“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Thursday, July 07, 2016

The Hillary Defense - Now we have a problem with the handling of classified documents

Attorneys Intend to Ask for 'the Clinton Deal'

Major Jason Brezler, center, holds a meeting of local governors on May 3, 2010, outside of Nowzad in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Maj. Brezler is facing a possible discharge after emailing a classified document.
Major Jason Brezler, center, holds a meeting of local governors on May 3, 2010, outside of Nowzad in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Brezler faces a possible discharge after emailing a classified document. Monique Jaques/ Getty Images

Attorneys for people who allegedly mishandled classified information say the outcome of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton could be good news for their clients.

Though many see a double standard in FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to recommend charges against the former secretary of state who used a personal and unsecured email system for official business, others see possibilities.
Mark Zaid, a defense attorney for national security whistleblowers and people accused of mishandling secrets, says he plans to ask for “the Clinton deal” in the future.

And Zaid says he probably can get it.

In 2015, shortly after former CIA Director David Petraeus received a plea deal featuring probation and a fine for sharing highly classified information with his mistress Paula Broadwell, Zaid says he called the Justice Department on behalf of a client accused of taking classified records home. 

“We absolutely got on the phone to the prosecutor and said, ‘We want the Petraeus sentence. We want the commensurate, parallel sentence.’ And we got it!” he says, winning a $5,000 fine and a short probation term instead of possible prison for a now-retired intelligence agency employee.

Said says if that case still were still pending, he probably could have gotten the client, who he refused to name and asked not be identified, the same deal as Clinton, as their “carelessness,” a term used by Comey to describe Clinton’s email practices, was similar.

“In some ways, [the Clinton and Petraeus cases] now create a glass ceiling and a glass floor,” Zaid says. “By Comey’s wording [about Clinton], now we have a floor as to what constitutes intent that deserves prosecution.”

Clinton did intentionally use a private and unsecured email system for her official business, but during his Tuesday speech Comey avoided the words “gross negligence,” which could qualify her for prosecution, instead calling her conduct “extremely careless.”

Comey said Clinton's email system featured more than 100 messages with classified information. He said foreign spies could have gained access, though the FBI found no evidence that happened. Unlike Petraeus, who received two years of probation and a $100,000 fine, Clinton was not accused of lying to the FBI, though she did publicly claim she had not sent or received classified information. 
The argument that a free pass for Clinton should allow leniency for others soon will be tested in federal court as attorney Michael Bowe argues Marine Reserves Maj. Jason Breezier should not be separated from the military. 

Brezler used a personal email account to send a classified report about an alleged child-raping, drug-dealing Afghan police official to a fellow Marine as a warning, two weeks before one of the man’s apparent rape victims murdered three Marines. He reportedly knew the document was classified, but felt its status may have changed with time.

Bowe intends to argue that Brezler deserves leniency and that his recommended punishment is arbitrary and capricious, particularly in light of Clinton's conduct. He expects a ruling this fall.

“We intend to cite the treatment of Secretary Clinton as one of the many -- and most egregious -- examples of how the severe treatment of Major Brezler was the very definition of an arbitrary and capricious double standard,” Bowe says.
He adds: “It is impossible to reconcile the commander-in chief’s statement [in April] that Secretary Clinton’s intentional act of setting up a secret, unsecured server on which rested the most sensitive classified information did not ‘detract from her excellent ability to carry out her duties’ with the completely opposite finding for Major Breezier based on an allegedly inadvertent mistake involving infinitely less sensitive and limited information.”

Whether Clinton’s non-punishment will have an effect on future Justice Department actions is a matter of dispute.

“I think what Director Comey said has no large implications for other criminal [defendants] in the future,” says Neal Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor.

“It is a truism that mens rea or criminal intent is needed to prosecute, and as the director said, no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute without it,” he says. “So I don't see any large implications for other investigations.”
Author and retired diplomat Peter Van Buren, who is not an attorney, says he also doubts much will change.

Van Buren was referred to the Justice Department for possible trial and forced out of the State Department in 2012, after he allegedly mishandled classified information. His offenses included linking to a publicly viewable WikiLeaks cable on his personal blog and including information he describes as innocuous non-secrets in a book he submitted for State Department pre-publication review. 
“This indicates there really is no standard at all,” Van Buren says.

“My case is extremely minor, but the significance is it happened in the State Department while Hillary was doing whatever she was doing in the background,” he says.

