Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, thanks to my shameless contract — as well as appear on the Sack Heads: Against Tyranny Show every Wednesday night.
We are continuing to have phone issues in the studio so I decided it was going to be a one-man show tonight replete, however, with more buttery political goodness than most normal individuals are accustomed.
SCOTUS rules against hot-and-cold-running abortions for illegals;
Jeff Sessions: the most dangerous man in DC so far?
Stefan Halper was the Page/Papadopoulos “honey trap;”
Halper inserted the Russian Connection;
WHO signed off on inserting Stefan Halper?
Barack Hussein Obama was completely uninvolved in government;
In his case, ignorance is in fact bliss;
Plus more and more and more buttery political goodness exposing the Master of Puppets for eight years following 2008: Barack Hussein Obama.
For DISH subscribers: your Hopper has recently been wired to play YouTube videos. You can now toss ol’ BZ onto your massive flatscreen TV and watch him in all of his obese, biased and politically-execrable potty-mouthed goodness. Quarter in a hat.
If you care to listen to the show in Spreaker, well, you can’t. No one can. Not even Mark Zuckerberg. Spreaker crapped out last night, entirely. But: good news.
If you care to watch the show on the SHR Media YouTube channel, click on the red arrow in the middle of the video. Please SUBSCRIBE to the SHR Media channel.
If you care to watch the show on the SHR Media Facebook page (in glorious color), click right here. Kindly LIKE us on Facebook. You can FOLLOW us on Twitter @SHRMediaGroup. Please FOLLOW ol’ BZ @BZep. Thanks so much.
Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin(on Twitter @BZep, Facebook as Biff Zeppe and the Bloviating Zeppelin, and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.
As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.
Please remember that BZ can only monitor the SHRMEDIA.COM chat — though there is chat available on both Facebook and YouTube. If you wish to interact with myself and the bulk of the chatters, I heartily recommend and invite you into the SHR Media page for complete and utter satisfaction or triple your money back. Only a slight 92% restocking fee involved. Offer not valid in Bolivia or on Zephron.
Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here.
Want to watch the show live on Facebook? Go to the SHR Media page on Facebook here.
Want to watch past Berserk Bobcat Saloon shows on YouTube? Go here.
Want to watch the show on High Plains TV? Go here.
Thank you one and all for listening, watching and supporting the SHR Media Network: “Conservative Media Done Right.”
You just drew your final line with me, National Football League.
You and all your sponsors and your Leftist sycophants at ESPN can all go to hell.
You are dead to me.
What’s acceptable and unacceptable in the NFL. The bottom are shoes of Tennessee Titans player Avery Williamson who was threatened by the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell when he wanted to wear them in honor of 9/11.
Also, remember when NFL Commissioner Goodell refused to allow the Dallas Cowboys to wear a sticker honoring five murdered Dallas Police officers in 2016? I certainly do, as I wrote about it in August last year.
Here is the heinously-offensive sticker that had to be removed and never further applied. A five-pointed star, with each point to represent one murdered officer.
NFL rejects Cowboys petition to wear helmet decal memorializing Dallas officers that were killed
by Daniel O’Leary
The NFL has gone from the No Fun League to the No Feelings League.
According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Dallas Cowboys filed a petition for permission to wear a helmet decal memorializing the five officers killed in a tragic shooting in Dallas back in July.
The decal featured a star – similar to the one featured prominently in the Dallas PD logo – with a black circle around it and the phrase “Arm In Arm,” to signify support for the police and the Dallas community after the tragedy. The Cowboys opened up training camp while walking with their arms interlocked with members of the Dallas police department.
The team has worn the decal on its helmets during training camp, but will now have to be removed. According to the Star-Telegram, Cowboys VP Stephen Jones said the league had already rejected the team’s petition to wear it during the regular season but extended the ban to the preseason as well.
“Expanded the ban to the pre-season as well.” Translated: not just no, but hell no.
Anyone perceive the slightest bit of hypocrisy? Anywhere?
Let’s first start with this, as the Ravens and Jaguars decide to all take a knee across the pond at Wembley Stadium in England this Black Sunday the 24th.
In rebuke to Trump, Ravens and Jaguars take a knee in London during US national anthem
About two dozen players, including Baltimore Ravens linebacker Terrell Suggs and Jacksonville Jaguars running back Leonard Fournette, took a knee during the playing of the national anthem before the start of the teams’ game at Wembley Stadium on Sunday.
