange's email access had been disconnected, just prior to the release of another batch of emails.  Wikileaks, which claims to have other methods of sharing the emails, announced that Assange's access was terminated by the government of Ecuador.  I have also read that the CIA was involved, but I doubt the varacity of that particular accusation.  I am convinced that the Obama Administration put the heat on the Ecuadorians, strongly advising them to shut down Assange's access in order to avoid an incident with the U.S. government.  We all know just how popular Barack Obama is internationally, so I doubt the effort required much arm-twisting.

You see, folks, the emails are beginning to bear fruit.  Sunday and Monday were the first two days in weeks during which I did not hear personal attacks against Donald Trump.  Instead, the news channels were unable to avoid airing details of a Wikileaks email from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office to the FBI.  In this particular email, Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy offered to make a deal with the Bureau.  According to the email, if the FBI would CHANGE the classification on some of Hillary Clinton's emails, then, quid quo pro, the State Department would lift restrictions it had placed on the presence of FBI Agents in certain sensitive countries.  First and foremost, what was offered is illegal.  Only the originator of intelligence can change its classification, and it has to be done on the actual document, not a subsequent email that may contain only a snippet of the sensitive material.  Secondly, the State Department has rules based on National Security and Diplomacy that dictates which U.S. government employees should be allowed in what country.  I can guarantee you that none of these rules includes a "quid quo pro" agreement with another government agency.

This attempt to change to classification on emails was a blatant attempt to assist Clinton in covering her tracks "after the fact".  I'm thoroughly disgusted to see State Department protocol manipulated for Clinton's personal benefit, but after what has happened with the FBI's Clinton email server investigation, I am not in the least bit surprised.  For the moment, though, I'm more concerned about the attack on Wikileaks and the interruption of Julian Assange's ability to disseminate emails.  I am keeping my fingers crossed that all this talk about a secondary and tertiary ability to disseminate isn't just bravado.  The Clinton Campaign and the Obama Administration have jumped through hoops to keep the American people from seeing these emails.  Is it possible that Wikileaks was able to download some of the missing thirty-three thousand emails before Clinton's cronies were able to have them erased?

Just in the last forty-eight hours the Trump Campaign seems to have re-energized and re-prioritized itself.  I'm confident that moderator Chris Wallace will not turn the debate into a personal attack on Trump.  I believe Wallace will keep the debate focused on the issues, which absolutely should include any new revelations derived from the Wikileaks emails.  Do not let the Democrats distract you with accusations that the Clinton server issue is a personal attack.  Hillary Clinton was a government employee when she ordered the server to be installed, and a government employee when she knowingly trafficked classified intelligence on her unclassified system.  As a government employee, she is supposed to be accountable to us.  Everytime Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was involved in a controversy, she publicly announced that as Secretary of State, she was ultimately responsible.  Then, just as soon as the press cleared out, she would put in motion efforts to blame everyone and everything, so long as she wasn't accountable.  I'm a student of U.S. political history.  I love reading about the various past presidential elections, and learning about some of the controversies that occurred.  I am beginning to believe, that when one takes into account the influence peddling between her State Department and the Clinton Foundation, the lies of the Benghazi tragedy, and the outright "priveleged" gall of the email server issue, that Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt nominee to ever get this close to the White House.

Trump denies allegations of innapropriate behavior and identifies the mainstream media as being in collution with the Clinton Campaign.

I'm relieved to see the Trump Team responding aggressively to last week's slew of allegations.  In all, seven women came forward to accuse Donald Trump of innappropriate behavior in unrelated incidents covering a thirty-year time span.  A simple background review identifies at least four of the women as being actively involved with Democratic politics and another as being a donor to the Clinton Campaign.  Unfortunately, it's not possible to erase all the exposure which was allocated to these stories.  It would be like trying to return a fart to its originating location, and asking folks to forget the smell.  The most important question we should be asking ourselves, is what was accomplished by this circus?  Sadly, some voters who may have been undecided will assume that where there is smoke, there is fire, and conclude that Donald Trump is not qualified to be President.  What else was was achieved with this well-organized, false, slanderous attack?

As NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, the Wahington Post and the NY Times were running the allegations on a loop, the Wikileaks organization was releasing more emails from John Podesta, the Chairman of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.  Podesta had previously served as Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton and as a "Counselor" to President Obama.  The Clinton Campaign and its allies in the media knew in advance, as we all did, that Wikileaks would be releasing emails this week.  More emails will be made available over the next few weeks, but what has already been examined should have been the main story on all the evening news broadcasts.  We are discovering why the Obama Administration was so anxious to assist Hillary Clinton in avoiding prosecution.  Emails between Podesta and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills remind us that President Obama was also sending emails over unclassified systems.  If Hillary goes down, then Obama mght be called to task as well.  The emails provide a glimpse into the activities of the Obama White House vis-a-vis the unfolding Clinton email controversy, and reveal collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Obama Justice Department that demand a Special Prosecutor.

The American people were basically kept in the dark about the latest chapter in the email saga.  Again, thank goodness for Fox News, the only mainstream news resource that instead of strict editorializing, actually presents both sides to controversial issues.  But one against seven are tough odds, even for Megyn Kelly, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Wallace and crew.  Last Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday were all about the "locker room talk" video, and since then its been a steady stream of allegations, with not a hint of journalistic imtegrity present.  Are these the issues that the press keeps telling us that we should be demanding of the candidates?  Hillary Clinton's email scandal is an issue that should be discussed, as are her actions as Secretary of State.  The allegation of a Democratic activist who claims that, thirty years prior Donald Trump lifted the armrest on her first-class plane seat to grab her breast, isn't.  Within seconds I knew this accusation was questionable, because I have flown enough to know that first-class seats have never had moveable armrests.  These allegations are so absurd (one claims innapropriate behavior by Trump at a concert that never even took place) that they wouldn't have survived any decent journalist's smell test.

We have not seen the last of the Wikileaks document dump.  Rumor has it that we will be hearing about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's efforts to find foreign donors for the Clinton Foundation.  We can also expect more details regarding Bill Clinton's "coincidental" meeting with Justice Department boss Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac in Phoenix ("we spent forty minutes discussing our grandkids"...my quoatations).  There is no doubt in my mind that a Quid Quo Pro agreement was discussed between Lynch and Bill, that would ensure no prosecution and the continuation of Lynch's job in a Hillary Clinton Administration.  I just can't accept that Bill Clinton is so stupid that he would have taken the chance to meet with Lynch in this manner (they were almost able to keep the meeting secret) unless something truly important was at stake.  Keeping Hillary Clinton from being prosecuted is very, very important to these folks.  What Hillary Clinton did was against the law.  You cannot knowingly create a method of communication that puts the confidentiality of classified imtelligence at risk.  She wanted to have her cake and eat it too.  The fact that she ordered the destruction of all thirteen of her Blackberries and Cellphones is criminal.  Those devices belong to the American people, and at the time of their destruction, the investigation, in one form or another, had begun.  Destroying devices and bleaching hard drives has one purpose: to cover up evidence.  In this case, I'm sure some of the missing thirty-three thousand emails are involved.

