The Clinton Foundation and the ‘Deep State’

 

In my line of work, I take great interest in investigations by law enforcement. Especially that of our federal government’s law enforcement. This is headed by the Department of Justice and specifically by the Attorney General of the United States. This position has been described as America’s Top Cop. You naturally want to think of this function as possessing the highest of integrity and being one hundred percent apolitical.

Boy, has the past couple of years been eye opening or what?! The DOJ, FBI, DHS, DNI, DNS and CIA have not only revealed themselves as extremely partisan, they have been going public about it in the most abasing way. Book tours?! Embarrassing, if you ask me. You would think your average ‘G man’ would scrupulously guard their secrecy, personal privacy and be ultra low-key. I know I do. But I digress.

To me, it is as plain as the nose on your face. There has been a lot of political ‘stuff’ going on in our federal law enforcement and “justice” has been kicked to the curb. There is a deep state. A yuge segment of “embedded grifters in the bureaucracy” (hat tip @franco), with friends in the media and political commentariat. And this group absolutely loves their country clubs, cruises and concertos. How dare this intruder disrupt that! Both the G men and the commentariat were united in this resistance. 

But, there have been several “dustups” between the supporters of the President of our (this is a right of center website, right?) political party, and those whom resist and stubbornly join the democrats in constantly attacking him, his ancient(?) history and his current tweeting (or whatever). In the dustup over the VDH book The Case For Trump, one of the things that these resistors (can I call them that?) have to do, in order to find ways to shame and stigmatize the so-called “bad actors in the conservative elite”, is to ridicule this belief in an embedded bureaucracy. A deep state if you will. They refuse to acknowledge any of the facts that exist and have been reported upon in depth for the past couple of years which prove this case. They call it a “conspiracy theory” and those who believe conspiracy nuts.  Yes, VDH got a laugh out of being called an “elite” by the elite grifters and a nut by the nuts themselves, but he also took on this denial of the entrenched bureaucracy with facts and substance.

Anyhow, as I was saying, I think that it has been factually proven that the DOJ, FBI, DHS, DNI, DNS and CIA are in cahoots with the DNC. And now a story today from Townhall.com by Matt Vespa … Oh, So This Is Why The FBI Couldn’t View The Clinton Foundation Emails …

Now, we have ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page saying that there was an order handed down from the DOJ to the FBI, telling them not to charge Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information on her unauthorized and unsecured server from which she did all of her officials business when she served the Obama administration as secretary of state. And now, there was supposedly a deal between the DOJ and the Clinton camp that prevented the FBI from viewing Clinton Foundation emails (via Washington Examiner):

So, my question is … who at this right of center website can argue that this embedded bureaucracy of grifters doesn’t exist?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 95 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    This is excellent criticism of the anti-Trump Republican stance. Really good.

     

     

    • #91
  2. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    The state law in New Hampshire states that the Secretary of State shall set the date of the New Hampshire Primary which must be at least one week before any other state.

    Interesting piece of information. What if another state passes a law that states they must be first? What if Congress steps in and passes a law that says the first primary will rotate? Article 1, Section 4 says, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.” I don’t see anything in the Constitution about primaries and who can control them.

    We could have the New Hampshire Primary before Christmas, Thanksgiving, or even Labor Day the year before the general election. Also, candidates would be cowed from going into the other state to campaign. The motto of New Hampshire is “Live Free or Die.” Those folks are not going to give up.

    But what if Florida passes a law that says their primary shall be the first in the nation? Who decides which state law takes precedence? Why is New Hampshire so special? Can Congress pass a law that says the primary schedule shall be thus and state laws be damned?

    I didn’t know about New Hampshire law, but I don’t understand why another state can’t do the same or even amend their state constitution to make them first.

    • #92
  3. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):
    Can Congress pass a law that says the primary schedule

    Short answer: unlikely, and you don’t really want it. While Congress, with the President, has the power to set times of federal elections, that is not the same as the selection processes leading up to the biannual November elections. If it were otherwise, the Congress and the President would rig the system to their interests, or to the advantage of the dominant factions in government, taking more power from the states.

    • #93
  4. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    The commerce that Iowa and New Hampshire would lose is staggering. That’s the other problem. 

    • #94
  5. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):
    Can Congress pass a law that says the primary schedule

    Short answer: unlikely, and you don’t really want it. While Congress, with the President, has the power to set times of federal elections, that is not the same as the selection processes leading up to the biannual November elections. If it were otherwise, the Congress and the President would rig the system to their interests, or to the advantage of the dominant factions in government, taking more power from the states.

    An educated, rational response wholly out of place in today’s “republic.”  Congress can pass 2000 blank pages and our grand Court can let it stand.  Like PPACA in 2010, I expect we will see some crazy stuff when Trump is gone.  The future’s so bright…

    • #95
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.