6

The Fix Was Always In

 

 

If we needed further proof that the voters made the right decision in deciding that Hillary Clinton would not sit in the Oval Office:

 

According to new transcripts released by the Senate Judiciary Thursday afternoon, former FBI Director James Comey made the decision not to refer then Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for prosecution long before ever interviewing key witnesses. Members of the Committee allege Comey made the decision months before FBI agents were finished with the criminal investigation of her mishandling classified information during her time as Secretary of State.

The transcripts were revealed in a letter sent to current FBI Director Christopher Wray, in which lawmakers are demanding an explanation and more documents surrounding the case.

Continue Reading

22

Comey: Never Mind

 

FBI Director James Comey delivers a November surprise:

Dear Messrs. Chairmen: 

I write to supplement my October 28, 2016 letter that notified you the FBI would be taking additional investigative steps with respect to former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a personal email server. Since my letter, the FBI investigative team has been working around the clock to process and review a large volume of emails from a device obtained in connection with an unrelated criminal investigation. During that process, we reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State.

Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton. 

I am very grateful to the professionals at the FBI for doing an extraordinary amount of high-quality work in a short period of time.

Sincerely yours, 
James B. Comey
Director

Impact?  Hard to say.  We are right on top of the election and normally a big event in an election needs a few days to seep into the public consciousness.  Most people will probably hear about it tomorrow, and the number of people who haven’t made up their minds by this time how they are going to vote, if they are going to vote, is probably small.  It is probably marginally good news for Clinton, but I doubt if will have much influence due to the lateness of this revelation and the fact that most people have probably reached a decision on Clinton, one way or another.  Whoever is elected, Comey needs to go.  Having Prince Hamlet as FBI Director is bad for the country.

 

17

What’s Next

 

I promised you a wild finish in this oddest of all election years and I believe the FBI has furnished it!  What does it mean for the rest of the next nine campaigning days before election day?

  1.  Negative Coverage-Most of the media has been on a crusade against Trump.  However, now Hillary will be receiving a larger share of the negative coverage than she is used to.  Most of the media has underplayed, or simply spiked, negative Clinton coverage this campaign.  This is not an option now, especially with the Anthony Weiner involvement, since salaciousness in the media is the one thing that regularly trumps ideology.
  2. Stink Bomb Coming-I assume that the Clinton campaign has one or more negative stories about Trump they were reserving for next Friday.  I expect them to be rolled out next Monday instead to distract from the reopened FBI investigation.
  3. Anonymous Sources Say-Expect to hear details about the ongoing investigation from anonymous FBI agents and Department of Justice officials.  I expect these accounts to differ radically.
  4. Republicans Coming Home-This should gain Trump at least another ten percent of the Republican vote, say a solid three point gain, and more of the independents he was already winning, say two to three points.
  5. Sanders Brats-This latest news confirms the worst of what Sanders supporters thought about Clinton, and I expect one or two points of them to switch to the Green candidate.
  6. Republicans for Clinton-I think this shoots that movement in the head.  Subtract another point.
  7. She’s a Crook-  It is one thing to suspect the candidate you are grudgingly voting for is a crook.  It is another thing to have them under criminal investigation.  Most Democrats would vote for Satan if he had a D after his name, but not all.  One to three point loss.
  8. Time to Cocoon-This whole business increases the stink of what has already been a skunk fest of an election.  I predict relatively low voter turnout which I suspect benefits Trump.

Continue Reading

35

FBI Reopens Investigation Into Clinton E-Mails

A Hiroshima sized October surprise:

 

The FBI is reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server that she used while serving as Secretary of State, NBC News has learned. FBI director James Comey wrote in a letter to Congress that “in connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation … I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

Go here to read the rest.  I have been hearing that members of the FBI on the original Clinton e-mail investigation were ready to come forward and denounce the non-indictment of Clinton and claim that the original investigation was a sham.  This may be an attempt to head off the FBI agents coming forward, or the newly discovered e-mails may be very damning.  Either way, ten days out, this is very bad news for the Clinton campaign.

Update:  Oh, this is too perfect!  I have to be dreaming!

In the latest stunning revelation in today’s saga involving the FBI’s second probe, moments ago the NYT reported that the new emails uncovered in the closed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server were discovered after the F.B.I. seized electronic devices belonging to Huma Abedin and her husband, Anthony Weiner.