The media has no qualms about agressively disseminating false accusations against Donald Trump; of this we are aware.  Be prepared for a daily dose of this garbage.  We will do our part by ignoring the media and encouraging our family and friends to vote Republican.  The Trump Campaign must also do it's part.  Someone has to get Donald in line.  You can't respond to false accusations of sexual misconduct by inferring that the reason the allegations are false is because Trump would never have approached such ugly women.  Monitoring his Twitter feed would also help.  It's going to be a very rough ride, folks, but we must do whatever we can to bring change to DC.  I will take an ill-mannered businessman with the right ideas on any day, over a corrupt, life-long politician with Marxist sympathies.

A few observations on polling.

Once political season rolls around, their is no way to avoid the non-stop polling.  We are currently less than a month away from the most important election in our political cycle, one month from knowing if we will have a President Hillary Clinton or a President Donald Trump.  We also have other elections taking place simultaneously, which will decide the makeup of the next Congress.  One group of organizations that have grown fat in recent years because of politicking are the polling companies.  Not long ago, most Americans would be lucky to recognize three separate pollsters, but lately, the media has decided that the American people just can't get enough of polls.  I can count at least twenty companies right off the top of my head.  Granted, pollsters collect and analyze data about far more than just political opinion; but in today's hotly contested electoral environment, the money is in the current campaigns that are coming to a close in early November.

Campaigns utilize polling information to determine candidate weaknesses and strengths.  They are also useful to help campaigns decide where and when to spend advertising resources.  Why would a candidate continue to buy airtime in a state in which he/she trails by twenty percentage points, when other states are much more competitive.  For instance, Donald Trump isn't spending money in California and Hillary Clinton has no ads running in Kansas.  But polls are also used to manipulate perceptions.  You see, polling organizations are inexorably tied to the big media corporations.  Many broadcasting companies, including Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN all have their own polling capabilities.  Sometimes they work in tandem with newspapers, for example Fox News/Wall Street Journal Poll, and the CBS/NY Times Poll.  It should come as no surpirse that polls have become a major weapon in national politics.  Lets take a look at how it works:

Its possible to manipulate people with the framing of the polling questions, but in this instance, lets keep it simple.  The question is, if the Presidential Election were held today, and you had to choose between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, for whom would you vote?  As the poll is constructed, the sample must be created.  Polls are scientific, so people can't just be called randomly.  you must first create a sample.  How many Republicans are you going to include, and how many Democrats? How many Independents?  What percentage of males and females?  If you chose to structure your poll by picking a specific percetnage of African-Americans, or Asian-Americans, you can certainly impact the end result.  How you structure your polling sample is called the methodology.

When it comes to polls, it always benefits to read the small words at the end of the survey results. This is where they usually hide their methodology.  For example, you may discover that the sample included 39% Democrat,  30% Republican, 5% Independent, and the rest "no affiliation".  Common sense tells you that the Democratic candidate has a big advantage because more Democrats participated.  Believe it or not, I took this particular sampling example from a major poll published this week and broadcast on every news channel.  Surprise, surprise, Hillary Clinton has a big lead.  The pollsters will justify their methods by arguing that their sampling is in line with the "latest" information regarding what percentage of the electorate is Republican or Democrat.  If the country is 39% Democrat and 30% Republican, then it only makes sense that hou would use the same percentages in your sampling.  The problem is, the percentage fluctuates dramatically, not only nationally, but locally.  And if you are polling for the state of Ohio, wouldn't make sense to try and determine the percentages of Republicans and Democrats in Ohio, instead of defaulting to the perceived national figures?

To sum it up, don't think too much about poll numbers.  Back in 2012, we were told that Romney was going to win a close election.  Romney lost, and it wasn't really close.  Not only are polls subject to manipulation, they can be innaccurate for a host of other reasons.  Sometimes people get annoyed when their dinner is interruptd by a phone call, and they lie.  Other times, people don't understand the process.  Our recent political history, going back to the famous "Dewey vs. Truman" election in 1948, is replete with examples of polls that produced results different from the actual election.  This particular Presidential election is a hard one to handicap.  Although everything appears to be falling Clinton's way (including the polls), there continues to be that feeling in the back of my mind, that we are in for a big surprise.  Trump voters are angry and motivated- they will flock to the voting booths.  The Clinton voter continues to be less-than inspired.  Also, I think its safe to assume that we haven't heard the last about Wikileaks emails, imvestigations, and the extra-curricular activity of former President Bill Clinton.  So don't take the daily deluge of polling information too seriously.  Unless, of course, the figures point to a Trump victory.  😉

Media bias- just how bad is it?

All of my adult life, at least the years during which I have been politically aware, I have noticed a definite bias in the media.  I am amazed when I hear folks denying this reality, or worse, criticizing Fox News for providing a Conservative perspective to current events.  Not a day goes by that I don't acknowledge my appreciation for both Fox News and the Drudge Report.  The playing field is not equal by any stretch of the imagination, but at least someone of my political persuasion is willing to put up a fight.  Frequently, though, I am reminded of just how powerful the liberal media has become.  The first Presidential Debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump provided just such a reminder.  Not surprisingly, the moderator feigned complete neutrality, and then proceeded to ambush Trump with questions about a former Ms. Universe Pageant contestant.  I expected the moderator to discuss Trump's income taxes and also his comments regarding the Obama birth certificate comtroversy.  It would only make sense, considering the Clinton email server issue and the controversy regarding influence peddling and the Clinton Foundation would surely be mentioed.  I was mistaken.  I can only assume that the first debate was meant to focus on sensitive Trump developments, and that the second debate would introduce Hillary's trouble issues; time will tell.

Today the Washington Post released a video clip of Donald Trump making some less-than proper comments regarding women during a conversation with journalist Billy Bush.  Trump was obviously not aware that he was being filmed at the time.  His commentary was very similar to the type of banter I hear frequently when groups of men get together and the subject of women is introduced.  Regardless, it isn't pretty, and Trump's apology was appropriate and appeared sincere.  Of course, we will never hear the end of this latest snafu, because the media believes that they have found the torpedo that will sink the Trump campaign once and for all.  Maybe they have, but it certainly won't deflect me from making some simple observations.  First and foremost, I would to know how long the Post has been in possession of this video, and what motivated the decision to air it now, roughly three weeks before the election.  I have a sneaky suspicion that the Post was in possession, or at least aware of, the video during the Republican Primaries.  Is it off-base to conjecture that the Washington Post held on to this embarrassing bit of tape during the Primaries because the Democratic establishment wanted Trump to win the nomination, giving them the opportunity to use all the goodies that they had collected and put away for future use?  I bet the press was aware of the former Ms. Universe early-on as well.  After Donald Trump won the nomination, the mainstream media was beside itself with the belief that, just as in 2008 and 2012, they had manipulated negative stories on the various candidates in order to "pick" the GOP nominee.  Its not as far-fetched as you might think.  I can't be the only Republican voter who is left confused and frustrated by the recent string of flawed GOP nominees.