Other recent cases involving classified information include the conviction and imprisonment of former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who gave contact information for a CIA employee to a reporter. He pleaded guilty in 2012 to violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and spent nearly two years behind bars. 
Former Naval reservist Bryan Nishimura, meanwhile, pleaded guilty last year to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials, receiving a $7,500 fine. His lawyer, William Portanova, said he was a “pack rat" who did not mean to break the law.

And there’s Arabic translator James Hitselberger, who was fired and criminally charged for printing two classified documents and attempting to leave a Bahrain naval base. He pleaded guilty in 2014 to unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents to spare himself a potentially lengthy prison sentence, maintaining he was innocent of purposeful wrongdoing. 

Hitselberger offered an explanation similar to Clinton's justification for using a person email server: convenience. He wanted to read the documents at home.

Attorneys for Hitselberger, Kiriakou and Nishimura did not respond to requests for comment.
David Kendall, the lawyer who represented both Clinton and Petraeus, also did not respond to a request for comment.

Said says it’s important to keep in mind that there are relatively few criminal cases involving mishandling of classified documents and that choosy prosecutors "have a double standard every day they indict people"

But, he adds, one line uttered by Comey may become more significant with time. 
The FBI director said, without emphasis: "Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information [on Clinton's private servers] bore markings indicating the presence of classified information." Any such markings, Zaid says, would suggest a knowing violation of the law.


  1. That small "C" stood for the lowest form of classification - Confidential - and, was no longer applicable after the call had been made. Ergo, the two documents were not classified.

    1. There is a large R and a large J in the responsibility and judgement of such a high office from one that wants to be President of The USA.

      She was not some orderly room clerk. On a political level, she is making Trump look cautious and responsible and after watching this farce unravel, I will vote for Trump. Hillary Clinton is unfit for the office.

    2. Excellent.

      There's also the little matter of mega-millions made by The Clinton Foundation selling favors needing the Sec. State's signature to foreign turds of all sorts.

  2. Responsibility And Conduct In Office by a US Secretary of State

    Created in 1789 by the Congress as the successor to the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of State is the senior executive Department of the U.S. Government. The Secretary of State’s duties relating to foreign affairs have not changed significantly since then, but they have become far more complex as international commitments multiplied. These duties -- the activities and responsibilities of the State Department -- include the following:

    * Serves as the President’s principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;

    * Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;

    * Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;

    * Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;

    * Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;

    * Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;

    * Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;

    * Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
    * Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;

    * Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;

    * Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;

    * Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;

    * Administers the Department of State;

    * Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.

  3. Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries

    How well did she do this? We will never know who got what from those emails and since we don’t know that, we don’t know the consequences.

    We do know that she supported and voted for the Iraq war, Instigated the destabilization of Libya and relished
    the murder of Ghadaffi and indiscreetly laughed about it in front of media. What she does when she has a few belts in her is anyone’s guess.

    She went on to participate in taking Libyan weapons to Syria to destabilize that government and effectively helped set the scene for ISIS.

    She was and is grossly unsuited for any responsible position of authority. Her past disastrous actions as SOS hardly support her absurd ambitions to be POTUS. This will be a test on just how ridiculous are system has become. I am not optimistic.

  4. .

    I was just ready to post this comment on the last stream when Deuce closed it. it's in response to WiO...

    But I don't know of any "Palestinian homes that are charged and imprisioned"

    Palestinian homes are destroyed all the time. Not only the homes of the terrorists but those of their families. That is a form of collective punishment and is decried as a war crime under international law.

    Surprisingly, the homes of Israeli terrorists are not destroyed. A recent example is that of the men convicted of kidnapping the Palestinian kid and burning him alive. Even Netanyahu has called them terrorists. Yet, it was ruled recently that the crime was an anomaly and nothing would be served by destroying his home. Interesting, but not unusual. In fact, though destroying the homes of Palestinians even when they are mere ‘suspects’ of criminal activity has become SOP in Israel, I have yet seen an example of an Israeli criminal’s home being destroyed.

    My high standards of evidence apply to armed people who attack people.


    You cite the number of incidents involving Palestinian terrorists and rock throwers. You have stated you don’t see those same numbers coming from the Israelis. However, since peace groups and NGOs have cited the claim that 93% of Palestinian charges against Israelis go unindicted and it is unclear how many of the other 7% actually end in a prosecution and conviction, the discrepancy you cite is not surprising.

    Add to that the fact that in the WB the PA police are not allowed to arrest any Israeli citizen regardless of the crime. That leaves it up to the IDF to handle all of these cases. And while I am pleased to see the objective nature of your ‘high standards of evidence’, I fear the IDF doesn’t really share that level of objectivity.

    I base that mainly on videos like the following from Israeli human rights group B’Tselem where we see IDF soldiers escorting Israeli settlers while they throw rocks at Palestinians instead of actually protecting the Palestinians from these attacks as they are required to do as the occupying power under international law.