 
 

The F.B.I. is investigating illicit text messages that Mr. Weiner sent to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. The bureau told Congress on Friday that it had uncovered new emails related to the Clinton case — one federal official said they numbered in the thousands — potentially reigniting an issue that has weighed on the presidential campaign and offering a lifeline to Donald J. Trump less than two weeks before the election.

Until recently Anthony Weiner was married to Hillary Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, who separated from Weiner recently after news emerged that Weiner had engaged in an online affair with an underage girl.

The F.B.I. told Congress that it had uncovered new emails related to the closed investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton or her aides had mishandled classified information, potentially reigniting an issue that has weighed on the presidential campaign and offering a lifeline to Donald J. Trump less than two weeks before the election.

Go here to read the rest.  By seizing Huma Abedin’s electronics the FBI struck the mother lode.  Every dirty deal that Clinton was involved in will be on them.  As for Weiner, I wouldn’t be surprised if he made copies of everything he found over the years on Huma’s electronics, for potential blackmail purposes:  Hillary I would like you to appoint me ambassador to France.  I am sure that you would agree that is a fitting post for a man who can keep quiet about everything that you and my beloved Huma discussed through e-mails?

Trump is living proof that it is smarter to be lucky than it is lucky to be smart.

 

 

6

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

 

“Comrades!’ he cried. ‘You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink the milk and eat those apples.”
George Orwell, Animal Farm
A Navy vet focuses in on one of the more damning aspects of this whole Clinton e-mail scandal.  Anyone else not as politically connected as Hillary Clinton would now be under criminal indictment, with excellent prospects of being a convicted felon for the rest of his life, and likely looking forward to at least a year in the slammer.   Hillary’s answer to her interlocutor isn’t even worthy of being called bovine dung.  Guy Benson at Hot Air ably dissects her farrago of lies:

In response, Clinton ran through a litany of excuses, some of which were flat-out lies. She asserted, for instance, that none of her emails were marked classified, even though some were. That’s the whole reason she had to concoct the nonsensical story that she believed ‘(C) for confidential’ was an effort at alphabetizing paragraphs — which is preposterous, especially given this context. She wrapped up her answer by insisting that she did “exactly what I should have done,” which is also false. But a prominent new element of her shifting email spin is a heightened focus on the absence of classification headers at the top of her emails as a key exculpatory factor. This is irrelevant, misleading, and stands in direct contradiction to a previous Clinton claim. First, those headers are used to underscore classification levels on emails sent through the official secure systems, which Hillary was knowingly and intentionally bypassing with the exclusive use of her private and unsecure server. Second, at the outset of her term at the State Department, Mrs. Clinton signed a binding nondisclosure agreement swearing to identify and protect all classified information, “marked or unmarked:”

 

Perhaps Clinton can be cut some slack for not immediately recognizing low-level classified information as such, but she also sent and received messages that were secret, top secret, and above top secret from the moment of origination. A number of these emails remain so sensitive that the State Department refused to release them in any form, even with major redactions. “But there were no headers” is not a valid explanation for these egregious security lapses, particularly in light of her formally-acknowledged duty to safeguard unmarked secrets. But since she suddenly wants to fixate on headers, how’s this for a relevant flashback? Continue Reading

16

Clinton Knew Nothing, Nothing!

Well, judging from this document dump from the FBI on Friday, Hillary Clinton does a mean Sergeant Schultz imitation:

 

Hillary Clinton told FBI agents that she could not recall issues related to her email server at least 26 times, according to an 11-page document released by the FBI on Friday.

Clinton’s memory lapses are frequent during the interview, marked often by agents as “could not recall” and “did not remember.” But the “could not recall” remarks are often related not to long-distant emails, but things she should perhaps definitely recall.