What has me truly angry, though, is not possible manipulation by the Press, or even the obvious bias with which Conservative candidates are obliged to accept.  What really gives me a case of the Texas Red-Ass is the hypocrisy of the Media and the Washington Post in particular.  For those of you who are old enough to remember Bill Clinton's Administration, it must be just as easy for you as it is for me to recall some of the more unpleasant details of President Clinton's seduction of White House intern Monica Lewinsky.  Lots to remember here, folks, imcludimg the lie, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"......., and the perjury committed in the Paula Jones deposition.  And then there was the cigar, and the stained dress, and the fact that Lewinsky was not only a subordinate of Clinton, she was also a very young woman, in her early twenties.  Where is the hypocrisy, you ask?  When the Lewinsky saga was unfolding, the mainstream Media led the charge to declare the enter controversy "a personal matter" and "nobody's business" (my quotations).  The Post was out-front in scolding Americans for turning a private issue into a political weapon.  Isn't that exactly what the Washington Post is doing now?  Don't kid yourself- the Democrats and the Clinton Campaign aren't shocked and disturbed by the video clip.  They are thrilled, and no doubt they believe Trump won't be able to recover from this scandal.  I can only hope that the American people will see this for what it is, a private moment of conversation that should never have been exploited in this way, regardless of the content of the discussion.  The Washington Post has gone so far as to release a transcript of the video clip.  I don't need to read the transcript.  It makes no difference to me what Trump said to a friend in a private conversation that had nothing to do with government business.  Hillary Clinton's problems, on the other hand, have everything to do with her behavior as a US Government employee.  I'm also much more comfortable with a lewd Donald Trump in the White House, than a return trip for Bill Clinton in any incarnation.  I believe the man is a sexual predator and I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

Keeping it short and simple- a post-debate reminder why I'm voting for Donald Trump.

I spent a good part of tonight's Presidntial Debate trying to understand why someone with Donald Trump's public exposure and profile seems to have the communication skills of a High School sophomore.  He has real difficulty staying on topic and finishing points.  My friend Jennifer refers to it as talking in "verbal circles", and I think that she has found a great description.  That being said, I am able to clearly identitfy what Trump supports and what issues will be a priority should he win this election.  This debate only served to solidify my support for Trump and my absolute opposition to Hillary Clinton.

Trump identifies the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, as the worst trade legislation that our nation has ever enacted, and he's right.  NAFTA serves to strengthen the economies of Latin America on the back of U.S. workers.  Trump boldly announced that any nation who unfairly taxes our products, is going to be met with the same taxes on this side of the border.  Are you listening, Mexico, China, Vietnam, South Korea and Taiwan?  The EU will be obliged to revisit some of our Trade Agreements as well.  Just because the international community like to encourage the perception that Americans are all filthy rich, and that citizens of the United States unfairly consume most of the world's resources, is no reason for us to regularly enter into unbalanced, damaging Trade Agreements.

Trump promises to curtail useless, unnecessary, and crippling regulations on industry and on businesses.  Democrat Administrations love regulation.  They seem to always make the assumption that any regulation will help save animals, clean the water and clear the air.  Unnecessary regulations financially impact a business owner's ability to expand his workspace and hire more employees.  But the real reason I believe Trump will be successful is his plan to provide a tax break to the job creators in this country- the large, medium, and small business owners.  In order to grow businesses, you have to let the people keep more of their money.  They are capitalists; they will invest any additional tax savings back into our moribund economy.  That's a guarantee you can take to the bank.  Meanwhile, all we get from Hillary is more of the same Democratic argument that the government should be in charge of creating jobs.  A simple review of basic economics illustrates that governments have always been terrible at job creation.

Trump will discourage the continued existence of sanctuary cities, which is part of his effort to re-introduce respect for the rule of law.  Persons who are considering breaking U.S. law by trying to enter our nation illegally, should not have certain destination cities already circled on the map.  We need a President who will put the backbone back into our Immigration Laws.  Americans are only as secure as our international border.  We can't reward people for breaking the law, while hundreds of thousands of people fill out the paperwork and wait patiently (and legally) for their opportunity.

Trump intends to destroy ISIS, a worthy goal that should have been accomplished some time ago.  Trump will rebiild our military, and put Veterans at the front of the line for school financial aid, home financing, and medical care.  Trump will clean out the State Department and remove all of the Clinton apologists and America-haters that have sadly taken root at Foggy Bottom.

During the debate, Clinton came across as just another politician, providing the audience with all these great ideas that I guess never came to mind during her six years as a Congresswoman who never authored any legislation.  She had the gall to bring up the "Birther Lie", reflecting on Trump's past support for finding real answers to the Obama birth certificate controversy.  Lie is a special word in Clinton's world.  She lied about the cause of the Benghazi tragedy, because of her refusal to say "Islamic Terrorists", she lied anout having never received classified emails on her "illegal server", and she lied when she said that "a wall" would exist between her State Department and her husband's Foundation.  We now know that fifty-five percent of the lucky folks who received an interview with Secretary of State Clinton, left her office and ran to make a donation to the Clinton Foundation.  I wonder why?  And that wall proved invisible on a number of other occasions, including when Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, both high-placed members of her State Department Staff, did work for the Clinton Foundation while collecting a USG check from the State Department.  Are you comfortable with her support for the nuclear give-away Treaty with Iran?  Where was the benefit in that?  What about the ransom paid for the release of U.S. hostages?  If Iran should be trusted with a Nuclear Treaty, can't they be depended upon to release innocent U.S. citizens from Iranian jails without a ransom of billions of dollars?  And if you need anymore examples of Hillary's foreign policy mistakes, take a look at the New Start ballistic missile reduction Treaty she signed with none-other than Lucifer himself, Vladimir Putin, back in 2010.

I keep hoping that Donald Trump will develop a more effective speaking style, but I don't think its going to happen.  So I'm left to dig through the issues, in order to determine who is the best candidate for President in 2016.  Fortunately, it didn't take very long.

Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of our Republic.

I can't help but be amazed every time I hear a Clinton supporter brag about HRC having been Secretary of State for the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2013.  No doubt, Hillary was awarded the position because of her efforts to campaign and raise money for Obama following his trouncing of her in the 2008 Democratic Primary.  The Democrats formulated this plan for Hillary to "muscle-up" her foreign policy gravitas as Secretary of State, in order to be a much more attractive candidate for the Presidency in 2016.  It hasn't turned out exactly as planned.  Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State our nation has witnessed.  I welcome the opportunity to debate this point with anyone, mostly because the evidence for my claim is knee-deep.  But the Democrats continue to talk about Hillary's great tenure at the State Department, as if by repeating the lie, it will somehow become the truth.  Lets start from the beginning.

Hillary Clinton announced her intention to rebuild our relationship with Russia.  During her initial meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, she brought along a prop: a board with a red button attached.  This pantomime was intended to illustrate " a re-setting" in the relationship.  Not long afterwards, Hillary spearheaded negotiations on the New Start Treaty (NST).  The NST had as its goal a reduction in nuclear arms for both the United States and Russia.  Under the terms of the treaty, the number of nuclear missile launchers was to be reduced by half, and a new inspection and verification regime was to be established.  In reality, the treaty resulted in a significant reduction in America's nuclear weapon capacity, but didn't impact Russia's.  Russia continues to maintain a 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which for some reason, are not counted in the treaty!  Its the type of agreement that the Obama Administration just can't stay away from- the United States gives up the store in exchange for NOTHING.  This treaty has HRC's fingerprints all over it.  For some time she spoke of the signing of the treaty as "a moment of personal pride".  Interestingly, we never hear about the treaty anymore.  I don't think it was mentioned at all in the Democratic National Convention.  I'm very disappointed that the Trump campaign hasn't brought it up, but with so much already to pick at, I guess I understand.