    B’Tselem Videos


    1. The idea that anyone can support that with a straight face and claim they believe in justice is preposterous.

  5. I close down comments on some posts because someone comes in a day or two later and puts in comments that cannot be challenged .

  6. Hillary has a known public record of deceit and lying. The FBI, investigating Hillary for one year, had to be aware of sensational bouts of prevaricating by hillary, yet did not put her under oath.


  7. James Comey is the new Judge Roberts

    Is it worth impairing the reputation of the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to save Hillary Clinton from a deserved criminal prosecution by playing word games?

    What has become of the rule of law — no one is beneath its protections or above its requirements — when the American public can witness a game of political musical chairs orchestrated by Bill Clinton at an airport in a bizarre ruse to remove the criminal investigation of his wife from those legally responsible for making decisions about it?

    How hairsplitting can the FBI be in acknowledging "extreme recklessness" while denying "gross negligence" about the same events, at the same time, and in the same respect?

    These are questions that now beg for answers in light of what can only be the politically motivated FBI report delivered earlier this week on the likely criminal behavior of Hillary Clinton.


    1. {...}

      The espionage statute that criminalizes the knowing or grossly negligent failure to keep state secrets in a secure venue is the rare federal statute that can be violated and upon which a conviction may be based without the need of the government to prove intent.

      Thus, in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of Al Qaeda operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan — but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account.

      And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home — someone who had a secret security clearance herself — because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.

      Yet earlier this week, FBI Director James Comey — knowing that his bosses in the DOJ would accept his legal conclusions about Clinton’s failure to keep state secrets secure, because they had removed themselves from independently judging the FBI's work — told the public that whereas the inadvertence of the above defendants was sufficient to justify their prosecutions, somehow Clinton's repeated extreme recklessness was not.




      It is obvious that a different standard is being applied to Clinton than was applied to Petraeus and the others. It is also now painfully obvious that the game of musical chairs we all witnessed last week when Bill Clinton entered the private jet of Comey's boss — Attorney General Loretta Lynch — unannounced and spent 30 private minutes there with her at a time when both he and his wife were targets of FBI criminal probes was a trick to compromise Lynch and remove her and her aides from the DOJ chain of command regarding the decision as to whether to present evidence of crimes against either of the Clintons to a federal grand jury.

      Why do we stand for this?

      The criminal case against Mrs. Clinton would have been overwhelming. The FBI acknowledged that she sent or received more than 100 emails that contained state secrets via one of her four home servers. None of those servers was secure. Each secret email was secret when received, was secret when sent and is secret today. All were removed from their secure venues by Clinton, who knew what she was doing, instructed subordinates to white out “secret" markings, burned her own calendars, destroyed thousands of her emails and refuses to this day to recognize that she had a duty to preserve such secrets as satellite images of North Korean nuclear facilities, locations of drone strikes in Pakistan, and names of American intelligence agents operating in the Middle East under cover.



    Why do we stand for this?

    Comey has argued that somehow there is such a legal chasm between extreme recklessness and gross negligence that the feds cannot bridge it. That is not an argument for him to make. That is for a jury to decide after a judge instructs the jury about what Comey fails to understand: There is not a dime's worth of difference between these two standards. Extreme recklessness is gross negligence.

    Unless, of course, one is willing to pervert the rule of law yet again to insulate a Clinton yet again from the law enforcement machinery that everyone else who fails to secure state secrets should expect.

    Why do we stand for this?


    Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written nine books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty.


    The establishment expect that the American public is dumb enough to accept this. They are wrong. Let’s shock the living shit out of them:


    Wednesday, July 06, 2016

    Most voters disagree with FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to seek a criminal indictment of Hillary Clinton.

    The FBI concluded that Clinton potentially exposed top secret information to hostile countries when she used a private e-mail server as secretary of State, but Comey announced yesterday that the FBI has decided not to pursue a criminal indictment in this matter. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey – taken last night - finds that 37% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with the FBI’s decision. But 54% disagree and believe the FBI should have sought a criminal indictment of Clinton.


    1. No recording, no oath taking, no charges:

      I'm fine with that as long as none of the bastards receive one more dime in payment for their "service."

      Professional Sleazebags.

  10. Comey did exactly as he was told. The FBI did not put her under oath because they were told not to. It's really that simple, folks. The fix is in, we've been played. Kick the can on down the road. Trump has picked Marsha Blackburn as the RNC speaker. Classy lady from Tennessee.

  11. .