Here is a list of what she allegedly couldn’t recall:

 

  • When she received security clearance
  • Being briefed on how to handle classified material
  • How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
  • Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret “Special Access Program” material
  • How to select a target for a drone strike
  • How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
  • The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
  • Why she didn’t get a secure Blackberry
  • Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
  • Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
  • Getting guidance from state on email policy
  • Who had access to her Blackberry account
  • The process for deleting her emails
  • Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
  • Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
  • Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
  • Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
  • Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
  • Using an iPad mini
  • An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
  • Jacob Sullivan using personal email
  • State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
  • Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
  • Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
  • Being read out of her clearance
  • Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRCoffice.com accou

Continue Reading

6

Clinton E-Mail Depositions: Huma Abedin

 

When it comes to the Clintons the normal rules that apply to the rest of us apparently do not apply to them.  For example, in a FOIA act lawsuit brought over the Clinton e-mails by Judicial Watch, a conservative group, Hillary Clinton’s chief of state Cheryl Mills was deposed and her deposition was videotaped.  Prior to Mills’ deposition, her lawyers requested that it not be released to the public, so it could not be used against Clinton for partisan political purposes.  In a bizarre ruling, Judge Emmet Sullivan agreed that the video of the depositions could not be released to the public, but that transcripts of the depositions could be released.  He then, sua sponte ( by the court’s unilateral action) made this decision applicable to all depositions taken in the case.

Legal suits, in most cases, are public matters.  The public normally has a right to access to the materials of such a lawsuit, absent matters that a court finds to be subject to some sort of legal privilege.  There is no legal privilege protecting materials in a lawsuit from being used for political purposes.

Fortunately Phelim McAleer, an independent filmmaker, is dramatizing the depositions.  Only the text of the depositions is used in the films.  McAleer is used to telling the stories the news media tries to ignore for political reasons.  He has just finished filming on a movie about abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who he describes as the most prolific serial killer in American history.  He is kickstarting his project to dramatize the Clinton e-mail depositons.  Go here if you wish to contribute.  I did.

The above is the dramatization of the deposition of Huma Abedin.  Abedin is the right hand gal of Hillary Clinton.  Clinton has referred to her as a second daughter.  I think she is the closest thing that Hillary Clinton has to a friend on this planet.  Abedin is up to her neck in scandals involving influence peddling via the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was Secretary of State.  In e-mails she has noted that Clinton is often confused and needs naps.  Continue Reading

14

Hillary For Sale

 The level of corruption on display in the State Department e-mails just revealed through the litigation brought by conservative group Judicial Watch, is too great for even the mainstream media to ignore:

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton’s help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm’s corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.

The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.

The AP’s findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs.

.

Continue Reading

4

Pay for Play at the State Department

 

 

Judicial Watch, the conservative group that has forced, through litigation, the release of e-mails from Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, has a press release today that builds a damning case that “pay for play” was standard operating procedure at the Clinton State Department:

 

 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 725 pages of new State Department documents, including previously unreleased email exchanges in which former Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the secretary of state. In many instances, the preferential treatment provided to donors was at the specific request of Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band.

The new documents included 20 Hillary Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to 191 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department).  These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.

The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges, Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances, Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin. In Abedin’s June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of her job at the State Department was taking care of “Clinton family matters.”

Included among the Abedin-Band emails is an exchange revealing that when Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain requested a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton, he was forced to go through the Clinton Foundation for an appointment. Abedin advised Band that when she went through “normal channels” at State, Clinton declined to meet. After Band intervened, however, the meeting was set up within forty-eight hours. According to the Clinton Foundation website, in 2005, Salman committed to establishing the Crown Prince’s International Scholarship Program (CPISP) for the Clinton Global Initiative. And by 2010, it had contributed $32 million to CGI. The Kingdom of Bahrain reportedly gave between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. And Bahrain Petroleum also gave an additional $25,000 to $50,000.

Continue Reading

7

When Even the New York Times is Calling Hillary Untrustworthy

 

I had to rub my eyes three times, and I still couldn’t quite believe I was reading this in the New York Times:

Hillary Clinton has emerged from the F.B.I. investigation into her email practices as secretary of state a wounded candidate with a large and growing majority of voters saying she cannot be trusted, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

As Mrs. Clinton prepares to accept the Democratic Party’s nomination at the convention in Philadelphia this month, she will confront an electorate in which 67 percent of voters say she is not honest and trustworthy. That number is up five percentage points from a CBS News poll conducted last month, before the F.B.I. released its findings.

Mrs. Clinton’s six-percentage-point lead over the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, in a CBS News poll last month has evaporated. The two candidates are now tied in a general election matchup, the new poll indicates, with each receiving the support of 40 percent of voters.

Mr. Trump is also distrusted by a large number of voters — 62 percent — but that number has stayed constant despite increased scrutiny on his business record and falsehoods in his public statements and Twitter messages.