Let's get the Foundation out of the way.  Hillary Clinton assured the Obama Administration that there would be no crossover between her husband former President Bill Clinton's billion-dollar Foundation, and the United States State Department.  Obama could have taken that assurance and flushed it down the toilet.  Members of HRC's personal staff continued to do work for the Foundation while collecting a State Department paycheck (Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills), and fifty-five percent of persons who obtained a personal interview with Secretary Clinton, turned around and donated to the Foundation.  Evidence already exists that Hillary went to bat for some of these donors.  Its called "Influence Peddling" and its supposed to be against the law.  By the way, is anyone actually aware of something tangible that has been accomplished by this Foundation, aside from providing lucrative jobs to members of the extended Clinton network?

At about the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo and apologizing for U.S. behavior in the Middle East, a serious storm was brewing.  Our intelligence agencies were reporting on alarming developments in some of the normally stable Arab countries like Tunisia and Egypt.  Young people were joining political groups and protesting in the streets, demanding change.  As this movement grew, it became known as the Arab Spring.  This event took form and exploded while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  The government of Tunisia, a key ally in the war on Terror, was removed from office as we watched on CNN and Fox News.  Egypt was next, as huge crowds of people from all segments of the population, demanded a more equitable system under which to live.  It was an ideal opportunity for the United States to position itself as a supporter of change, which would have accomplished a lot more than Obama's apology tour.  Instead, our diplomats were constantly caught wrong-footed.  Instead of being proactionary, our State Department was forced to be reactionary.  The Administration pointed out that it was caught off-guard; why, when the intelligence was pouring in that these events were destined to occur?

In 2010, with the full support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration precipitously evacuated American troops from Iraq.  The Department of Defense had an agreement in place with the Iraqi government to train the Iraqi Armed Forces.  This agreement meant nothing to the Oval Office.  These events were observed by ISIS, which had positioned itself in Syria and reconstituted its ability to conduct conventional warfare.  As soon as our troops started departing, ISIS invaded.  The untrained Iraqi Army was no match on the battlefield to the ISIS fighters, who cut their teeth in the Syrian Civil War.  Soon, all of the gains that had been earned with the lives of so many young U.S. men and women, disappeared.  Our influence in this strategic part of the world also waned, as the Iranians moved into the void, providing advisors and volunteers to fight alongside the Iraqi Army.  Why was it necessary to pull out of Iraq so quickly in 2010, when it wasn't in 2009?  Because of politics, folks.  The Obama Administration needed to shore up its base before mid-term elections, and the base was pissed off because Obama had yet to fulfill his campaign promise to pull troops out of Iraq.  Secretary of State Clinton should have had the foresight to advice Obama to act a bit more patiently, but she didn't.  ISIS now controls almost one-third of Iraq.

What occured in Benghazi was a tragedy.  The State Department, trying to make up for lost time, was putting its diplomats in dangerous locations in order to stay on top of an evolving environment.  Ambassador Christopher Stephens, who was our diplomatic representative to whatever Libyan government was in power from week-to-week, did not have adequate security, and once everything went to hell, the greatest military in the world was unable to rescue its people or provide reinforcements.  There appears to have been some concern on behalf of the State Department regarding the necessity to not offend the Libyans.  Is it true that the Obama Administration waited for "permission" to rescue its people?  We will probably never know the truth regarding the events of that night, but one fact is certain: four brave Americans died.  Hillary Clinton repeatedly publicly accepted responsibility for what occured, then spent the next few months explaining how everything was someone else's fault.  We would have been satisfied with something like this: "Four brave Americans died last night in a terrorist attack on a State Department facility in Benghazi, Libya.  I accept full responsibility for the tragic loss of these young men, and I ask you, as we mourn with and support the families of those who were lost, to work with us to make sure something like this never happens again".  Sadly, instead it was all about finger-pointing about anti-Muslim video tapes and politics, politics, politics.

Aside from the whoppers that I've just detailed, I have yet to hear the Clinton camp explain to us just what she did accomplish as Secretary of State?  Get back to me of you come up with something.

Hillary Clinton avoids accountability for violating State Department security policy; where do we go from here?

For some time I have been dreading the obligation to address what should be the final chapter in Hillary Clinton's State Department email server/security violations.  For weeks I have been writing about the unlikelihood of an indictment; yesterday's announcement by FBI Director James Comey was expected.  What was unexpected was my personal, emotional reaction.  I feel more sad and disenchanted than angry.  If Comey had simply made the announcement, I probably would have put together an angry, three paragraph blog post, reviewing  for the umpteenth time Hillary Clinton's ability to escape any and all retribution.  Instead, before announcing that no charges were to be brought against HRC, Comey carefully and patiently detailed the reasons why Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted.  As if this weren't painful enough, Comey ended his comments by warning anyone who might be tempted to repeat Clinton's security violations, that the Justice Department would pursue criminal charges.  For the level-headed people that I know who watched the announcement, these few sentences in Comey's presentation were the most bizarre.  How can the Director of the FBI publicly announce that Clinton "had no criminal intent" and that "no prosecutor would take on this case", then clearly threaten anyone who takes the same actions with criminal prosecution?

No doubt I'm not the only United States citizen who feels as if with this ruling, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated to the cashier at a donut shop in Fresno, and to the Jiffy Lube grease monkey in St. Paul, Minnesota, that she lives under a different set of rules than ninety-nine percent of us.  To the teacher in Harlan, Kentucky, and the Police Officer in Miami, its time to accept the reality that Bill and Hillary Clinton are members of some very special, elite group of Americans who understand the importance of laws only as they apply to others.  This morning, while channel-surfing the various left-wing talk shows on my satellite radio, The Clinton talking points were clearer than ever.  The goal is to play up Comey's comment that Clinton had no criminal intent when instructing her staff to install a separate, personal email server.  I heard it this morning ad-nauseam.  Sandra Bernhard (yes, she lives) went so far as to describe Hillary's e-mails, the emails the FBI has been collecting, as being innocuous communications about the color of dresses.  Talking points or no, lets make this absolutely clear: Hillary Clinton transmitted classified emails on an uncleared, private server, not just six or seven times, but repeatedly.  She was warned on at least two occasions that her email server was operating in violation of State Department security protocols.  The real victims in this mess are the soldiers, airmen and sailors who were found guilty of very similar (or less-egregious) security violations and were kicked out of the military and in some cases, given a jail sentence.  In fact, Fox News has been repeating a story involving a young serviceman who obviously didn't intend to commit a security violation, who is currently being prosecuted by the Justice Department.  I will be watching Fox News Thursday morning to see just how serious the GOP Congress is on this issue when they interview FBI Director Comey.

