DNC Email Scandal: Let the Punishment Fit the Crime

Considering the injustice done to Bernie Sanders and his supporters by the DNC, it is not sufficient for Wasserman Schultz to resign. Everyone knows she was working for Hillary Clinton. And if Clinton replaces her with Castro we’ll have exactly the same problem and Clinton won’t have given up anything. And in my opinion it is too much to ask Sanders’ supporters to sit by as yet another humiliation goes unpunished.  Clinton should lose something for this, and Bernie should get more than the belated resignation of Wasserman Schultz.

Bernie Sanders should be the new chair of the DNC.  Or I should say he would be a good chair.  However, I don’t know if he even wants that position.  Tulsi Gabbard might be a more logical pick.  She’s already served on the DNC and she’s demonstrated her integrity by resigning in order to support Sanders.

Bernie Sanders and Jonah

I realize now the false claim that Senator Sanders is an atheist has contributed to a major blind spot regarding the meaning of his campaign—at least for me. In fact, it could be argued that the Sanders campaign has been making a religious statement about the nature of our times—a statement that has not been articulated for two thousand years.

When he spoke at Liberty University Bernie quoted the prophet Amos:

“But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.” (Amos 5: 24)

Perhaps this association between Sanders and Amos can explain how Sanders could wage such a devastating battle against his opponents and yet accept his losses with equanimity. Perhaps his desire to win is not mutually exclusive of the focus on getting his message out.

According to Robert Eisler, this verse in Amos refers to the Messianic water of life in its original spiritual sense. ((Orpheus the Fisher: Comparative studies in Orphic and early Christian cult symbolism. Rare Mystical Imprints, Kessinger Publishing)) However it has also been interpreted literally. Eisler says this tug-of-war between the mystical and the literal is a characteristic of religious experience.

Many of you will be aware that the last person to be influenced politically by verses like this one from Amos was John the Baptist, and this may not seem like the most encouraging of associations for Senator Sanders.  But I would argue that we are not re-enacting that old drama. While scriptural verses might give us clues about its nature and meaning, the phenomenon itself is fresh and new for our time.

Some might also be concerned that this view is in conflict with the views of one of our friends in this conversation, Pope Francis. But it is not at all. These ideas represent the meeting of all religions, especially Christianity and Judaism, but also Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, among others.

Eisler speculates that Ezekiel 47: 9-10 is another passage that influenced the doctrine of the Baptist and he presents this passage as an example of the way in which literal interpretations compete with allegorical interpretations.

The Jewish exegesis of the scriptures haven’t been handed down to us, but Eisler thinks it’s possible to reconstruct them from the commentaries of the Christian Fathers by eliminating the specially Christian features of their symbolism and retaining those elements which clearly correspond to Jewish ideas. He begins with Theodoret’s Commentary on Ezekiel:

“The Church Father refers the prophecy about the mystic stream to the sacrament of baptism, by saying ‘all those that are washed in the redeeming waters will reach salvation’. He means of course the Christian baptism, but the words could quite as well be used by a disciple of John, since the latter’s baptism is intended to save the repentant and regenerate new Israel from the ‘wrath to come’.”

And he provides a direct quote from Theodoret:

Ezekiel says also that the water will be full of fish and frequented by many fishermen: for many are they who through these waters will be fished for redemption, and numerous are they to whom the catching of this booty is entrusted…And Ezekiel says also that the multitude of fish will not resemble the number contained in a river but in the largest ocean; for the new people will not be equal in number to the old, but similar to the ocean of the nations, and it will fill the habitable world.

Also, Jerome identified the mystic stream running down from the threshold of Ezekiel’s temple to the desert with the pure water of regeneration, which God Promises to sprinkle over Israel in Ezekiel 36:24.

This water signifies, as he says several times, the grace of God to be obtained through baptism. By the fishermen, however, that stand on the river’s banks the same fishers are meant, to whom the Lord Jesus said, “I will make you to become fishers of men,” of whom we also find written in Jeremiah [16:16] ‘Behold I shall send many fishers that shall fish you’.

Bernie Sanders and Pope Francis seem to be carrying on the tradition of John the Baptist with the content of their teachings as well. Jesus said of John that he came in the way of righteousness. (Matt. 21:32) And Josephus put it this way:  “[H]e taught the Jews to practice virtue both as to justice towards one another and piety to God.”