    What is "Occupation"Thu Jul 07, 03:27:00 PM EDT

    quirk propagandizes:

    "Interesting, but not unusual. In fact, though destroying the homes of Palestinians even when they are mere ‘suspects’ of criminal activity has become SOP in Israel,"

    really could you show ONE example that the IDF is destroying palestinian's homes for being mere suspects of "criminal" activity not connected with terror?

    Inquiring minds would love to see that...

    <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-home-demolitions-west-bank.html?_r=0”>Israeli Forces Destroy Family Homes of 4 Palestinians Accused in Shootings</a>

    <i>RAMALLAH, West Bank — Israeli forces on Saturday destroyed the family homes of three Palestinian men charged with carrying out a drive-by shooting last month that killed a couple in front of their four children, and the forces also demolished the home of a man accused of fatally shooting an Israeli in June.

    It was the most sweeping use of a controversial antiterrorism measure since a wave of unrest escalated last month, mostly through demonstrations, stabbing attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians and attempts to hit Israelis with vehicles.

    Israel’s Supreme Court approved the demolitions, all in the West Bank, on Thursday after days of debate. Hawkish Israeli politicians and bereaved relatives had accused the court of dragging its feet after it delayed a decision on Oct. 30. An Israeli human rights group, HaMoked, lost an appeal trying to prevent the demolitions.

    Israeli military forces surrounded the homes, three in Nablus and one nearby in Silwad, early Saturday morning. They were destroyed with explosives after the families cleared out, local news media reported.

    Home demolitions were a tactic widely used against the families of Palestinian suicide bombers during the second intifada, which erupted in 2000. But the practice was largely halted in 2005 after a commission found that it rarely worked as a deterrent, and often inflamed hostility. It was revived as a punitive measure last year.

    “There are all too many incentives to encourage people to commit terrorist crimes,” said Mark Regev, a government spokesman. “People who commit these terrorist crimes are not afraid to die. So the fear that the house that they lived in will be destroyed after they are gone provides an effective deterrence and saves lives.”

    <b>Sarit Michaeli, of the Israeli rights group B’Tselem, denounced the demolitions.
    “The authorities have never accused the relatives who are losing their homes of any crimes,” Ms. Michaeli said. “The notion that it’s acceptable to punish people for other people’s actions is an affront to the law…”</b></i>


    1. .

      What don't you get about the rule of law, dipshit?

      The article talks about 'suspected' terrorists. They hadn't even been convicted of anything yet. The relatives weren't even charged with a crime yet they were made to suffer.

      Also, have you ever see an Israeli receive the same punishment? I gave you the example of a heinous crime where the Israeli was sentenced to life in prison; yet, they chose not to destroy his home. Why was that?

      Possibly because Israelis are never charged as terrorists in cases like this. A settler who happens to kill a Palestinians is not a terrorist. According to the Israelis he is guilty of a nationalistically motivated crime and likely face manslaughter or at the most murder charges. A Palestinian attacks an Israeli he is automatically assumed to be a terrorist.

      Get your head out of your ass and do a little reading on what is really going on in Israel.


  12. Very few Americans would put up with the shit shoveled at the Palestinians day in and day out by the paid thug-force IDF.

  13. There's a new defense out there now.

    The Hillary Defense

    What most folks don't realize is that Quirk has been using this very defense for decades, he just was never famous enough to get his name attached to it.

    (it helps to have friends in high places and also to be a totally shameless son of a bitch)

    ((Q's never murdered anyone, but in the hands of a real pro this defense allows one to literally get away with murder))

  14. First thing I'd do is shut down Palestinian media of all sorts.

    They have been inciting violence since the days of Martha Gellhorn, and before.

    I believe in freedom of speech, but not when it advocates murder.

    I have noticed as well that each time some Palestinians kills a Jew, even some little girl knifed twenty time in her bed, as happened just recently, the entire Palestinian street hoots and hollers in joy and celebration.

    I've got no more sympathy for them any longer. I've been listening to the same play all my life.

    I don't know what to do about them, but they certainly don't need a state, which would be violent, misogynist, racist, apartheid and dedicated to genocide. The Hamas Charter is very direct about the latter.

    1. Get off your damn high horse, Quirk, p l e a s e.

      You look and sound ridiculous up there.

    2. .

      I've said nothing to defend terrorists. What I've said that the same terrorist acts are committed on both sides but that Israeli law is far from impartial in its application.