For those in the Clinton Camp, getting past this headache without charges being levelled, was the last of the major obstacles Clinton had to overcome.  Today, President Obama put down his Golf Clubs long enough to attend a Clinton Rally.  The Clinton crowd was worked up into quite a frenzy, as they must also believe that any and all trap-doors have been removed from Clinton's path to the Presidency.  What do you think?  Interestingly enough, a handful of independent voters I know who were bound-and-determined to not vote for Donald Trump, have apparently changed their minds.  They realize that this election is more about getting this nation back on the right track than it is trying to decide which candidate is the lesser "evil".  Each and every voter should take a fair, serious look at the state of the nation; are we on the right track internationally?  Are we doing what is necessary to keep our families safe from terrorism?  Which candidate is more likely to increase the twenty-trillion dollar national debt?  I've answered these questions to my satisfaction; have you?

Democrats on Sunday talk shows all seem to be aware of the Justice Dept. decision regarding Hillary Clinton's email server.

This morning watched as one Democrat after another, from California Representative Xavier Becerra to New Jersey Senator Corey Booker, took their turns on the various Sunday talk shows.  Just about every member of Hillary Clinton's Vice Presidential short list was doing their duty, spouting-off Democratic talking points (the only VP candidate missing was Elizabeth Warren) on NBC's "Meet the Press", CNN's "State of the Union", and ABC 's "This Week".  At the top of the list of Talking Points was an announcement that Hillary Clinton would not be censured in any way for the personal email server that she used during her time as the Obama Administration's Secretary of State.  Don't misunderstand; Booker and Becerra did not provide any substantiating evidence to their declarations, but both made it apparent that the Justice Department "review" was coming to a close very soon (this week?) and every reasonable person "knew" that Clinton would not face any punishment for what was obviously just another example of dirty politics on behalf of the GOP.

I don't know how many of you were able to see the parade of Democratic political hacks this morning, but I can assure you, each one of those men had been informed beforehand that candidate Clinton was in the clear.  This explains the ease in which they announced that for all "reasonable persons" (quotations mine), there was no question that Clinton would avoid accountability once again.  As I commented in yesterday's blog post, the issue of an actual indictment was decided long ago, probably in November 2008, when Obama was elected to his first term in office.  Obama and his team arrived in DC with a plan to politicize the federal government in a way that would guarantee his Administration would never have to face accountability.  Let's face it; Bill Clinton, who is beginning to resemble a rodeo clown, needn't have bothered Attorney General Lynch last week.  Lynch's Justice Department never gave serious consideration to indicting Hillary Clinton.  For anyone interested, make no mistake.  Prior to this corrupt Administration, any government employee who flaunted computer security protocol in this manner would have been terminated and possibly prosecuted, depending on the existence of evidence proving that actions taken resulted in a foreign power to hack into a government server.

I'd resigned myself to the fact that Hillary will once again not be held accountable for her actions some time ago.  What caused so much aggravation Sunday morning was the smug, elitist manner in which the Democrat talking-heads referred to the apparent unlikelihood of an indictment.  This Administration has become so drunk on its own image, that it doesn't feel the need for discretion.  The chutzpah of any average citizens out there to think that Hillary Clinton was judged by the same rules that govern our lives!

I saw something on television today; a replay of the outstanding and heartbreaking Fox News special on the 2012 Benghazi tragedy.  This program reminded me of the many young men and women who serve our nation in the Armed Forces, putting their lives in jeopardy every day.  I often think about the four men that died that night, about their families, and what amazing young men they were.  Then I find myself thinking about Hillary Clinton.  This woman has been running for President since the year 2000, when her husband reluctantly surrendered the Oval Office to President-Elect Bush.  I think about the one characteristic that makes Hillary so disagreeable to me.  She is convinced that the United States can't succeed without her in the White House.  The fact that her ego has no limits allows her to justify so much bullshit with a straight face, because she believes her own spin. If Hillary Clinton had defeated Barrack Obama in 2008 and gone on to beat Senator John McCain, she would have made a better President than Obama.  I don't believe that Hillary, with her background in law and experience with the Nixon impeachment, would have been so quick to abuse Executive Action, and I also believe she would have made an effort to reign in the national debt.  But make no mistake, Hillary intend on being President in 2016, and 2008 no longer registers.  Hillary recognizes the changes that Obama has delivered, and as a Democrat, she will toss out her natural inclination to be a moderate and embrace every entitlement program she can find.  I see the polls, and I hear CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NPR, and CNBC bashing Donald Trump from morning until night.  I realize that Trump is the candidate that they wanted, and that everything is proceeding according to their plan.  But I will continue to support Donald Trump, and I encourage every Patriot to wipe the slate clean with Donald, and give him another shot.  The thought of President Hillary Clinton in my lifetime, four years after the ultimate sacrifice made by the four heroes of Benghazi, brings tears to my eyes.

There is absolutely no chance that the Obama Justice Department will indict Hillary Clinton.

For the past few days, ever since Hillary Clinton spoke with FBI investigators, I've observed one political analyst after another discuss the implications of Clinton being indicted.  For the entirity of the 2016 presidential primary season, the controversy regarding Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server has never been far from the headlines.  There can be no doubt that Clinton violated Department of State security policy, but some politicians always seem to swim in a different pond than the rest of us.  I have no hesitation in identifying both Bill and Hillary Clinton as two exceptional "fish", who in forty plus years of political service have yet to be held accountable for any mess that they have caused or law that they have broken.  As for the analysts who keep reminding us ad nauseam that Barack Obama is the most popular president since George Washington, I do understand the obligation to at least "pretend" that the email server investigative process is not a complete waste of time.  As Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton sets their sights on separate conventions, the drama and suspense created by the possibility of a major presidential candidate facing an indictment will only increase viewer interest in the 2016 election.  In all seriousness, though, I'm compelled to ask a rhetorical question: does anyone in the United States with the ability to reason at least as well as a housefly, actually believe that the Obama Justice Department will indict Hillary Clinton?

Since Bill Clinton burst onto the scene as Governor of Arkansas in 1978, he and his wife have had their share of controversies.  When she was an attorney at the Little Rock Rose Law Firm, Hillary attracted attention with her involvement in the Whitewater real estate deal, and her behind-the-scenes maneuvering to get the White House travel office fired and replaced with personal friends just after Clinton took office in 1992 caused a bit of a stir.  As for Bill, we all remember the Lewinsky affair, but what about Paula Jones?  Kathleen Willey?  Does Juanita Broaddrick ring a bell?  During Bill Clinton's second term, his association with known money launderers for the Chinese Red Army caused a few raised eyebrows.  Over the years, both Bill and Hillary have associated with campaign donors who end up either in jail or deported.  Forgive me for not getting into the trenches of more recent controversies, including concerns over the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's vote in support of the Iraq War, and the apparently never-ending issues regarding campaign donations, but I have faith that most of these events will already be familiar.