Other players on one knee during the performance included Ravens linebacker C.J. Mosley, wide receiver Mike Wallace and safety Lardarius Webb as well as Jaguars linebacker Dante Fowler, defensive tackle Calais Campbell, defensive end Yannick Ngakoue and cornerback Jalen Ramsey.
Players on both teams and Jaguars owner Shad Khan, who were not kneeling, remained locked arm-in-arm throughout the playing of the national anthem and “God Save The Queen,” the national anthem of Britain.
No players were kneeling during the playing of the British national anthem.
Of course not. That might offend the Brits. They’re a new and expanding market.
NFL, oh yes, you’ll definitely need some new and expanding markets after this Black Sunday the 24th.
Then there is this, from ESPN.com. I want you to see and read how this is crafted by ESPN and Leftist journalistas.
Steelers remain in locker room during the national anthem
by Jeremy Fowler
CHICAGO — In a sign of solidarity, the Pittsburgh Steelers stayed in the locker room during the national anthem before their 1 p.m. ET kickoff with the Chicago Bears.
As the anthem began in Soldier Field, several Steelers coaches were on the sideline, including head coach Mike Tomlin, while the players were not present. Offensive coordinator Todd Haley, offensive line coach Mike Munchak and running backs coach James Saxon also were spotted.
ESPN translation? Race traitors and racists, every one of them.
Players took the field within a few seconds of the anthem’s end, just after fireworks launched, with quarterback Ben Roethlisberger one of the first players out of the tunnel.
Note this:
Left tackle Alejandro Villanueva, an Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan, was seen on the CBS broadcast at the edge of the tunnel during the anthem, hand over heart.
The entire Steelers team stayed in the locker room for national anthem except for Villanueva who served 3 tours in Afghanistan.
A true hero pic.twitter.com/nnDsHrwym3
Trust me. There are already Leftists readily attempting to identify and locate the black employee at the bottom left of the photo, hand over heart like most Americans, in order to expose him, humiliate him, embarrass him, perhaps even harm him.
He was outside. Standing. One man. Hand over heart. During the national anthem. One man who had served in the US military, who had served his nation and who had the courage, the balls, to be the one Steeler who honored and respected the US flag.
Standing. One man. Hand over heart.
But wait; there’s more. One day later Villanueva had regrets. He feels he let his team down. Translated: he’s a good man but the rest of his teammates made him feel guilty for his stance.
Other people weighed in on the NFL issue. Why is it that the bulk of the insightful and cogent opinions were by young black males? Listen. First from CJ Pearson.
Then there was this brilliant piece by Brandon Tatum.
As far as the NFL is concerned — just like Hillary Rodham Clinton — it doesn’t have a problem. Everyone else has the problem. It’s everyone else’s fault but theirs.
And, like Hillary, they lack the ability to conduct introspection or self examination despite Captain Obvious visiting on a daily basis.
It’s Shocking How Empty The Stadium Was For Thursday Night Football
by David Hookstead
The San Francisco 49ers Thursday night game against the Los Angeles Rams kicked off in front of a nearly empty stadium.
Los Angeles Times reporter Lindsey Thiry tweeted a photo at the time of kickoff, which showed thousands of open seats. In fact, most sections in the photo have more empty seats than fans.
Further, we must remember the probity and innocence of the NFL players themselves, anyway. Ahem.
So what is this really about? You should ask the question and all the involved players should ask the question. Is it about this loose word “unity” as some are insisting? Unity in what, specifically? Unity in terms of only what those on the Left are advocating?
Or is it — as I suspect — about what Colin Kaepernick originally stated? The rampant and overwhelming gunning-down by Caucasoid police officers of innocent and unarmed young black males?
Except that premise is a fallacy. Police shootings of blacks have gone down over the years, not up.
And the media narrative to the contrary is damaging.
A few days ago, former police officer Jason Stockley, who is white, was acquitted of first-degree murder; he had fatally shot Anthony Lamar Smith, who was black, in 2011. Protests started in St. Louis, where the shooting took place and Stockley was judged, immediately after the verdict was announced. Although they were initially peaceful, they soon turned violent, and dozens of protesters were arrested while several police officers were injured. Since the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, just outside St. Louis, in 2014, this has become a familiar pattern.
This article is not about whether Stockley should have been acquitted. Instead, I want to talk about the underlying narrative regarding the prevalence of police brutality against black men in the U.S., which is largely undisputed in the media.