      WiO's parsing of the definitions of criminal behavior and terrorism is an example of Orwell's doublethink. Israeli law contains the same differentiation. If you are a Palestinian and you attack an Israeli you are a terrorist. If you are Israeli and you attack a Palestinian, if in fact you get charged at all, you are considered a nationalistic freedom fight. If the crime is in the occupied territories, the Israeli is judged in a civilian court. The Palestinian is judged in a military court. The rules and punishments for the two are very different.


    3. .

      It's not going on in "Israel" it's going on in a war zone.

      Of course, it is. It's been that way since the beginning,70 years of hate with the ultimate objective the land. We know Israel has no plans for allowing a Palestinian state. It's all kabuki. What would you expect?

      The problem is that you make the mistake of thinking that all the crimes and abuse come from the other side which is absurd.

      You talk of Palestinian 'terrorists' and assign the guilt collectively on the entire Palestinian people. You forget that Israel was born in blood. Lehi, Haganah, Irgan, all used terrorism to expand the land controlled by the Jews before the Brits pulled out. That same process is currently being carried out by settler gangs in the WB.

      Terror is what the weak do when they are fighting the strong. The Jews against the British and the Arabs. The Palestinians against the Israeli's.

      You will no doubt call these Israeli groups nationalistic patriot groups fighting for Jewish 'self-determination'. However, you ignore the fact that the Palestinian's fight might have been a nationalistic movement fighting for their own 'self-determination' especially when they represented 2/3 of the population of the Palestinian Mandate lands and Israel's 1/3 took 2/3 of the land.

      Above you cite an Abbas aide: ‘Wherever you see an Israeli, slit his throat’

      You ignore the vitriol coming from the Israeli side.

      Try reading the Koenig Memorandum (1976)



    What a farce.

  16. Rasmussen Reports 7/5 - 7/5 1000 LV 3.0 40 42 Trump +2

  17. Whatever happened to the Christians in Bethlehem, Quirk ?

    1. .

      You dumb ass, that question has been answered a number of times by both me and Ash. How stupid are you?


    2. Temper, temper, Quirk.

      The answer don't fit your paradigm so you start calling names.

      You repeat your little memes oh, about 20 times a week.

      Temper, temper

    3. by both me and Ash

      That really should read 'Ash and I' but no mind.

      The connection between the SMIRK'n'QUIRK TWINS will out, no matter the faulty construction.

      It's OK. I always say 'f the construction' long as the meaning shines through.

      You boys 'think' as one.

      It's a case of one plus one equaling one.

  18. Interesting new poll

    We’ve hit a little bit of a lull in polling for the 2016 presidential election.

    The recently released tracking and weekly national polls, conducted by firms such as Ipsos, Morning Consult, SurveyMonkey and YouGov, continue to show Democrat Hillary Clinton ahead of Republican Donald Trump (with the exception of the Republican-leaning Rasmussen Reports). A new Pew Research Center poll also has Clinton ahead of Trump 45 percent to 36 percent, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 11 percent.

    We’ve also had a few new state polls, which basically confirm what we thought we knew about the race:

    A Field Poll from California gave Clinton an unsurprising 50 percent to 26 percent lead over Trump, with Johnson at 10 percent. The FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast gives her a 98 percent chance of winning the state.
    An Icitizen survey from Oregon found Clinton up 46 percent to 32 percent over Trump. The FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast has Clinton with an 86 percent chance of winning Oregon.
    A Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates poll from Vermont has Clinton ahead of Trump 39 percent to 24 percent, with Johnson at 10 percent. That is a smaller-than-expected margin — President Obama won the Vermont vote by 36 percentage points in 2012. Perhaps there is resistance to Clinton among Bernie Sanders supporters in his home state. Either way, Clinton is still ahead by a wide margin, and our polls-only forecast gives her a 94 percent chance of winning Vermont.
    Overall, Clinton has a 78 percent chance of winning the presidency, according to the latest FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast. Polls-plus gives Clinton a 72 percent chance. Those are both a tick downward since we launched our forecast models last week.


  19. FBI Director James Comey said July 5 that Hillary Clinton sent and received emails about matters that were classified. Specifically, he said:

    For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.

    Contrast: Here’s Hillary Clinton herself has said in the past. She previously stated,

    I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material, so I am certainly well aware of the classification requirements, and did not send classified material.



    1. :)

      "It's not about me"

      Nah, it's about Jerry in Minnesota.

    2. "They have also confirmed that"

      Nope, not about Hillary.

      Maybe it's about Rufus of Mississippi.....'they' haven't ruled that out....


      It's like my wife says, if we elect this fraud, we're fucked as a country.

  20. Big protests in NYC and elsewhere over the recent shootings by the Police.

    I have no idea what happened, though at least the one looks bad.