I have listed but a handful of issues that come to mind.  No doubt the list could be expanded with little effort, but I think I have included a sufficient number of incidents to make my point.  At no time have the Clintons ever been held to account.  Hillary Clinton seriously damaged the lives and reputations of the White House travel office employees in 1993.....no accountability.  She claimed that as Secretary of State, she accepted responsibility for the Benghazi tragedy.  Really?  How?  Bill and Hillary's involvement with persons who are known to be donors who purchase influence for the Chinese Red Army.......no accountability.  Bill Clinton maneuvers himself into a meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, when the Attorney General at that time happens to be in charge of investigations not only into Hillary's personal server and email, but also Bill and Hillary's "Clinton Foundation".  We have yet to discover if Bill's decision to "hop on over" to the AG's plane will have any lasting negative ramifications, but I doubt it.

At the end of the day, this is a reality we must accept.  Bill and Hillary Clinton live by a different set of rules.  If you have some faith left in our system, that Hillary Clinton will be held responsible for KNOWINGLY violating State Department security protocols, please think again.  Remember who sits in the White House, and just how accountable his Administration has been since 2008.  He will not allow Hillary Clinton to be indicted, regardless of the opinions of the lawyers and experts, and there can be no doubt that Lynch will ensure compliance from the Justice Department.  There is hope, though, that enough people will be enraged to keep the Clintons from another eight-year romp in the White House.  So you don't like Trump?  Take a good, long look at the alternative.

Bill Clinton coincidentally "bumps into" Attorney General Lynch.

My intention today was to continue my series on Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State for the Obama Administration, but candidate Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, has caused an interruption in my carefully planned schedule.  If the news hasn't reached your neck of the woods just yet, Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch had an impromptu meeting aboard Lynch's plane at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport.  It's apparent that AG Lynch was not expecting the meeting, but you'll have to excuse me if I'm not so quick to believe that Bill Clinton's appearance was "impromptu".  For whatever reason, Clinton intended the meeting to be under the radar, and the few journalists who were in the vicinity were ordered  not to take any photographs.  Bill Clinton is a former President, and Loretta Lynch is the current Attorney General; why would a discreet, unscheduled meeting between the two raise any eyebrows?

Here are the reasons why this meeting should never have taken place.  Hillary Clinton, Bill's wife and the Democratic nominee for President in 2016 (in all probability), is being investigated by Lynch's Department of Justice and the FBI.  when Hillary was Secretary of State for the Obama Administration back in 2010, she ordered that a separate email server should be located in her home, so that she could ensure better control over personal conversations and information.  Unfortunately, this server was not limited to transmitting personal information about the color of underwear the Secretary wanted to wear on any given day.  A review of the thousands of emails that were sent on this server include classified information.  Simply put, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton purposely mishandled sensitive information.  The docking of her server to the State Department system also opened up Foggy Bottom to hacking.  Once this story began to develop, Congress smelled a political opportunity, so at least two investigations were scheduled.  The investigations have resulted in a few cases of "pleading the fifth" and what would appear to be serious obfuscation.  I can't remember the last time that a Congressional Investigation achieved anything more than putting most of the eastern seaboard to sleep; but the politicians muddle through, and after wiping away all the political distractions, it does appear as if Hillary Clinton purposely attempted to subvert State Department security procedures.  If the FBI recommends that Hillary Clinton be indicted, Loretta Lynch will make the final decision.  When questioned, both Clinton and Lynch claim that their conversation was strictly related to personal matters.  At this point, I'm not prepared to call anyone a liar, but I don't think it really makes a difference.  Regardless of the topic of conversation, the meeting was inappropriate in the extreme, and not just because of the ongoing investigation into Hillary Clinton's personal server.

In fact, from my optic, the server is actually a small fry compared to the other issue being "examined".  The huge, influential international beast we all know as "The Clinton Foundation" has also drawn the attention of federal investigators.  Do you recall roughly ten years ago when Hillary Clinton claimed poverty on behalf of her family?  If my memory serves me correctly, the Clintons had no money because they had to pay legal fees for countless politically motivated court cases and also put Chelsea through college.  A quick glance at the bottom line tells me that Bill and Hillary no longer have any financial concerns.  Hillary can get as much as $225,000 per speech, and no doubt Bill gets more.  The Clinton Foundation really has no connection to the Clinton bank account, at least none that we can find.  As self-defined, the Foundation simply assists in connecting donors to appropriate charity and aid programs.  Who decides how the money is spent?  Is there a black list of governments and persons who are not allowed to donate to the Foundation?  One of the reasons that the Foundation has started to draw so much attention seems to be its willingness to take money from questionable donors.  Just about every Arab sheikdom has donated money to the Foundation, and why not?  Bill Clinton continues to cultivate contacts he made as President, especially in China and the Persian Gulf.  The problem is, the Clintons are strong supporters of the LGBT community.  The above-mentioned nations are not.  In fact, in most of the Gulf States, homosexuality carries the death penalty.  Similar discrepancies, along with a number of questionable tax issues, have put the spotlight on the Foundation.  In fact, the Justice Department has been looking into some of these concerns. And here comes friendly ol' Bill Clinton knockin' on your door.

With both the Clinton Foundation and his wife under the scrutiny of the Justice Department, Bill Clinton should have stayed as far away as possible from the Attorney General.  In fact, he did just the opposite.  Was Bill Clinton hoping to have a chummy little chat with a fellow Democrat that would help calm any fears in the Clinton for President camp regarding the possibility of an indictment?  This was a terrible mistake by Bill Clinton, even though Attorney General Lynch has publicly announced that she will accept whatever recommendation is made regarding Hillary Clinton and her server.  If the FBI does not recommend an indictment, conservatives across the board will point to the Phoenix meeting, arguing reasonably that just because Lynch doesn't overly make the decision herself, it would have been simple for her to reach out to her "team" at the FBI and influence its decision.  Let's face it, when has a Democrat ever said no to Bill Clinton?  As for the Foundation, everything about this entity bothers me, so I need to do a bit of homework before I comment further. 

What this election needs is an honest assessment of candidate Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy record.

Since Donald Trump trounced his GOP primary opposition and became the apparent Republican nominee for President, the media has not missed an opportunity to point out that Trump has no foreign policy record or experience to gauge.  No doubt Trump's grasp on foreign policy will be challenged often on the campaign trail by both his opponent and the press, and this is as it should be; the voter deserves to see both candidates undergo a thorough vetting process not just in foreign policy, but in a handful of tremendously important subjects.  With very little journalistic effort and probably no homework, the media has already decided that the issue of foreign policy and international diplomatic experience is a huge winner for Hillary Clinton, who served for twelve years as a United States Senator and four years as Secretary of State.  Let's take a look at candidate Clinton's foreign policy record during her years as a Civil Servant and see if we agree.

Hillary Clinton served in the United States Senate from January 2, 2001 until January 21, 2009.  During this time period, Senator Clinton took a number of international trips as part of her job, but no legislation was introduced or supported by Senator Clinton that has left a profound "foreign policy" impact.  Being a well-known personality and a leader in her party, Senator Clinton did not hesitate to comment on foreign policy issues, saving her most critical comments for the George W. Bush Administration.  You may recall that when the Bush Administration requested Congressional Approval for military action against Iraq, Democrat Senators and Representatives were put on the spot.  September 11 was still fresh on the mind of Americans, and politicians did everything possible to avoid the reputation of being "soft on terrorism".  This political reality explains why so many Democrats, Hillary Clinton being one of the most prominent, voted in support of the Bush Administration's efforts vis-à-vis Iraq.  Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama in 2008 were wrong to criticize Senator Clinton regarding her vote.  Hillary made it very clear that although she wanted to support the right of the president to take certain actions when necessary, she did not support the Bush Administration's intention to go to war with Iraq.  Clinton did not "flip-flop" on this issue.  Like many Democrats, she did what she thought was best in order to support the office of the presidency and at the same time prosecute the war on terror.

