The precedent for Justice Department interference in the election process was set in 1992 by the Democrats. So why are they crying about the Comey letter?

Today,  Monday the 31st,  Progressive Media headlines are trying to excite folks to the fantasy idea that the Russians have a secret plan to use Trump as a spy,  to convince the brain dead partisan that Trump would start a nuclear war, that his tax returns may document borderline illegal tax deduction,  and, that he,  Putin and Paul Ryan are secretly working together to defeat the American electoral process. 

These are the latest responses to the Comey letter of last Friday.  Here is what this assault actually means:  the Dems are out of ammunition.  They have no counter to the unbelievable number of newly discovered emails.  I mean,  650,000 is truly mind boggling,  in and of itself.  Indeed,  Clinton was already working on her transition team,  and had suggested that Biden be her Secretary of State.  She was moving into the White House seven days ago.  And now,  not so much. 

Lawrence  Walsh was a special prosecutor in the Iran/Contra affair under Reagan.  Like Comey,  he too was a Republican.   On the weekend before the Bush/Clinton election (1992),  the Dems cheered as Walsh decided to indict Reagan era Secretary of Defense, Casper Wineburger.  Inextricably, Walsh also named H Bush in the indictment.  After the election loss to Bill Clinton,  Bush's name was dropped from the indictment,  and,  later,  the Wineburger case was thrown out of court.  

My point.  The Comey letter reopening the email investigation 11 days before the election,  pails in significance to the Walsh indictment the weekend before the 1992 elections  . . . .  and that was a Democrat event without regret.  

While Comey had no choice but to make his announcement in view of the 650,000 documents suddenly in his possession,  it does seem to me that turn-about is fair play.  Will it change the election outcome?  Maybe not,  but it certainly gives the Conservative Nation a little hope coming into next Tuesday's election   . . . . .  and maybe an improbable election result as well.  
________________
Related headline:  Looking for an 'Unprecedented' October Surprise? Nothing Tops Lawrence Walsh's 1992 Dirty Trick

2 comments:

  1. It's a tough choice. A lying, misogynist, racist, dangerous narcissist... vs a lady who used the wrong email.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong email? Just to be clear, she lied to the American people, on camera, 10/15 times. She made pay-for-play agreements with foreign powers making her a multi-millionaire without having a job. She ran guns out of Libya and helped to empower Iran against Israel. She destroyed her emails with bleachbyte soft ware after being told to save those emails as part of the investigation. She has refused court orders and, at every turn, tried to run from this scandal.

      Delete