    I think I heard one of the racist white cops was Chinese. But not even certain of that yet.

    May it all remain peaceful, as it is so far.

    1. Now two officers have been shot in Dallas.

      News travels too fast these days.

    2. Can't remember which French philosophe said it but it is well said -

      "If we'd all sit quietly in our apartments we wouldn't have all this chaos"

  21. Rat, are you around? I know I'm crazy, and there's an echo effect in those tall buildings, but I'll be damned if that didn't sound like a Browning Automatic Rifle.

  22. Live TV feed from Dallas


  23. The police would have bullet proof vests yet 2 out of 10 dead/

    1. If that's what I think it is (BAR,) it will blow through a vest like it's not there.

    2. The rate of fire is kind of reminiscent of an AK-47. The buildings could be amplifying the sound.

    3. Everyone needs an AK-47 for plinking.

  24. Insightful commentary from some TV news station in Dallas -

    "Everything was quiet until the shooting broke out."

    1. From this the alert listener will glean that no silencer was used.

    2. One suspect 'neutralized'.

      I'm not laughing.

      Just amazed at some of the language used in the reporting.

    3. Far as I know 'neutralized' originally gained currency in the first half of the 1900's.

  25. .

    Quirk references jewish terror from the 1940's...

    This from the dolt who is constantly referencing Jewish history from 3000 years ago and Muslim history from 1400 years ago. It would be funny if it wasn't so bizarre.

    Quirk the Palestinians renounced terrorism as part of the land for peace deal.

    I'm not here to defend the Palestinians. In my opinion, their leadership has left them high and dry. I said it here many times that the terror is counterproductive. Israel has been using it as an excuse for 50 years. The Palestinians would be much better off had they gone the way Abbas is going now right from the start. Ignore the kabuki of bi-lateral negotiations and instead take their case to the UN. Use peaceful demonstration, organize boycotts and strikes. Get world opinion on their side. Right now they are the victim of the victims.

    Israel did withdrawal from 89% of the west bank, all of the sinai, all of gaza and got nothing but terror.


    Israel withdrew from the Sinai but that has nothing to do with the Palestinians just like the treaty with Jordan had nothing to do with the Palestinians. Israel got a sweet peace deal from it. And the US is picking up the tab. Has been right along. Instead of being completely surrounded by enemies Israel's only dangerous border now is in the north, at least from state players.



    1. {...}

      As for the rest of it, your comment is absurd. The Palestinians haven't been given any land at all, not when Israel ultimately controls it all.

      The world doesn't consider the action legitimate but Israel has claimed they have annexed all of Jerusalem.

      Israel says they have given up control of Gaza but the rest of the world calls that claim crazy talk both in fact and in law. One, you can't say you have given Gaza back when you keep effective control over every aspect of the lives there, when you control all ingress and egress by land, sea, and air. When you control what they are allowed to eat and drink. Two, the rules that apply to occupation and to the ending of that occupation are defined in international law and Israel hasn't come close to meeting them.

      As for the WB, I can only assume you are kidding. A simple google check will show you how goofy that statement is. Israel currently controls Area C, 61% of the entire WB, the area where most of the raw material, water resources, and open areas are, they control the Jordan Valley and its farming. They control everything there, they control security, they control the civil administration, they control land management and zoning, they control work permits, they control which Palestinians are allowed in which are kicked out, the few Palestinian settlements there are not connected to the water system while the Israeli settlements are, the civil administration has planned for only 1% of Area C for Palestinian development, the other 99% is off limits or severely restricted.

      Area B represents 22% of the WB. The Palestinians have civil administration responsibility for the Area but Israel has full military and security control. This is one of the biggest areas of conflict since the Israeli settlements are constantly encroaching on Palestinian properties.

      Area A is only 18% of the WB. Here the PA has civil administration authority over Area A. They also have nominal security authority. However, actual control remains with the IDF. Whenever, they want to enter, they merely declare an emergency and go in. And of course the PA police are not allowed to arrest Israeli citizens for any reason in any part of the WB.

      But you know all this. It's been put up numerous times here. You've seen the maps, the Israeli roads and barriers that divide the Palestinian settlements into 70 or 80 cantons, ghettos under the shadow of the Israelis on the hill tops. You've seen videos showing the Israeli checkpoint system where the Palestinians are forced though narrow barriers designed like cattle chutes. Deuce has talked to you about the Israeli architectural design that dominates the land.

      Gave back 89% of the WB?

      Only someone like Bob could take you seriously.


    2. Whatever happened to the Christians in Bethlehem, the Jews and Christians all over the middle east ?

      Very very few left now.