An examination of Hillary Clinton's record during her time as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration will serve as a much more useful tool in measuring Clinton's effectiveness as Secretary of State, and understanding how her political philosophy influenced her actions.  In campaign commercials that Clinton is already running, she takes credit for her efforts to help write and promote 2010's New Start Missile Reduction Treaty with Russia.  Mark my words- The Clinton Campaign will misrepresent the facts involving this Treaty, because the reality has the potential to damage the image being portrayed by Democrats and the Media of a shrewd, tough negotiator who faced down Russian President Vladimir Putin.  This false scenario is so off the mark that it is disturbing, although existing treaties with Russia were due to expire and there was an expectation for the Obama Administration to address the issue.  The New Start Treaty was signed by President Barack Obama and Russian Federation President Dmitry Medvedev on 8 April 2010, with the intention of further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive weapons.

The first real problem with the New Start Treaty is that it was signed by Russian Federation President and Vladimir Putin figurehead Dmitry Medvedev.  This particular Russian government has no intention of following through with its obligations, regardless of all the hand-shaking and smiles.  This sad fact was known to the Obama Administration, but it didn't matter; what was important was the treaty's political benefits, not the feasibility of its verification protocols.  Now I have the unenviable task of explaining the flaws of the New Start Treaty without putting you to sleep.  The reality is, this treaty will result in broad reductions of U.S. Ballistic Missiles because we follow through on our negotiated obligations.  The Russians will not.  It makes no sense to go through each and every flaw (the Heritage Foundation identifies twelve major flaws) because we can assume from the beginning that Russia will cheat at every opportunity.  If you need a dose of clear and brutal evidence, just review the diplomatic history of the current Ukrainian conflict.

The Clinton Campaign has identified the New Start Treaty as a diplomatic achievement important enough to make the voter brush aside all the failures of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's  Department of State.  We will be discussing some of these failures in the next blog posting, including the Clinton State Department's crippling habit of being reactive as opposed to proactive.  Diplomacy is a multi-faceted tool which has the fruits of espionage as one of its resources.  In addition, our cadre of well-trained diplomats are expected to create new relationships and build upon existing partnerships.  These are but a few of the resources that the State Department has at its disposal, to allow for a consistent pattern of proactivity on the international stage.  When the Arab Spring arrived with the force of a mid-summer Saharan sandstorm, our embassies in Tunis, Cairo, and other Arab capitals appeared to be taken by surprise, as was our Secretary of State.  From the genesis of this fascinating political and cultural event, the United States was always one or two steps behind.  I credit our career diplomatic corps at Foggy Bottom (State Department) for keeping many of our assets out of harm's way, but the entire mess leaves one to ponder, where was Secretary of State Clinton when the Arab Spring broke?

2016 and domestic terror: best-case and worst-case scenarios.

The international community enters 2016 in a state of turmoil that probably hasn't been matched since the Second World War.  The terror organization ISIS continues to expand its ability to impact peoples lives.  Yesterday, while police in Germany were disrupting a planned attack at a rail station, another terror group, The Taliban, detonated a bomb at a restaurant in Kabul, which killed at least three persons while injuring scores of others.  The Taliban is not ISIS, nor are Boko Haram and Al-Qaida the same organization.  But they have the same motivations, follow Islamic extremist ideology, and use the same targets.  Earlier in the week, while appearing on Fox News, I responded to a comment made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, identifying ISIS as "a new group".  We can no longer allow our leaders to get away without making use of the tough but necessary labels.  ISIS is not a new group; they are a reconstituted organization that in 2005 was set up in Iraq to organize a resistance to the U.S. military presence.  By 2008/2009 they had lost all initiative had had not choice but to gather their remaining members and relocate to the deserts of eastern Syria.  And why not?  Syria was ripe territory for a terrorist group to lick its wounds, recruit, and adopt a new slogan.  When ISIS lectures about its desire of a new Caliphate, it is just as worthless as when the Taliban argues that it is only interested in getting westerners out of Afghanistan, or when Al-Qaida preaches that its goal is the removal of U.S. warships and influence in the Persian Gulf.  These separate "causes" are one of the many methods utilized by these groups to distract us into thinking that they can be reasonable, and negotiations might be possible.  The reality is that these groups in their core are no different from each other.  They are driven my an Islamic extremist ideology which has been selectively plucked from Quran for the sole purpose of mobilizing the Muslim world in a Holy War against all other religions.  Many still mistakenly believe that these fanatics are focused on destroying "Christianity and The West".  This war is not just taking place in Syria, Iraq, Europe, Africa and the United States.  Its also underway in far western China, as the Chinese government is forced to confront its own Muslim extremist population.  It is also brewing in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Indian Subcontinent.  This plague has succeeded in reaching every corner of the globe, and obviously its not only ISIS.  If we focus exclusively on ISIS, the phalanges of Islamic extremism, either as Boko Haram or Al-Qaida in the Maghreb, will continue to spread the virus. And if this scenario isn't scary enough, remember that this movement has had years to perfect methods of disguising how it raises and launders money, and also how it smuggles weapons and operatives from one country to the next.  No one abuses the goodwill offered to humanitarian organizations as effectively as Muslim extremists.

The best-case scenario would be the continued disruption of active terror plots and the apprehension of terrorists.  Our Law Enforcement Officers are the best in the world, and they are on-the-job 24 hours a day, while we sleep or watch the Sugar Bowl with our friends and families.  We will never know the stories about all the successes, believe me.  I was stateside on September 11, 2001, and I remember how quickly the Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement came together to respond to the threat.  In a matter of days, our men and women in local Police, Sheriff's offices, Constables, and Federal Law Enforcement started rooting out groups of people with plans to cause mayhem.  I'm not at liberty to discuss where, when, or how many, but rest assured that it is happening, even as I write this blog.  As for me, I'm praying for the best-case scenario.  I believe that anything is possible, and we can defeat this monster without having to endure any additional loss of life in our nation.  It may seem unlikely to some, but law enforcement all over the world successfully disrupted numerous attacks during the Christmas-New Years Holidays.  As the bad guys get better at what they do, we get better at finding them.  They are the ones who must hide like criminals, and there are still more of us then them.

