Replies

I wish I had your confidence. I don't trust the Dept. of Justice at all.

This morning they were reporting that there was no evidence that Hillary's private server had been hacked. Is this from Pagliano? If so, he's coming to her rescue. They can now claim no harm was done. I have already seen a "news" article in a newspaper state as if a fact that none of the classified documents sent was marked classified at the time--that is, taking the Clinton spin/lie and presenting it to the public as fact. After all, their job is to get Hillary elected.

We can expect to see the NYTimes carrying HRC’s water from here to eternity. However, when you think about the substance of the article, it elicits a big, “So what?” The low-level IT guy who installed HRC’s private server asserts that no foreign governments have hacked that server. Are we supposed to believe that foreign governments’ hacking abilities are so crude that they easily can be tracked by an IT guy maintaining the server that's been hacked? Besides, to prove espionage and mishandling of government correspondence, you don't need to prove damage — or even intent; negligence without obvious ensuing damage is necessary.

Don't lose heart. I agree that HRC won't serve time in prison, but there's a good chance this email issue will prevent her from becoming President, and that's not nothing. If she gets away with it completely, I shall throw in the towel on this country. But I am not going to do that until the game is over. If one year from now, HRC is President and the email investigations have been concluded with nothing more than a slap on the wrist to HRC or one of her cronies, I'll say that you were right all along.