      Yet you advocate for ANOTHER misogynist, racist, intolerant, violent, genocidal state in the Mideast.

      Nobody with a brain and a conscience could take you seriously.

    3. Get your fat dumb ass out of here.

    4. .

      Ignore him Deuce. It's what I 'try' to do.

      As for Bethlehem, he's not looking for an answer. If he was, he would have read what was posted. He would have followed the links he was provided. If he was interested he would look up where Bethlehem is and it might give him a clue.

      It happens to be in Area B of the West Bank and from Wiki...

      Today, the city is surrounded by two bypass roads for settlers, leaving the inhabitants squeezed between 37 Jewish enclaves, where a quarter of all West Bank settlers, roughly 170,000, live, and the gap between the two roads closed by the 8-metre high Israeli West Bank barrier, which cuts Bethlehem off from its sister city Jerusalem.[4

      He might also realize that the proportion of Christians in Bethlehem has been declining for decades for many reasons. One, there has been an increase in the number of Palestinian refugees. However, from about 2000 on, the reasons mirror those that caused the white flight in Detroit during the 60s and 70s, a declining economy, crime, and poor educational opportunities.

      They suffer the same problems and indignities that the rest of the Palestinians do. Actually, even more so since they are in such close proximity to a quarter of the Israeli settler population.

      One factor contributing to the population decline is because of the lower birth rate within the Christian community. However, most of the decline has come from emigration. The Christians are more educated than the general population. They are mainly middle class and own businesses and hotels. With the declining economy and the lack of educational opportunities they are getting out. They are getting out because they can. they have the resources and education.

      Now in Bob-World, the Christians are being driven out by the Palestinians. In the real world it's a little more complicated than that.


    5. .

      Yet you advocate for ANOTHER misogynist, racist, intolerant, violent, genocidal state in the Mideast.

      Why would I politic for a two-state solution? That reflect poorly on my judgment.

      How many times have I said there is zero, zip, nada chance that Israel will ever willingly grant the Palestinians their own state. No way, no how.

      Don't you listen to anything that is said here?


  26. Without the Police many areas in the USA would quickly resemble nothing so much as ISISLand.

    It's bad enough as it is, without the Police it would be a true jungle, pure nature, life even shorter, brutish and cruel.

  27. They have a clear picture of a guy carrying a rifle.

  28. Nope, they're showing a black guy with an assault-type weapon.

    1. The guys brother says he was marching, and he had him give police his gun.

  29. Back to the Criminal Hillary for a moment:


  30. Ah come on Deuce.

    It's irritating to be forced to read just your side of things.

    Besides not being fair.

    1. Thank you for leaving WiO's last posts up.

      Now the talk has turned to a possible bomb....

      That sounds like might be ISIS....

  31. Then you and asshole should take it over to his blog

  32. Black "person of interest's" brother says the rifle was unloaded, and that he had given it to the police Before the shooting started.

    1. In that case, are the Police shooting themselves ?

    2. After the shooting started.

      He's turned himself in.

      Famous for exercising his second Amendment rights.

  33. Study: Cops Kill More Whites Than Blacks But Minority Deaths Generate More Coverage


  34. Okay, let's play the game. :)

    My vote: 55 year old white guy, with a BAR, from the parking garage. :)

    1. Alt. Theory: Two born-again Moooslims on a little post-ramadan blowing off of the steam. :)

  35. I think your second theory probably has more credence than your first.

    The picture, if it was correct, of one of the perps on Fox definitely did not look like a 55 year old white guy....

    1. Probably not ISIS, whose reputation is to go down fighting.

      Two guys in custody...

    2. hmmmm....female in custody....

      negotiations on going with one shooter....seem to be trading as many gunshots as words...

      something about a Mercedes automobile....

      in short not much seems to be really known....

      but seems to have been planning involved....

      several perps seem involved....

  36. Eh, sounds like Muzzies. A pack of them. Two of them were driving a nice Mercedes. Sheesh. Had a split-tail among'em.

  37. Until I hear Allahu Akbar I'm not going to defame our Islamic Brothers and Sister.

    1. Until I hear Allahu Akbar I'm not going to call this a "Q"Nit.

    2. I still don't know what a "Q"Nit is!

    3. Is it Quirk picking a nit?

  38. Video of "suspect"handing weapon to police.


  39. Guy on street shoots cop with handgun:


  40. Threat has been "neutralized."

  41. Still no Allahu Akbars: Bob and Rufus should be monitored for Islamophobia.

  42. https://www.facebook.com/michaelbautista86

  43. Doug,

    Quirk made the asinine comment that the killings in San Bernardino were a mere 'nit' in the larger Quirkian scheme of things.

