A weird immoral passion 12

Something that seems to have eluded comment, though it is particularly disturbing and puzzling, is that the FBI and DOJ bosses named by the inspector general in his report as having used their positions to try keeping Donald Trump out of power, and bringing him down from it, were passionately intent on helping a crook into the White House.

They knew, better than anybody – since they worked hard to cover it all up – that Hillary Clinton was crooked, corrupt, venal, lying, hypocritical and incompetent. And yet they fervently strove to get her elected to the presidency!

What does that say about them? What does it say about the politics of the Democratic Party who nominated a scoundrel as their candidate for the highest office in the land? Isn’t it obvious that to put an incompetent crook in power is to court disaster? Did they shut that logical understanding out? If so, why? What advantage in her election did they see that eludes common sense and overrides prudence?

Reason is baffled. So let’s consider emotion. What emotional need cries out for a leader who could only take the country into steep decline? What weird immoral passion?

How do they square with their conscience the sneaky spiteful steps they took to slander Donald Trump, to stitch him up, to lie about him in order to destroy him?

We are not talking about the dwindling audiences of CNN and the gullible readers of the New York Times – uninformed and misinformed people who swallow what they’re told; who can believe that “Trump is Hitler” because they know nothing about Hitler; who burble nonsense about being “on the right side of history” in imitation of their idol Obama. We are talking about the servants of the nation, the highly educated, the highly paid, the most trusted.

Is it the same intense emotion that compels European leaders to invite Islam to occupy, conquer and subdue their countries? Self-hatred? Life-hatred?

All our questions in this post are rhetorical. But opinions are welcome as always.

  • Reshufflex

    The charade within the “deep state,” for lack of an easier description, to elect Hillary arose from three angles. Ideology, power and money. And maybe not in that order. There might be a fourth though more latent angle, which is about criminality run amok.

    I’ll skip the first three since we can all wrap our heads around those rather pedestrian explanations. The criminality-run-amok angle is juicier and more titilatting, if not entirely within the law of parsimony ( unlike the other three), so let me run with that one. What the hell.

    Maybe in the beginning-select your own date-someone in the deep state had an idea. The idea was borderline crooked, perhaps just unethical, or even raw criminality. Let’s say the idea was to take out an “insurance policy” (sound familiar?) to ensure that Trump would fail or find ruin were he to become president. Ok. So far, not so crazy.

    But here’s the crazy part. Let’s also say that absolutely no one behind this crazy idea actually ever believed that the policy would have to be exercised or implemented because no one participating in it ever thought Hillary would lose. Not in a million years. Hillary would declare victory, and the angels could rejoice. Except something ugly happened on the road to Damascus.

    What happened was that Hillary started slipping in terms of absolute preseidetial certainty. Namely, her email fiasco was suddenly re-animated on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, and, uh oh! the rarest of rare anti-Hillary FBI office in southern NY was the re-animators. Yikes! And then they went ahead and boldly notified FBI HQ, where the pro-Hillary rats all lived, and demanded action, pronto. When I say action, I mean as in filing a federal indictment. Well, that wouldn’t look too good on her resume.

    Guess who handled their action request? Yep. Good old Andrew McCabe, the derelict under Comey and confidant of Strzok and his omnipresent sweetheart. McCabe buried the action request. He buried it for 3-4 weeks, at least. He would’ve buried it until after the election, except the FBI agents in southern NY got cranky. Real cranky. They threatened to leak the story.

    Enter Comey. “Hey, boss: we got a slight problem…” He’s now in a pickle, since barely two (?) weeks, as I recall, remained until the election. McCabe apparently never told Comey about the action- request until the 11th hour, or so claims Comey. And as we know, Comey then goes public with his infamous press conference. He had a “higher loyalty,” don’t ya’ know.,

    But heres where it gets seriously interesting. The worm begins to turn. Return to the “ insurance policy” scheme. Suddenly, what originally seemed a fairly innocuous, if technically illegal, plan of ingenuity, now wasn’t so innocuous anymore. Trump suddenly found new life. So I suspect panic set in. And it set in a whole cast of characters, including Everybody.

    I suspect what we will soon discover with each subsequent IG report, three more I think are on the horizon, is that deception, fabrication, machinations-felonies writ largest- will erupt like that Hawaiian lava. The tangled web they weaved as they practiced to deceive will steadily unravel. Then we will grasp why getting the witch elected went from prosaic reasons one, two and three to the madness and fierce urgency of reason four-and how it became a Faustian bargain. It ain’t ever the crime, said somebody; it’s always the cove-up.

    • liz

      Very accurate summary of the situation, I’d say. I hope the volcanic eruption is imminent.