According to Eisler this means that John’s ideal was the old Jewish ṣedākah, the legal principle of justice, a religious ‘suum cuique’ involving faithfulness to our duties both towards God and our fellow-men. Eisler cites Luke for single examples of his moral teachings:

“The publicans shall exact no more than that which is due to them; the soldiers shall be content with their wages and not abuse their function as police by doing violence to people or bringing false denunciations against them; whoever has the least superabundance of clothing or meat, shall give of it to his brother in need.”

I think it is important in the context of this election, to also mention important differences of opinion that exist in Judaism regarding the proper approach of said fishermen. First, there is the conviction that men could accelerate the coming of the Kingdom and force it down immediately by certain actions, either of obedience or of disobedience to the commandments of God. John thought fervent repentance would be strong enough to bring the kingdom of heaven down by force, and Jesus indicated that he thought God approved of this when he said of John:

“But from the days of Jonah—the Baptist—until now the Kingdom of Heaven is being stormed and the violent appropriate it by force.” (Matt. 11:12 and Luke 16:16)

In the notes on page 158 Eisler explains the second approach.  Speaking of taking the kingdom by force he says:

“That such an apparent violation of the Divine plans of Providence was not always considered as sinful…may be seen from the repeated saying in the Talmud, that God loves to be conquered by a sinner through repentance. For the contrary view, cp. the Rabbinic comments on Canticles 2:7: ‘I conjure you…do not stir up, do not awake love, until He pleases.’ This double entreaty is said on the one hand to charge the Israelites not to cast off the yoke of the secular powers by force and not to return by means of a revolution into the promised land, on the other hand to warn the Gentiles against making the yoke of Israel unbearable. For in both cases the wrongdoers would be guilty of forcing the Messianic Day to dawn before its time.”

This is from the chapter in which Eisler compares John the Baptist to Jonah, who ‘quarrels with Jahvé because He defers again and again in His forbearance the foretold Day of Judgment’. We know Jonah was punished. In addition, Eisler cites Rabbi Oniah’s statement that ‘four generations have already perished, because they tried to invade the kingdom’. Rabbi Oniah specifically mentions the generation of Bar-Kokhba.

Speaking of literal interpretations, some of Sanders’ followers think he should have strong-armed his way to the presidency.   I would argue that this background suggest the importance of balance at the Democratic Convention.

I don’t know if Sanders would agree with the associations I’ve made in this article.  I think they are reasonable based on the evidence, but either way I’m content to let things unfold however they will.  I’m confidant that the ultimate meaning of this campaign will not be decided by the hard facts of this election.

Bernie’s Supporters Could Throw Everything Away

The YouTubers are still plying their trade, dwelling on sob-stories, ominous polls, and adding to the general rudeness and confusion any way they can. My concern is that we can be led astray regardless of where we look for our news, so we have to be clear about why we’re supporting our candidate and not be swayed by bad news. I for one, have had enough of the turmoil.

I’m surprised to find that Bernie’s endorsement has had a remarkable effect on my mental state. It’s not what I wanted, but I can see it’s what had to happen. And I also realize that nothing that has taken place in this election should have surprised anyone the way it did.

I saw some positive signs when Hillary spoke at Bernie’s endorsement news conference and I’m hopeful that she and Bernie will be able to work together. However, it occurred to me that Bernie Sanders will have very little influence if Donald Trump is elected. And that’s where we’re headed if we fall for the third party diversion.  The U.S. system was not set up for multiple parties.  A third party vote never works the way their voters hope it will and in this case it will probably lead to a Trump presidency.  While Trump may not end Bernie’s movement, he will set it back. Trump is a big price to pay for a protest vote.

By the way, what do you suppose the odds are that just when we find a miracle-candidate with integrity and know-how, we also find a spare just waiting to save us in case he doesn’t work out–Jill Stein! Unfortunately Stein is a member of the party that gave the presidency to George Bush, back when Ralph Nader ran against him.  Of course they say she wasn’t the reason Bush won, but that’s not exactly a great recommendation for trying it again.

We knew things were bad when Bernie’s campaign started. We knew our democracy was under threat. We didn’t dare to hope he would actually win, but we had to try. Then when it looked like we might succeed we suddenly forgot everything we knew about the forces arrayed against us—forces that have been gathering strength for at least a century. (And so not created by the Clintons.) We forgot for a moment how outrageous our success really was…and still is, and we have yet to fully understand how far we’ve come.