But Mrs. Clinton’s shifting and inaccurate explanations of her email practices at the State Department appear to have resonated more deeply with the electorate. Continue Reading

10

Questions, Questions

Nixon

 

 

A reader over at Powerline who identifies himself as a Federal agent who has been involved in hundreds of investigations over the years has some questions about the FBI investigation of the Clinton e-mails:

 

But to anyone who has been involved in these types of cases, this really raises more questions than it answers. Among other questions that have not been publicly addressed by Director Comey: what WAS her intent in setting up these computer networks in the first place? It obviously wasn’t “convenience,” as Clinton ludicrously claimed when this issue first arose. If your aim is “convenience,” the most convenient thing to do would be to simply use the classified and unclassified email accounts the Government provides at no cost to you to do your personal business, then just use a Hotmail or Gmail account or whatever for your personal business. Instead, she chose, at considerable effort and expense, to create her own computer network, complete with its own servers (multiple), even hiring an administrator onto the federal payroll to run it for her. Why?

I think it is fairly obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that her intent in doing this was to evade the requirements of the Federal Records Act and Freedom of Information Act, thereby keeping her communications free from the prying eyes of the Inspector General, congressional oversight committees, the press and the public. Well, if her purpose was to avoid complying with federal statutes, doesn’t that, by definition, mean that she had the INTENT to break the law? And why does the FBI not care about this?

The other dog that didn’t bark: how did all this classified information get onto her server in the first place? It is important to understand that classified information up to the Secret level is handled on its own computer network; information at the Top Secret and above level is on another, even more exclusive network altogether. And the crucial fact is that there is NO connectivity between these classified networks and the internet. It would be literally impossible simply to email a classified document from these networks to an address on the internet.

That means that someone would have had either to laboriously transcribe classified documents from their source into an unclassified email or to download these materials onto some sort of removable media (CD, thumb drive, etc.), and then upload them to the internet. Not once or twice, mind you, but literally THOUSANDS of times. Doesn’t that level of effort to remove classified material from its proper place and put it on Hillary’s network demonstrate considerable, uh, what’s that word again? INTENT?

And what does the FBI think about that? Hmm, wouldn’t you like to know?

Having worked extensively with the FBI, I can’t imagine that these questions and others didn’t occur to the rank and file agents working the case, probably at a very early stage. The fact that they were not followed up on (at least not as has been publicly revealed) indicates that the FBI was deliberately instructed to maintain as narrow a focus as possible, either explicitly or implicitly. Who gave those orders? Comey? Lynch? The White House? Again, wouldn’t you like to know? Continue Reading

6

Clinton E-Mails: Unfinished Business

 

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts reminds us that the Clinton e-mails unindicted crimes, and their fallout, remains unfinished business:

 

I’m sure it won’t go away.  It never does.  Nothing new.  Political parties have been going after each other since the beginning of political parties.  The fact is, the FBI rendered its verdict and the justice department has concurred.  Hillary Clinton might have been smack down stupid and ignorant of national security concerns beyond what an average person can imagine, but she’s no criminal.  A fool perhaps.  A person lacking a common sense understanding of caution towards sensitive information maybe.  I’ve worked for companies that would fire you on the spot for what she did, whether intentional or not.  But she’s not a criminal.

While many supporters hoped the headlines “Clinton Exonerated!” would put it to rest, even Americans with our ‘here today, gone later today’ attention spans took time to ponder the conclusions.  Resting on ‘unimaginably ignorant’ rather than ‘guilty’ seems a tough sell.  Especially when she’s running as the most qualified person to hold the office.

This week’s tragic events have taken some of the focus away from the dismal conclusions.  Nonetheless, people are still scratching their heads.  Are we sure we want a president who was only monumentally careless, if not downright stupid, when it comes to classified documents?  It speaks volumes when you’re running against a candidate like Donald Trump, yet you struggle to keep the polls out of the margin of error.  Perhaps America isn’t beyond hope after all.

 

Continue Reading

1

Comey Testifies

 

FBI Director James Comey was grilled before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for four hours/  A few interesting revelations came out.

