Replies

I happen to agree with Scott Adams who I’ve come to realize is one of the more insightful observers of this election process, and maybe of politics in general.

People forget that AG Lynch is perfectly within her rights to reject Comey’s obviously faulty reasoning for not recommending charges be brought, and to proceed with an indictment anyway.

By setting forth the results of his investigation, results which not even the Dems are disputing currently, and which put each of Hillary’s past lies on the matter on full display, Comey has made it clear that Hillary abused her position.

And now, by “convincing” AG Lynch that no indictment is warranted (again, she is free to disagree and take action anyway), Comey has effectively sucked Lynch into Hillary’s circle of corruption, along with all the liberals who are now crowing that Hillary did nothing wrong.

But Comey couldn’t have made it clearer that she did plenty wrong. The House is even now preparing to discuss perjury with Hillary given the clear contrast between her lies and his investigative findings, which is probably why the House wants to see his specific evidence.

So, against all this background, the people get to decide whether they want someone of Hillary’s caliber to be the next President. Adams is right; Comey handled it well given his choices. And his comments on a government retaining credibility are worth considering as well, as they were quite insightful in my opinion.

I also agree with his side point that we should consider sticking with an eight member Supreme Court. People forget that the original court was made up of six members which meant that overturning a Congressional action effectively required a 2/3 majority of the court. Otherwise any law passed would stand. In fact, we should consider returning to six.