You could refresh your memory by listening to Bernie’s conference call with his delegates.

For a discussion of third parties in America versus reforming the Democratic Party see: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_egalitarians.html.  The following is an excerpt from that article dealing with Nader’s motives and errors:

Nader Explains The Nader Campaign

Thanks to a highly detailed post-election book that Nader wrote to chronicle and justify his 2000 presidential campaign as a candidate of the Green Party, it is possible to show how the critique in this document applies to this most recent incarnation of the egalitarians’ quest for their own third party. Although Nader is now irrelevant as far as future elections, his mentality and rationalizations live on in all those leftists who insist on building a third party despite what Nader wrought in the 2000 elections.

Nader’s main claim is that the two parties are increasingly the same, and thus there is a need for a new third party that offers voters a real choice. This claim has two dimensions to it. First, the Democrats are far worse than their liberal supporters imagine. They have been collapsing on major issues since the 1970s, forsaking their “progressive” past, and matters only got worse in the Clinton-Gore years. Nader delivers a detailed indictment of these Democratic failures, including all the rejections of his own efforts by Gore and even the Progressive Caucus in the House.

Second, and even more importantly in terms of justifying a third party, Nader argues that the Republicans are not as dangerous as the liberal Democrats claim. Bush is not exactly “Genghis Khan,” he notes at one point, and then lists the various ways Bush moved to the center in his first year in office. This point was of course laughable by 2005, which is another reason why it is worth reminding everyone of how Nader justified his campaign.

Nader’s lack of concern when contemplating a Republican presidency is very different from the usual egalitarian view of Republicans as their main opponents. It can be appreciated more fully when it is contrasted with right-wing views of the Democrats. Due to their abhorrence of “big government,” labor unions, and/or liberal social values, right wingers generally avoid third parties at all costs because they genuinely fear the Democrats as the worst of all out-groups. A Clinton or a Gore looks tame to left-wing third-party advocates, but not to right wingers, who believe that the Democratic coalition, with Clinton and Gore representing its moderate wing, spells trouble for their worldview. Gore is Genghis Khan to conservatives, but Bush is not Genghis Khan to most left activists, including Nader, and therein lies an important part of the political equation in America. The energy of zealous right-wing activists is used on behalf of the Republicans, thereby uniting all those who are right of center when they step into the political arena, but the great energies and moral fervor of the egalitarians are often used in attacking Democrats as sell-outs, leaving those who are left of center divided among themselves and often demoralized.

But it is not only that the two parties are about the same according to Nader. He also claims that it is useful for the Democrats to lose if activist groups are to be energized enough to realize their goals through nonviolent direct action and lobbying pressure. Democrats take activist groups for granted once the activists endorse them, and the activists tend to sit back when Democrats are in office. The result, says Nader, is disastrous. The Democrats put activists to sleep; they “anesthetize” activists. Thus, he argues that activist groups often do better when the Democrats are not in power.

Furthermore, he continues, it may be good for the Democrats to lose once in a while so that they don’t take the citizen groups and social movements for granted. This is necessary because “The only message politicians understand is losing an election.” This comes fairly close to saying that it was time to sink Gore, especially when read in the context of the many extremely negative things he has to say about Gore on a wide variety of issues, and most pointedly environmental issues. Here Nader’s reasoning is based on the-worse-the-better theory.

The likelihood that Nader wanted to cost Gore the election also can be seen in the fact that he chose to go to Miami to campaign the Saturday before the election. He says that’s because he hadn’t spent much time in Florida, but he did so knowing the race was very close there, and despite the fact that some of his political scientist and sociologist supporters wanted him to draw back in Oregon, Wisconsin, and Florida to assure a Gore victory in those crucial states.

Although Nader never publicly said that punishing Gore was his motive, that’s the impression one disillusioned supporter received when he talked to a leader in the campaign about withdrawing from swing states like Florida, or asking Nader supporters in such states to hold their noses and vote for Gore in exchange for Nader votes by Democrats in safe states. The idea was that such a move would help defeat Bush while increasing the Nader vote in safe states. This would also vividly demonstrate the importance of Nader and his constituency to a Gore Administration and Democrats everywhere, or so some of his supporters reasoned. In response to this suggestion, one of Nader’s top aides abruptly said “We are not going to do that.” When the surprised supporter asked why not, the aide replied, “Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them.”