In January 2016, our biggest concern has to be with the spread of ISIS and other terrorist groups to other parts of the world.  Areas of the third world provide extremists with ideal recruitment opportunities, and the lack of civil authority simplifies the need to remain clandestine as weapons are purchased and smuggled.  The United States does a tremendous job working with many third-world governments to locate and root-out terror groups, but administrations have a tendency to change quickly, and president so-and-so one day may not be as helpful as his predecessor was the day before.  Speaking of changes in administration, the United States will elect a new president in 2016, and the American people are already being subjected to endless promises from all the candidates regarding national security and foreign affairs.  This has no bearing on the job Federal Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Community faces today, in locating any terror cells presently in the United States, while at the same time preventing new ones from getting in.  At the moment, no one is talking seriously about the use of profiling to assist in identifying potential terror suspects.  But if the United States suffers from a string of terror attacks similar to what happened in San Bernardino, there is no doubt that people will be more willing to give up certain conveniences.  As we begin 2016, the worst-case scenario would be the activation of a string of sleeper cells throughout urban America.  I have no reason to believe that these cells exist in any great number.  I have great faith in our Law Enforcement and Border Patrol to keep us safe.  But in the United States, we love our liberties and have a tremendous history of welcoming visitors, and extremists won't think twice about abusing our courtesy.  But if we consider the worst-case scenario, and the United States is faced with terror-related incidents in numerous locations, we must remember what the enemy is trying to achieve.  They don't care about the number of people they kill; their only goal is to create a sense of fear in our nation that directly impacts the way we lead our lives.  We must let our Law Enforcement authorities do their job and deal with the terrorists directly, while we do everything that we can to stay out of the way and follow instructions.  For those of us without weapons, our job is just as important.  Once the dust clears, it is incumbent upon us to continue living our lives as we did the week before.  Go to the movies, go to the beach, go to dinner, celebrate a birthday, take a trip overseas.  We must keep our faith strong, support each other, and draw strength from the examples being set by those first-responders and soldiers in the field who remind us everyday what it means to be a brave American.  

Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi Investigation.

Link: Email controversy and Benghazi continue to haunt Hillary Clinton.

It is beginning to seem as if the House of Representatives Committee investigating the Benghazi tragedy in which four Americans were murdered will never end.  The House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi was initially proposed by then-House Majority Leader John Boehner.  The first hearing held by the committee was in September 2014, which, when I make use of my superior math skills, means we have been subsidizing this investigation for over one year.  One year doesn't seem to be that long in my mind, compared to some of the other committees we have watched evolve on Capitol Hill, but I am curious what goal this particular committee is trying to reach.  It would seem to me that we know the pertinent details regarding the events of the Benghazi terrorist attack, including what occurred in the hours beforehand.  For many months, various different and often false versions of what occurred that night in Benghazi have been disseminated by the mainstream press both in the United States and abroad.  Unfortunately, even today, most people don't know even the basic facts regarding what transpired that evening.  Here are those facts, at least the ones that I'm comfortable saying are accurate.

The 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack involved two separate locations.  The initial attack was directed at the U.S. Consulate compound in Benghazi, and the second attack occurred at an Annex that was utilized by the CIA, who had the largest contingent of U.S. personnel in the city.  The attack began just after U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, had concluded a meeting with a Turkish diplomat.  Just prior to the assault on the compound, Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland noted to himself that the streets outside the Consulate seemed very quiet and empty.   Unexpectedly, the Consulate compound was quickly assaulted by armed groups, and the complete lack of a sufficient number of State Department Security personnel became obvious.  At the time of the assault, Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland directed Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, an Information Management Specialist, to utilize the main Consulate building's "Safe Haven".  Safe Havens are areas particularly designated for shelter and safety in just such a situation.  S/A Strickland stayed with Stevens and Smith in the Safe Haven, while a few other security personnel left the main building to retrieve their M4 rifles and other equipment.  The attackers entered the main building, and after unsuccessfully attempting to break into the Safe Haven, began to pour petrol on the floor and set fires.  Strickland decided it was best to leave the building, and instructing Stevens and Smith to follow, climbed out a bathroom window.  As the smoke intensified, Strickland waited for both Stevens and Smith, neither of whom followed.  Strickland proceeded to the roof of the Consulate and attempted to radio other State Department security officers.  Later Smith's body was discovered, as he had apparently succumbed to smoke inhalation.  Stevens was discovered by friendly locals, who transported him to the hospital in the hope of saving his life.  Although the locals claim that Stevens was alive when he was discovered, the Hospital staff declared the Ambassador deceased as a result of smoke inhalation, after ninety minutes of attempted resuscitation.  As for the various rumors that persist regarding the possibility that Stevens was physically assaulted before his death, I have no comment.

The second incident occurred at an Annex roughly a mile from the Consulate compound, which was being used by the CIA.  Just after midnight, the Annex came under attack.  Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, CIA contractors hired as security personnel, were at the Annex.  They defended their position for hours from the roof, before a mortar round hit in close proximity and killed Woods.  As Doherty attempted to take cover, another round, part of the same barrage, killed Doherty instantly.  For many months I lived under the incorrect assumption that the four heroes who died in Benghazi had perished together, in the same location.  Actually, the incidents that took the lives of Stevens, Smith, Woods and Doherty, occurred at two separate locations and at different times.

Immediately following the tragedy, the Obama Administration was heavily criticized for blaming the attacks on a "spontaneous demonstration of anger as a result of the U.S. distribution of a film which some Muslims believe to be sacrilegious".  Allegedly, regular citizens of Benghazi, angered by the release of this film (assuming, of course, that the Muslim population of Benghazi is pious), spontaneously retrieved automatic weapons, machine guns, and grenade launchers, and rushed out to attack the U.S. Consulate, and later the Consulate Annex.  The obvious question the morning after the attack, is why didn't the State Department have more security personnel in place, and second, why weren't additional military resources brought in?  The Administration, by blaming the attack on the unexpected release of this film and the "spontaneous" expression of anger on the part of Benghazi Muslims, wanted to avoid blame for not having adequate security measures in place.  In other words, "people died because this movie really pissed off the Muslims, who unexpectedly sacked the Consulate; it had nothing to do with not having a valid security plan."  Actually, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on that particular day to review plans for a new cultural center and to modernize a hospital; he was also tasked with preparing a report on security issues related to the transition of the Consulate from a temporary facility to a permanent one. 

The reason why Hillary Clinton has been her own worst enemy throughout this Benghazi crisis is her apparent inability to accept blame for anything.  It will eventually be her political undoing.  Most Americans, myself included, waited to hear the Secretary of State hold a news conference to discuss Benghazi.  The American people wanted to hear Hillary comment that a terrible tragedy had occurred which resulted in the painful loss of four American heroes.  Hillary needed to assure the American people that no stone would go unturned to locate and bring to justice the persons responsible and that a full investigation would take place to make sure this terrible event would never happen again.  She needed to say, "but regardless of the particular details, I am Secretary of State, and the responsibility for those people who lost their lives rests with me."  Instead, we got distraction, diversion, and pointed fingers.  The American people wanted to know why an American Ambassador was running around in a warzone without adequate security.  They want to know why U.S. Consulate employees (Sean Smith) were working in a hostile warzone without the necessary protection.  We've heard a few attempts at answers, and not surprisingly one of the excuses laid the blame at the feet of President George W. Bush.  As for the committee itself, there can be no doubt that the GOP is using this investigation to drill as many holes into Hillary's presidential ambitions as possible.  The real damage may not come from Benghazi, but from a tangential issue that popped up during the committee's investigation: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private server to conduct official business, and, at times, pass confidential information.  I think we can expect to see the Benghazi investigation begin to fade, as the "emailgate" springs to life.