According to this narrative, black men are constantly harassed by the police and routinely brutalized with impunity, even when they have done nothing wrong, and there is an “epidemic of police shootings of unarmed black men.” Even high-profile black celebrities often claim to be afraid of the police because the same thing might happen to them. Police brutality, or at least the possibility that one might become a victim of such violence, is supposed to be part of the experience of a typical black man in the U.S. Events such as the death of Brown in Ferguson are presented as proof that black men are never safe from the police.
This narrative is false. In reality, a randomly selected black man is overwhelmingly unlikely to be victim of police violence — and though white men experience such violence even less often, the disparity is consistent with the racial gap in violent crime, suggesting that the role of racial bias is small. The media’s acceptance of the false narrative poisons the relations between law enforcement and black communities throughout the country and results in violent protests that destroy property and sometimes even claim lives. Perhaps even more importantly, the narrative distracts from far more serious problems that black Americans face.
Let’s start with the question of fatal violence. Last year, according to the Washington Post’s tally, just 16 unarmed black men, out of a population of more than 20 million, were killed by the police. The year before, the number was 36. These figures are likely close to the number of black men struck by lightning in a given year, considering that happens to about 300 Americans annually and black men are 7 percent of the population. And they include cases where the shooting was justified, even if the person killed was unarmed.
Of course, police killings are not the result of a force of nature, and I’m not claiming these are morally equivalent. But the comparison illustrates that these killings are incredibly rare, and that it’s completely misleading to talk about an “epidemic” of them. You don’t hear people talk about an epidemic of lightning strikes and claim they are afraid to go outside because of it. Liberals often make the same comparison when they argue that it’s completely irrational to fear that you might become a victim of terrorism.
One might retort that, while it may be rare for a black man to be killed by the police, black men are still constantly stopped and routinely brutalized by the police, even if they don’t die from it. However, even this weaker claim is false. It just isn’t true that black men are kicked, punched, etc., on a regular basis by the police.
In order to show that, I’m going to use data from the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS), which, as its name suggests, provides detailed information about contacts between the police and the public. It’s conducted on a regular basis by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and is based on a nationally representative sample of more than 70,000 U.S. residents age 16 or older. Respondents are asked whether they had a contact with the police during the past 12 months; if they say they did, they answer a battery of questions about the nature of their last contact, including any use of force. Since the respondents also provide their age, race, gender, etc., we can use this survey to calculate the prevalence of police violence for various demographic groups. The numbers in this piece are from my own analysis of the data, the details and code for which I provide here, but they are consistent with a 2015 report compiled by the BJS itself to the extent the two overlap.
First, despite what the narrative claims, it’s not true that black men are constantly stopped by the police for no reason. Indeed, black men are less likely than white men to have contact with the police in any given year, though this includes situations where the respondent called the cops himself: 17.5 percent versus 20.7 percent. Similarly, a black man has on average only 0.32 contacts with the police in any given year, compared with 0.35 contacts for a white man. It’s true that black men are overrepresented among people who have many contacts with the police, but not by much. Only 1.5 percent of black men have more than three contacts with the police in any given year, whereas 1.2 percent of white men do.
If we look at how often the police use physical force against men of different races, we find that there is indeed a racial disparity, but that this experience is rare across the board. Only 0.6 percent of black men experience physical force by the police in any given year, while approximately 0.2 percent of white men do. To be fair, these are probably slight undercounts, because the survey does not allow us to identify people who did not experience physical force during their most recent contact but did experience such force during a previous contact in the same year.
Further, physical force as defined by the PPCS includes relatively mild forms of violence such as pushing and grabbing. Actual injuries by the police are so rare that one cannot estimate them very precisely even in a survey as big as the PPCS, but the available data suggest that only 0.08 percent of black men are injured by the police each year, approximately the same rate as for white men. A black man is about 44 times as likely to suffer a traffic-related injury, according to the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Moreover, keep in mind that these tallies of police violence include violence that is legally justified.
Now, it’s true that there are significant differences in the rates at which men of different races experience police violence — 0.6 percent is triple 0.2 percent. However, although people often equate racial disparities with bias, this inference is fallacious, as can be seen through an analogy with gender: Men are vastly more likely to experience police violence than women are, but while bias may explain part of this disparity, nobody doubts that most of it has to do with the fact that men are on average far more violent than women. Similarly, if black men commit violent crimes at much higher rates than white men, that might have a lot to do with the disparity in the use of force by the police.
This is evident in the National Crime Victimization Survey, another survey of the public conducted by the BJS. Interviewers ask respondents if they have been the victim of a crime in the past 12 months; if they have, respondents provide information about the nature of the incidents, including the race and ethnicity of the offenders. This makes it possible to measure racial differences in crime rates without relying on data from the criminal-justice system, in which racial bias could lead to higher rates of arrest and conviction for black men even if they commit violence at the same rate.
NCVS data from 2015, the most recent year available, suggest that black men are three times as likely to commit violent crimes as white men. To the extent that cops are more likely to use force against people who commit violent crimes, which they surely are, this could easily explain the disparities we have observed in the rates at which the police use force. That’s not to say that bias plays no role; I’m sure it does play one. But it’s unlikely to explain a very large part of the discrepancy.
Some might say that, instead of consulting statistics like these, we should defer to black Americans’ own perceptions of how the police treat them. As various polls have demonstrated, black people are much more likely than white people to think that police violence against minorities is very common. But the issue cannot be settled this way.
Since individuals have direct knowledge of what happened to them personally, you can trust them about that. But when it comes to larger social phenomena, people’s beliefs are influenced by far more than just their personal experience, including the media. The far more compelling fact is that, if you draw a representative sample of the population and ask each black man in that sample whether a police officer has used physical force against him in the past year, you find that it’s extremely rare.
On many issues, liberals have no problem recognizing this problem. For instance, there is a cottage industry of articles deploring the fact that, although crime has fallen spectacularly in the U.S. since the 1990s, most Americans believe it has increased. Liberals are absolutely right to point out this misperception, but if people of any color can be wrong about this, there is no reason to think black people can’t be wrong about the prevalence of police violence against minorities.
Let’s throw in some more facts. Facts that some apologist elements may not care for because they’re, well, factual. Heather McDonald, a significant author when it comes to law enforcement facts and statistics, notes:
A recent “deadly force” study by Washington State University researcher Lois James found that police officers were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white or Hispanic ones in simulated threat scenarios. Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer analyzed more than 1,000 officer-involved shootings across the country. He concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings. In Houston, he found that blacks were 24 percent less likely than whites to be shot by officers even though the suspects were armed or violent.
An analysis of the Washington Post’s Police Shooting Database and of Federal Crime Statistics reveals that fully 12 percent of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by cops. By contrast, only four percent of black homicide victims are killed by cops.
But isn’t it a sign of bias that blacks make up 26 percent of police-shooting victims, but only 13 percent of the national population? It is not, and common sense suggests why. Police shootings occur more frequently where officers confront armed or violently resisting suspects. Those suspects are disproportionately black.
Here are more damning facts that race apologists, racists, Race and Poverty Pimps, Leftists and Demorats don’t want you to know.
According to the most recent study by the Department of Justice, although blacks were only about 15 percent of the population in the 75 largest counties in the US, they were charged with 62 percent of all robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults. In New York City, blacks commit over three-quarters of all shootings, though they are only 23 percent of the city’s population. Whites, by contrast, commit under two percent of all shootings in the city, though they are 34 percent of the population. New York’s crime disparities are repeated in virtually every racially diverse city in America. The real problem facing inner-city black communities today is not the police but criminals.
In 2014, over 6,000 blacks were murdered, more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined. Who is killing them? Not the police, and not white civilians, but other blacks. In fact, a police officer is eighteen and a half times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. If the police ended all use of lethal force tomorrow, it would have a negligible impact on the black death-by-homicide rate.
In Chicago, through just the first six-and-a-half months of 2016, over 2,300 people were shot. That’s a shooting an hour during some weekends. The vast majority of the victims were black. During this same period, the Chicago police shot 12 people, all armed and dangerous. That’s one half of one percent of all shootings.
The problem is now, with that and more, crime is going up. From UPI.com:
FBI: Violent crime up in 2016 for second year in a row
by Allen Cone
Sept. 25 (UPI) — Violent crime across the United States increased in 2016 for the second year in a row — a climb of 4 percent, according to annual figures released Monday by the FBI.
The 2016 violent crime rate was 386 offenses per 100,000 inhabitants — up from 373 in 2015, and the highest figure since 2012.
The FBI said last year there were 1,248,185 violent crimes — which include murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. The report noted that those types of crimes increased across all population categories.
The 2016 rate, though, was still 18 percent lower than it was a decade ago — and the murder rate was 6 percent lower.
The Justice Department said the data report “reaffirms that the worrying violent crime increase that began in 2015 after many years of decline was not an isolated incident.”
I know why. You suspect it as well. It’s called “proactive” vs “reactive” police philosophies. You can only yell “over-policed” at law enforcement for so long before they take you up on the demand to reduce.
All that said, why are so many persons caving to what appears to be protests based in ignorance (Black Lives Matter itself was created behind the falsehood of “hands up don’t shoot)?
Easy. The NFL is a business. And as a business Roger Goodell and the NFL team owners realize that the NFL is 70% black. Not a shocking statistic. What this means is that the NFL itself fears its players — more protests, possible walkouts, etc. — more than it fears you, the purchasing and attending public. You’ll come back. You always have. You always will.
The NFL is, literally, counting on it.
Despite what Leftists and anarchists are pushing, this is at least for the time being, a free country.
Players — as long as there are no contractual conflicts, as with the Dallas Cowboys — are free to take a knee and refuse to attend the national anthem all they wish.
The owners are free to support their players.
Roger Goodell is free to support all the players who take knees or refuse to attend the national anthem wholesale.
Just as I am free to write this post. I am free to not just disagree but disagree vehemently.
I am free to stop watching the NFL and ESPN.
I am free to cut the cord to cable companies who still make me pay for channels that go against my views, such as anything having to do with Disney, ESPN, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN Headline News, Comcast, CBS, et al.
And I am free to publish all this information far and wide on social media, on the blog and on the air at SHR Media.com.
We are all free. For the time being.
Do as you wish, NFL. I shall do as I wish.
Tomi Lahren nails it.
But even so, the bottom line is this: it’s not about the NFL. It’s not about ratings. It’s not about attendance or ticket sales or viewers. It’s something much larger.
First question that came to my mind: how long will it be before sports and other entities decide that it’s simply too controversial to even play the national anthem at all?
I value honesty and clarity. So let’s be honest and clear. We know why this occurs in the NFL and why it is not only accepted but in many ways encouraged. It occurs via GOWPs and guilt.
Attacks on whites & our national heritage are no passing fad. It’ll only get worse as whites become a minority due to immigration#TakeAKneepic.twitter.com/Zvu1UfEPZN
I have said and will continue to say: “no one is equal until everyone is equal.”
And even then, the picture is so much, much larger. It’s about the total dismantling of this nation, the removal of our current Constitution and Bill of Rights via the installation of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and its subsequent rebuilding by Leftists and anarchists.
Are those legs or are those pier pilings to which eastern cod trawlers should tie up?
It is clear that the Demorats are working in concert with embedded deep state undermining civilian operators along with GOP EstabliHacks in order to create a cavernous and extensive coalition crossing aisles whose goal is to ultimately impeach and remove President Donald Trump.
You know. The person lawfully elected by the people of the United States of America. The guy with the dead orange cat on his head.
For the GOP, you have to ask yourselves why.
Perhaps Judge Pirro knows why.
Good points, all. Where are they indeed? Hiding, hoarding their gold on the table, their collective arms around it, ensuring their money and — mostly — their inherent power is not disturbed in the slightest. Oval office holders may come and go but Entrenched Power prevails. It must not be disturbed or distressed on either side of the aisle. Verboten.
Where were they in re James Comey? Conspicuously silent?
Former FBI Director James Comey testified just last week, Thursday, June 8th — how far and long ago that now seems — that Loretta Lynch compromised him. And you. And me. And the investigation into Hillary Clinton. Let us refresh.
We know now, because of this testimony, that Loretta Lynch herself in the Barack Obama administration attempted to obstruct justice and deflect or remove the serious status of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Minimization. Further, James Comey went along with it.
Let’s go back, shall we, to a certain tete-a-tete between Loretta Lynch and Jason Chaffetz in which Lorette Lynch decided to
“You refused to answer 74 times.”
“Your refusal to answer.”
Perhaps a wee bit-o-history of refusal and obfuscation? No, nothing like that.
Then let us away with Trey Gowdy.
Warte mal.
Are you starting to witness something of a trend here?
A trend completely ignored, and purposely so, by the Demorats and the American Media Maggots and, to an extent, the EstabliHacks of the GOP, with a select few exceptions?
I have set my background. Now it is time to reveal more from Circa.com.
Comey got ‘steely silence’ after confronting Loretta Lynch about Clinton’s email probe
by John Solomon and Sara A. Carter
Ex-FBI Director James Comey has privately told members of Congress that he had a frosty exchange with Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch last year when he confronted her about possible political interference in the Hillary Clinton email investigation after showing Lynch a sensitive document she was unaware the FBI possessed, according to sources who were directly briefed on the matter.
During his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee last Thursday, Comey alluded to the exchange after publicly discussing an encounter with Lynch, where she ordered him not to refer to the criminal probe of Clinton’ handling of classified emails not as an “investigation” but rather as a “matter.” He suggested it smacked of political spin rather than the way professional law enforcement officers talk.
Buttery goodness? But wait, there’s more.
In multiple private sessions over the last few months, Comey has told lawmakers about a second, later confrontation with Lynch shortly before the email probe was shut down.
Really? That hadn’t been plastered near and far by the American Media Maggots. Why might that be?
Comey told lawmakers in the closed door session that he raised his concern with the attorney general that she had created a conflict of interest by meeting with Clinton’s husband, the former President Bill Clinton, on an airport tarmac while the investigation was ongoing.
During the conversation, Comey told lawmakers he confronted Lynch with a highly sensitive piece of evidence, a communication between two political figures that suggested Lynch had agreed to put the kibosh on any prosecution of Clinton.
At minimum a conflict of interest — the likes of which, truly, Comey had no interest considering his approval of Assistant FBI Director McCabe’s direct involvement with Demorat partisan politics on behalf of McCabe’s clearly partisan Demorat wife, Jill. Comey ruled the conflict wasn’t just regular cool, but that it was extra crispy cool. Nothing to see here. Move on. Dot org.
Comey said “the attorney general looked at the document then looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office,” said one source who was briefed.
Bing. Done. Gone. Leave. Vacate.
Comey “took that interaction and the fact she had met with Bill Clinton as enough reason to decide he would not allow the Justice Department to decide the fate of the case and instead would go public” with his own assessment that the FBI could not prove Mrs. Clinton intended to violate the law when she transmitted classified information through her private email and therefore should not be criminally charged. Another source said the “tarmac meeting was the public excuse for not going to Lynch when all along there was other evidence that was more concerning to Comey.”
In other words, politics trumped the truth and the need for Comey to insert himself as something of a Knight In Shining Armor. A fantasy that had been brewing in his fetid, knurled, convoluted and twisted mind for years.
Senate Republicans Hope to Question Loretta Lynch on Conduct in Clinton Email Case
by Aaron Klein
NEW YORK — Senate Republicans are eying the possibility of seeking testimony from former Attorney General Loretta Lynch over possible wrongdoing with regard to the FBI’s criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.
On Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent a letter to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, formally requesting that the committee probe any attempts to influence the FBI’s investigations under the Trump and Obama administrations.
There are three important issues that should logically require the testimony of Lynch.
One is Lynch’s infamous tarmac meeting last June at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport in which former President Bill Clinton, the husband of the FBI’s main subject in a criminal probe — Hillary’s email case — boarded the attorney general’s plane and reportedly stayed there for about thirty minutes for a private chat.
The second concern is Lynch’s reported directive for then-FBI Director James Comey to publically refer to the FBI’s criminal investigation into Clinton’s email as a “matter” instead of an investigation or a criminal probe. The language matched the specific rhetoric used at the time by Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, which referred to the criminal investigation as a “matter.”
The third issue relates to testimony and questions surrounding reports claiming that Comey was in possession of a document purportedly indicating that Lynch would ensure the Clinton email probe didn’t go too far.
Even the politically-biased James Comey — ex FBI Director, thank God — said the “Justice Department leadership could not credibly complete the investigation and declined prosecution without grievous damage to the American people’s confidence in the — in the justice system.”
Judge Andrew Napolitano rightly asks: where are we now?
The Demorats are making these times all about process, as I say, and not about governing. Republicans are buying into it. Republicans appear to willingly be ceding the power they truly possess.
Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, thanks to my shameless contract — as well as appear on the Sack Heads: Against Tyranny Show every Wednesday night.
You just drew your final line with me, National Football League.
Then there is this, 
Standing. One man. Hand over heart.
As far as the NFL is concerned — just like Hillary Rodham Clinton — it doesn’t have a problem. Everyone else has the problem. It’s everyone else’s fault but theirs.
So what is this really about? You should ask the question and all the involved players should ask the question. Is it about this loose word “unity” as some are insisting? Unity in what, specifically? Unity in terms of only what those on the Left are advocating?
For the GOP, you have to ask yourselves why.