Thus far, few analysts have closely examined Nader’s motives, but a staff writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer also reported that Nader wanted to punish Gore and the Democrats. After meeting with Nader in the Spring of 200l, he wrote: “He (Nader) is not coy about his motives. Just as he ran for president to punish Gore and the Democrats for allegedly betraying their progressive traditions and currying favor with global corporate power, now he wants to knock off congressional Democrats who have committed the same sins.” The journalist is referring to Nader’s plan to run 60 or so Greens in the congressional elections in 2002, which failed completely.

Nader also claims there are virtues to third parties. They introduce new issues and they bring out new voters, some of whom vote for Democrats in races where the third party does not have candidates. He claims there were a million new voters in 2000 thanks to his campaign, and takes credit for the victory of Democratic senatorial candidate Maria Cantwell in the state of Washington, where she won by 2,300 votes over the incumbent Republican. He also draws on the relative successes of the third-party presidential campaigns by John Anderson in 1980 and H. Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 to support his brief for third parties.

Nader’s specific arguments about the Democrats and Republicans do not address the structural problem that he understands, but discusses as a mere “obstacle” to be overcome in the slow process of building a movement and a third party. He does not admit that the everyday, short-run interests of the supporters of the Democratic Party, such as low-income workers, women who work outside the home, disadvantaged people of color, and religious liberals, are likely to be ignored as more and more Republicans assume office while the third party is being built. The slant of the Bush tax cuts to favor the top few percent is the most brutal evidence of how shortsighted Nader was on this point.

Parting Ways With Our Fair-Weather Friends

Yesterday when Hillary gave her speech at Bernie’s endorsement I couldn’t help but be impressed by the concessions she made to him and his issues. But of course none of the ‘progressive’ bloggers commented on this. The focus was on Bernie, whether or not he was too positive about her nomination, what his followers might think of his endorsement, etc. One supposed Bernie supporter, who has been characteristically biased against Bernie under the guise of trying to help him, picked out some obscure complaint and ignored everything else. That was followed up the next day by a rant about election fraud.

I’ve been watching these people for so long that I’m starting to see their pattern. It always seems to include a focus on election fraud, a gloomy and fatalistic view of the Democratic Party, and a veiled attempt to funnel Bernie supporters to Jill Stein. The covert support of Stein is probably that hardest part to forgive since it’s so obvious that it’s been there from the beginning.

Now that Bernie has endorsed Hillary this person claims to be ‘considering’ support for Jill Stein. However support for Stein, or I should say support for the obscure claim that if you vote for a third party often enough it will eventually bring down the establishment, has always been there under the surface. Support for Bernie was never anything more than an open pit to trap his supporters.

This blogger now claims that Sanders has been such a painful disappointment that her blog will no longer be used to support Democrats. Frankly I don’t see that as big a loss for Democrats. In fact, I’d like to be the first to offer my farewell:

Goodbye, and don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

My Take on Bernie’s Endorsement

We know there were probably many factors in Comey’s decision not to recommend indictment for Hillary Clinton—the possibility that Bill Clinton blackmailed Loretta Lynch or her independent investigators for example. Knowing the background, you could interpret Comey’s press conference several ways, most of them having to do with bowing to the demands of his superiors. I’ve had some doubts about my own interpretation of it. For example, I listened to an interview by Mike Malloy on Saturday in which his guest said something about political maneuvering. That made me wonder, for a while, if Comey was influenced by his concern that an indictment would result in a Sanders presidency. However, I still believe that the main problem was that Comey was not free to recommend an indictment. The question is, why would he bow to this pressure?

I suspect many Republicans in Congress were concerned about the effect of an indictment on the presidential race but I don’t think that explains Comey’s decision. I’m not holding my breath that the men and women in Congress will make good on their promise to revoke Clinton’s security clearances or re-investigate her private server but we’ll have to wait and see what comes of it. I strongly suspect they’re torn between revoking her clearances and kissing her feet. You see, I think Clinton may have pulled off the coup they’ve only dreamed of.

