Monday, October 31, 2016

Huma Abedin, Not Hillary, Is The One In Trouble


I sometimes wonder how every media outlet can get it so terribly wrong. How, for example, did every news outlet overlook the fact that Charlene Lamb, not Hillary Clinton, was the State Department official who refused to send additional manpower to Benghazi? How did they manage to overlook the controversy over the Dakota Access Pipeline for so long?

And how do they manage to miss the fact that James Comey's letter has put Huma Abedin, not Hillary Clinton, in trouble?

You see, here's how it works: Worst case scenario is that Hillary sent one or more emails to her aide, Huma Abedin, who had clearance to see them. Huma Abedin then accessed said emails from a computer shared with her literal-dick husband, Anthony Weiner. He was not cleared to see classified information. We already know with certainty that it is Weiner's computer which the FBI is focusing on.

That means the person leaking the documents to a non-secure individual is Huma Abedin, not Hillary Clinton.

You see, it's the person who actually leaked the documents, not the person who's running for president, who is culpable. (Duh!) The source of the classified email doesn't matter, so long as the email was handled properly to begin with. And James Comey already dealt with that back in July.

Huma Abedin is in a world of trouble. She might step forward, confess that she mishandled classified documents sent to her by her boss, and then count on the potential of a presidential pardon to save her. In my opinion, that's just what she should do. A.) because she's guilty, and B.) because it's the right thing to do. Whether she deserves Hillary's pardon after the election is another debate.

And where is the press on this one? It's so basic, simple, obvious Law-101-type stuff that I just can't believe everyone except me has missed it! What, is everybody fucking asleep?

[Crickets chirping.]

Well, that answers that question.

How about the fact that James Comey has essentially provided nothing more than a closed box? We can't see what's in the box, so we can't tell if it contains anything damaging to Hillary or not. Now, I've just proved it doesn't by my above argument, but just for shiggles, let's play along and say that it might. It would be one thing if the box were labeled, "Proof of Hillary's Guilt." But it doesn't even say that. It only says, "Potential Proof of Hillary's Guilt." Those on the Trump side say that they can't see inside the box, therefore it must contain Hillary's inevitable smoking gun. Those on the Clinton side say that the reason we can't see inside must be due to the fact that there is no proof whatsoever. Both sides, for once, agree on the need to provide more information.

Both sides are wrong, because it's Huma Abedin's ass on the line instead of Hillary's.

Has anybody considered the fact that an unopened box is proof of nothing except the presence of an unopened box? At least until after it is opened?

And Comey violated the Hatch Act for this? How violently unprofessional!

If there's any justice at all, Schrodinger's FBI Director will be fired over this. I've received several email petitions from friends of mine calling for him to either step down or be fired.

I'd rather sign a petition calling for him to provide all the information available.

Hey Comey! Open the damned box!


Eric

*

No comments: