8 thoughts on “Former FBI Lawyer James Baker Originally Believed Hillary Clinton Should Be Charged

  1. Clinton supporters will focus on Baker changing his mind after debate and persuasion, but it is more likely he succumbed in the end to group think than to reason. We can deduce this because the applicable statutes require no assessment of intent on the part of the violator.

    The details of this scandal are emerging little by little. After the Mueller report, we should expect the IG report on FISA abuse and the declassification of the FISA warrant itself, which the president has ordered. Also, the Senate Judiciary Committee plans to hold hearings on the Justice Department’s alleged plot to remove President Trump using the 25th Amendment.


    1. Hard to “plot” removal of a president by the 25th Amendment. It requires at least 8 of 15 (or it might be 13 of 24 depending on how counted) cabinet heads to vote for his removal. Then eventually 2/3’s of both houses to approve.

      The cabinet chiefs are Trump appointees. Or at least those he has bothered to fill. I think 6 are acting chiefs.

      Discussion of the 25th is both legal and constitutional. It would be a dereliction of duty if those who are supposed to protect Americans in matters of national security ignored possible evidence of the breach of that just because the source may be the president.


        1. Section 4 was considered in 1987 when Reagan was president. The new chief of staff, Howard Baker, was told by some that Reagan was inattentive and lazy. That is, not doing his job.

          Baker called a meeting of the new staff, invited Reagan, and it was a “test” unknown to the president. Turned out he was excited and sharp, so the discussion invoking of the 25th was dropped.

          This Trump situation did not even go that far.

          Tempest in a teapot.

          Time to move on to infrastructure and healthcare. Maybe drop the silly tariffs. Immigration reform.
          Stuff that counts, but mostly ignored.


  2. Let’s stipulate that how to proceed on Clinton’s emails was not a slam dunk. It is therefore not surprising that before a decision was reached, different points of view were expressed and debated. This lawyer was persuaded but not you? LOL!

    We can deduce . . .

    You can deduce almost anything you want if you start with false premises. Consideration of intent may not be required for administrative actions on security clearances but without the ability to prove corrupt intent it is not possible to prosecute the kind of error that Clinton made.

    Considering and discussing whether the OBVIOUS incapacity and emotional instability of the President rises to the level requiring action under the 25th amendment is NOT a plot. Don’t believe Trump when he tells you that the 25th amendment is unconstitutional. But this claim is a good example of the kind of intellect he is reaching out to.

    You can pretend that there is some “deep state” scandal slowly emerging if it floats your boat or stops you from reflecting on the monumental Trump scandals in plain sight, but I recommend not holding your breath waiting for the imaginary to become real.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Let’s stipulate that how to proceed on Clinton’s emails was not a slam dunk.”

      Let’s not. James Comey’s decision in the matter was controversial at the time, and it remains so today, for precisely the reason that the parameters of his choice are not really debatable. What we know now that we didn’t know before is that the FBI’s top attorney had to be persuaded out of his professional interpretation of the law.

      You might note, too, that my original comment attributes this persuasion to group think, not a deep state conspiracy. But however it occurred, a full dozen senior FBI officials have been fired or forced to resign since this scandal began. There is, as a result, no factual basis for claiming Obama’s FBI was merely conducting business as usual.


      1. Good grief. I cannot even try to agree with you without a display of John Roberts goofy counterfactual obtuseness. If Comey’s decision to not recommend prosecution was NOT a slam dunk as I tried to stipulate, then it WAS a slam dunk. And THAT is the opposite of what you are trying to say.

        The continuing obsession with Clinton’s emails in Trumpmerica grows more laughable with each new disclosure of the massive corruption and criminality that Trump brought with him to Washington.

        Finally, taking Trump’s removing “a full dozen senior FBI officials” is NOT evidence of a conspiracy for Clinton or against him. It is, instead, another piece of the evidence for his obstruction of justice criminality.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s