There was a discussion on Morning Joe Sunday about whether the Clinton camp knew Comey was going to give this press conference. They concluded that the Clintons must have known. I disagree. They may have known Clinton wouldn’t be indicted but I don’t think they knew about the press conference. I doubt they would have taken the chance that Comey would frame it the way that he did. If I’m right about this, there’s really only one important question that we need to answer: why would James Comey agree to not press charges? I think he would need a good reason for going along with this part of the plan—something more important than saving his job. What if he was trying to give us a clue about what’s going on behind the scenes?

There’s a theory being tossed around on right-wing YouTube channels that Clinton’s series of private servers represents a parallel government. In this government, Hillary and Bill have been wearing all the hats—including some of the hats normally worn by the commander in chief. The same people say that at this point it wouldn’t matter if the Clintons were taken out of the picture because the Clinton foundation is a spider’s web that covers the entire globe. That would explain why Hillary never seemed worried about the implications of the email scandal for her candidacy. Her nomination was already a done deal. She deleted the emails mainly because they contained privileged information about the workings of the new world government.

I hope this is not true, but no doubt the current administration would have liked to avoid the mere suspicion, which it would have been able to do if not for the hacker, Guccifer. But while we can’t know if the theory is true I think we need to seriously consider it, as it explains what we’ve seen in this election better than any theory I’ve heard. It even explains the roller-coaster of Bernie Sanders’s campaign during which he was clearly the rightful winner, and yet failed to make a ripple in the final result. However I suspect we will eventually come to understand that winning isn’t everything, as Bernie has been trying to tell us. His campaign has indeed made ripples although we haven’t had the time to recognize them yet. And the very idea that we have to judge the worth of our efforts on the outcome of this election, after seeing its sordid character first hand, is sheer nonsense.

Before we go on, we need to understand that this is just politics, meaning that we don’t have to like the eventual nominee. I personally will never forgive the Clintons for what they’ve done to us in this election, or for what they may have done to our nation. However, as a citizen of a democracy (of sorts) my rejection of the Clintons doesn’t relieve me of my obligations to Bernie Sanders.

The Clintons ‘victory’ changes nothing about the realities we face. We still have the same tasks ahead of us and they are just as urgent as they ever were. However now we have someone in our corner who has Clinton’s ear—Bernie Sanders. It would have been better for us if he were the nominee, but it seems that was never in the cards, and now that Bernie has endorsed Hillary I’m taking my cue from him.

In my opinion, the bloggers who are behaving as if this is still undecided are just prolonging the anguish. Furthermore, I think they’re proving themselves to be fair-weather friends. This one says he’ll vote for Jill Stein.  That one argues that we need a Republican administration to assure a progressive in the next election. I ask you, what will become of Bernie’s movement in that case?

I’m not going to tell anyone who to vote for. I will ask people to at least think strategically.

But I’ll ask for more than that. In the big picture there are other considerations besides strategy.  Where did Bernie come by all this influence, you ask? He got it from us. If we abandon him now we destroy his influence and leave him without the clout that he needs to be taken seriously in the future. I think that regardless of how confident the YouTubers seem that they can single-handedly recreate the wheel as far as Bernie’s movement goes, Bernie is still our best bet for the future. If we listen to them not only would we be abandoning Bernie, we’d be abandoning those members of Congress who supported him at great personal risk. This is no way to go about building a new civilization.  And it might indicate a serious flaw in the way people are thinking about this process.

After hearing Bernie’s words over the last year and knowing that he’s been saying the same things throughout his career, there’s really no excuse for doubting him now. This behavior says more about one’s lack of self-confidence than it says about Bernie. The end result is to make them look just like the Clinton camp, which apparently believes winning is the only meaningful outcome regardless of what they have to do to make it happen.

I’m still not ruling out a miracle but I’m extremely concerned about the comments I’ve read from these supposed Bernie supporters. Whatever happens before the convention, continually going over Clinton’s crimes and her lies about those crimes, will have no effect on the outcome.  What’s more, it will set people up for another disappointment. If some sort of ‘miracle’ does happen it won’t be because of her offenses while in office. The FBI investigation was our last hope on that count and that didn’t pan out. So please, let’s not go flying off the deep end just when Bernie needs us the most.