    • Yeah. Something like that is how it happened. An “innocuous” illegal sleazy immoral plan was made to make sure that a corrupt crooked incompetent harpy came to power. Still doesn’t explain though – does it, Reshufflex? – why they were for her in the first place.

      • Reshufflex

        There’s never going to be one answer since the plot, scheme, preference, whatever involved dozens of individuals. They each had their own motivations, which may have fused on occasion, but the pathology will depict A-Z rationales, including a ton of psychosis. Men don’t become a “bevy of platonic guardians” just because they join law enforcement.

        • Pathology?

          What of the ethical view?

          • Reshufflex

            Change pathology to political disease. Secondly, are you seriously asking me-anyone-to account for the ethics of their choosing Hillary? I have no idea. I would say that you’re taking a major leap of faith in even presupposing that politics subsumes ethics.

            • I am “presupposing” nothing so pompous.

              People make moral choices. I simply ask: why choose a grossly immoral (and, in addition, incompetent) person to lead the nation

              Everyone has vices and weaknesses. Most presidents have had countervailing virtues and strengths. Has Hillary Clinton any virtues or strengths that might qualify her for leadership? None that I have observed or heard of.

            • Reshufflex

              I guess they were like the young Indian who in wanting to become a warrior, per ritual, had the duty to discover the ocean, which was the source of ultimate truth, he was told. After years of adventure, travel, danger and serendipity, he finally found the ocean. Not wanting to wait a moment longer, he ran into the ocean, filled his container and ran out, yelling: “I hold the truth, I hold the truth. “

              Well, who doesn’t….

              Have you ever read the “Cornerstone Speech”? It’s a speech, if you haven’t, made in the 1860s, just before the war erupted. It was made by the VP of the confederacy. In it he justifies slavery. He justices splitting the Union, re-writing the COTUS, and enslaving the “negro” in perpetuity.

              Immoral, unethical choices, writ large. But not according to him. He figured just the opposite. Go read his script. Read the applause he got. In his speech, he had all the ingredients requisite for a proper moral decision: first principles, divine guidance, utilitarian effect, tradition and custom; he’ll, he had the Bible and scripture of his side. He had the masses behind him. Always handy owning the Truth.

              More to the point. Posterity would applaud him and his species of the proper human/social condition (as with the Third Reich; Mao’s Great Leap; Marx’s, “Workers of the world, Unite!; and Stalin’s Iron Curtain), which would all endure for a thousand years or more.

              Except none lasted even 100. Hillary’s crowd-the apparatchik-thought and still think they hold similar Truth(s). She was the embodiment of the right human fabric. What’s a little deceipt, dishonor, theft, fraud or malice when you’ve got your own the right human/social fabric and your “Cornerstone Speech”?

            • I refer only to your first and last paragraphs. The rest can be ignored.

              We are not talking about the truth. We are talking about right and wrong.

              Yes, the devotees of the Left believe that achieving socialist utopia is so good an end that it justifies any means. Old story. Disproved over and over again. Those who still adhere to it are very foolish.

            • Reshufflex

              I’m sorry, but I’m not sure what you’re now asking, and I’m not convinced you know what you’re asking. You jump from straightforward ethical inquiry, to moral uncertainty and now to normative ethics; I.e; right and wrong. I think.

              Let me say that Hillary had manifold qualities that inured her to her devotees. They’re obvious, already mentioned, and they gained her, in part, a presidential nomination. It’s moot whether you or I see those qualities as virtuous or toxic, right or wrong.

              Her devotees found her qualities positive, suitable and rewarding enough to elect her and subject themselves to the darker side of humanity.

            • My whole point, the whole time, has been that people who vote for Hillary are voting for an immoral and indeed felonious incompetent. I have not jumped anywhere. Plain concern with right and wrong from the beginning. And not asking for answers. As I said, rhetorical questions, opinions invited. What are Hillary’s qualities other than the ones I have listed? Where have they been “already mentioned”? Or are you speaking of the ones I listed? They certainly cannot be seen as virtues. You miss the point.

  • liz

    They’re driven by the same thing that motivates all leftists – an unquestioning religious devotion to the cult of Marxism. Leftists believe themselves to be superior to the “unenlightened” masses by virtue of their devotion to collectivism, and therefore justified in lying about whatever “sneaky, spiteful” steps they take to advance their cause. The end justifies the means.
    What is so appalling and alarming is the fact that people like this were able to rise to positions of power in government – and are still there.
    Why does anyone think they can be trusted not to destroy evidence of their crimes while they continue to carry on their distraction maneuver via Mueller?