    I replied that to the dying at the time it must have seemed something more than 'a mere nit', and to their relatives, too.

    Hence I have made it a point to call all these incidents of mayhem and death in the USA, perpetuated by moslems, and attempted but foiled ones too, "Q"Nits, after his uncaring and totally stupid comment concerning the San Bernardino killings.

    I am getting the distinct feeling that this latest incident is another "Q"Nit based on the involvement of a woman and the amount of planning involved.

    1. (DougFri Jul 08, 03:35:00 AM EDT

      I still don't know what a "Q"Nit is!

      DougFri Jul 08, 03:35:00 AM EDT

      Is it Quirk picking a nit?)

    2. (if it is a "Q"Nit President Obama will probably be on the aire tomorrow calling it 'incident of protest violence', or some such)

  44. .

    Lord, spare us from English majors.

    1. Idaho BobThu Jul 07, 10:08:00 PM EDT
    by both me and Ash

    That really should read 'Ash and I' but no mind.

    No, it really shouldn't read 'Ash and I'. Not in the sentence as constructed. You are confusing subject and object pronouns.

    Here is the sentence as I wrote it:

    ...that question has been answered a number of times by both me and Ash.

    Now, the active tense is always better than the passive and had I written it in the active sense it would have been better.

    ...both Ash and I have answered that question a number of times.

    Had you argued that I should have used the active form rather than the passive, I would have thought you a nitpicking mutt but would have grumbled agreement.

    However, your efforts to correct my sentence as it was written amount to a tragic fail. Whereas I is acceptable as a subject pronoun it is inapproppriate as an object pronoun.

    An easy way to check is to simplify by the sentence by taking Ash out of it. It would then read

    ...that question has been answered a number of times by me.

    whereas your proposed 'correction' would read

    ...that question has been answered a number of times by I.


    1. You got your meaning across even if you're wrong so what's the nit ?

    2. What's your take, you think this shoot up in Dallas is a "Q"Nit or some BLM protesters flipping out over into terrorism ?

    3. I'm betting nit because of the body armor, planning, triangulation of shooters etc.

      Also because has not ISIS been sending out instructions to target cops and whites lately ?

    4. Wow, Bob, you are incredible. It would make for funny reading if it weren't so sad.

  45. ...your question has been answered a number of times by myself...

  46. I wonder what me, myself and I Quirk is referring to - his Transcendental Ego of Apperception, or his old everyday Quirk that just recently gave up drinking ?

  47. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qma4Xg5HUAI

  48. This is the horrifying moment a brave police officer attempted to shoot one of the Dallas gunmen- only for the bullet to bounce off his armored vest and for him to turn around and execute the cop at point-blank range.

    The footage, filmed from a balcony on a building opposite the shoot-out shows one of the Dallas gunmen hiding behind a pillar when a cop approaches him from behind.

    The stealthy officer then attempts to stop the rampage with a well-placed bullet to the shooter's back - but it abounces off, leaving the killer unharmed and the cop exposed. The killer then sprints towards the officer, who ducks behind the pillar.

    The officer then apparently turns to his right, expecting the gunman to approach from the interior of the pillars - instead, the killer approaches from the outside, rounding the corner to see the officer facing away from him.

    It takes just one second for the gunman to shoot his victim at point-blank range, knocking him to the ground, while masonry explodes around him - presumably fired by other officers.

    The attacker then cruelly executes the prone officer before continuing the gunfight. Witness Ismael Dejesus said the maniac, who appeared to be carrying an AR-15 assault rifle, initially had no idea the cop was behind him.

    'A police officer crept up on the shooter and shot him in the back,' he told CNN. 'But it didn’t faze him - he just turned around and shot him.'

    And he said that the brutal execution that followed saw the attacker firing multiple times.

    ‘The police officer was down and he shot him maybe another three or four times in the back,' he explained. Dejesus said this shocking moment shows the attacker must have been well-prepared for the massacre. 'Unless he was a really big guy I can only imagine he was wearing body armor,' he said.

    The man - one of at least four killers who opened fire on police during a demonstration about the recent high-profile killings of black men by cops - was also described as being incredibly heavily armed.

    'It looked like he was carrying an AR-15,' Dejesus said, referring to a popular model of assault rifle.

    And he added that the man had 'lots of 30-round magazines - so many that they were falling out of his pockets.'

    Anthony May, a retired ATF explosives enforcement officer, told CNN that the killer knew exactly what he was doing, firing from that spot.

    'It appears he was trying to draw police into that area,' he said. 'He is very well trained.'