So what are we to do in the election? Again, I won’t tell you who to vote for, but I will suggest some things you should not to do. You should not get all wrapped up in some alternative outcome just because things didn’t turn out the way you hoped.  Don’t vote for a candidate because you’ve been told he or she is just like Bernie. I won’t say the other candidates’ names because their supporters can get spiteful, but they are nothing like Bernie. Therefore, the argument, ‘if not Bernie then one of these other candidates’ makes no sense to me. Furthermore, their parties have no relation to Democratic Socialism, no matter what they’ve told you. Vote for their candidates if you think that will help, but not because you feel pressured to make something happen.  You don’t have to do anything you’re not sure of.

I’m sick about the way this election has gone and I would not have the heart to make these arguments if I didn’t think the worst has already happened.  On the other hand, that doesn’t excuse us from continuing to fight, especially when our champion is still in the ring.  Let’s not throw away what we’ve accomplished here.

Did James Comey Put the Election Back on Track?

I may have been unfair to James Comey. We knew he was under pressure. However when he told us what the FBI had uncovered and then followed that by saying there would be no charges, many people, including me, concluded that he must lack courage.  However he may have helped us in ways that I didn’t understand at the time.

His main goal in calling a press conference—normally the FBI would have given its recommendations to the Department of Justice and the DOJ would have called a press conference—was to defend the honor of the Bureau.  He thought the best way to do this was through transparency.

It wasn’t that Comey, a lanky and low-key Republican career prosecutor who served as deputy attorney general under George W. Bush, thought that he could avoid blowback altogether. When he stepped up to the lectern at the Hoover Building on Tuesday, the FBI director knew that no matter what the investigation uncovered, one party or the other would be angry, arguing that the FBI had compromised its independence and integrity in pursuit of a political agenda. But he also knew the best way to avoid maximum blowback was transparency. And so, his only mission was to provide as complete an accounting as possible. As he said before reporters in his 15-minute remarks, “In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.”

Read more: ((http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-email-server-fbi-james-comey-investigation-campaign-state-department-justice-loretta-lynch-214013#ixzz4Dfkcl7cL
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook))

And although his main goal was to protect the reputation of the Bureau he may have thrown us a lifeline in the process. Based on the FBI’s findings, it’s possible the State Department could revoke Hillary Clinton’s security clearance even though she’s not currently an employee. Watch the video of State Department Spokesman John Kirby. ((Aaron Kliegman, State Department: Former Employees can be Subject to Repercussions, Have Security Clearances revoked. The Washington Free Beacon, July 6, 2016. Available: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/state-dept-former-employees-can-subject-punishment-security-clearances-revoked/)) However it’s my understanding that this must be done before she’s president.  At that time none of the rules apply to her.

I’m aware that to the establishment this will sound like the last gasp of a Bernie Sanders supporter. However I say this regardless of who the Democratic establishment might put in her place.

Which brings me to another important topic.  I have quite a lot to say about the uncomfortable place in which Sanders supporters find themselves at this time. I think it’s important to talk about it because I’ve realized that unless we deal with the events of this election and make sense of them, the election may demolish the conversation by making our efforts seem pointless.  Our efforts are not pointless.  The conversation is not pointless.  The task of my next post will be to begin making sense of the collision between the conversation and American politics, and establish a new basis for the hope we (I) once had in this conversation.

The FBI Assassinates Justice

The director of the FBI, ole what’s-his-name, recommended no charges for Hillary Clinton. I wonder if his behind is still sore from the reaming the Clintons gave it. Of course there’s always the possibility that after he heals up he’ll decide he liked it, and as luck would have it he’ll know where to go for more when the Clintons are in the White House. Now that’s convenience! By the way, I wonder if Guccifer’s disappearance from jail had anything to do with this.

Oh, and did I mention that Wikileaks finally released Hillary’s emails? ((Justin Carissimo, WikiLeaks publishes more than 1,000 Hillary Clinton war emails, Independent, July 5, 2016. Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/wikileaks-publishes-more-than-1000-hillary-clinton-war-emails-a7120011.html))So I guess there’s nothing left for the FBI to do at this point but pull up its pants and go hide in the dark somewhere. Not to say they won’t have some degree of consolation.  At least they’ve protected themselves from what’s to come. They failed to protected us of course but everyone knows those guys are all that really matters.  And I don’t want to fail to mention Loretta Lynch’s part in this. This woman will go down in history as the final nail in our coffin after single-handedly obliterating the idea of America as a law-abiding nation.