  1. Hillary Clinton’s interview was not recorded and she was not placed under oath.  Not recording the interview was not unusual, the FBI relying on written section 302 reports based upon contemporaneous notes of the interview made by an FBI agent.  Normally one FBI agent conducts an interview while a second agent writes out notes.  Federal judges have often expressed skepticism as to the reliability of these reports.  Congress should subpoena the 302 report of the Clinton interview.
  2. Comey revealed that he is no longer a registered Republican.
  3. Comey noted that if Clinton had worked for the FBI she could have been subject to a broad range of disciplinary measures, up to termination.
  4. Comey refused to confirm or deny that the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation.

Continue Reading

7

Clinton v. Comey

 

This is devastating.  From Reason TV a video contrasting Clinton’s version with the truth as explained by FBI Director Comey.  Most politicians lie at one time or another.  Few politicians lie all the time about matters small and great.  Hillary Clinton is in the latter category.  Comey, and I think deliberately, in his presentation handed Donald Trump a weapon to bring out this aspect of Clinton that only her most die hard partisans can possibly dispute.

20

Gangster Government

 

Hillary-Clinton-Above-the-Law

Hillary-Clinton-Above-the-Law

 

Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal says it all:

From the United States Code, Title 18, section 793(f):

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

There’s nothing in there about whether or not Hillary “intended” to break the law, Jimmy boy.

Today, the FBI sold out the Rule of Law in America. After describing clear evidence of extensive mishandling of classified national security information, FBI Director James Comey announced that the FBI will not recommend indicting former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. This is naked crony government, ugly and exposed. Comey’s decision will go down as one of the government’s worst assaults on truth in its War on Honesty.

Today’s press conference was, in many respects, an exercise in legal and cognitive dissonance. Comey acknowledged Clinton sent and received Top Secret emails that “any reasonable person” understands not to discuss on an unclassified system.

Red flags? Excuse me, sir—that’s a crime.

Comey also acknowledged her email system was housed on unclassified personal servers that lacked full time security systems. Indeed, nations and groups hostile to the U.S. could have hacked the system. Comey acknowledged “hostile actors” hacked individuals corresponding with Clinton on her unauthorized system. She also used her unsecured personal system outside of the U.S.—in places where sophisticated adversaries could hack her communications.

Comey called this careless. Sir, it is reprehensible. It is reckless disregard of American security.

Then he said he would not recommend indictment.

This is beyond outrage. Everyone who has carried a Top Secret clearance and had access to Top Secret information knows that Clinton has criminally violated the laws protecting classified information. These laws serve a purpose. Protecting security secrets is essential to protecting America.

I am certain [Comey] expects an angry reaction, and he should also expect sustained anger. Public trust in the federal government is near an all-time low, and Comey’s decision is a heavy blow. Elitists should prepare for sustained disrespect of laws they favor. A large slice of the American population, fed up with crony government and crony capitalism, will begin experimenting with civil disobedience. As a former community organizer, President Obama is no position to object.

You know that Hillary Clinton has taken a torpedo amidships when the KINDEST POSSIBLE spin anyone can put on this travesty of justice is that Hillary is too bonecrushingly stupid to even be allowed on a White House tour, never mind being elected to the presidency of the most powerful country in the world as even the Washington Post’s Chris Cilizza admits.

Here’s the good news for Hillary Clinton: The FBI has recommended that no charges be brought following its investigation of the former secretary of state’s private email server.

Here’s the bad news: Just about everything else.

FBI Director James B. Comey dismantled large portions of Clinton’s long-told story about her private server and what she sent or received on it during a stirring 15-minute news conference, after which he took no questions. While Comey exonerated Clinton, legally speaking, he provided huge amounts of fodder that could badly hamstring her in the court of public opinion.

Most importantly, Comey said the FBI found 110 emails on Clinton’s server that were classified at the time they were sent or received. That stands in direct contradiction to Clinton’s repeated insistence she never sent or received any classified emails. And it even stands in contrast to her amended statement that she never knowingly sent or received any classified information.

And while OJ Simpson was cleared of murdering his wife and Ronald Goldman, it did not ultimately matter much what a California court wrongly decided since from that moment, Simpson’s life was effectively over.

That said, campaigns aren’t governed by the ultimate legality of what Clinton did or didn’t do. So, while dodging an indictment is a good thing — she isn’t under criminal investigation and remains a candidate — it’s a far different thing from being cleared (or even close to it) in the court of public opinion.

For a candidate already badly struggling on questions of whether she is honest and trustworthy enough to hold the office to which she aspires, Comey’s comments are devastating. Watching them, I could close my eyes and imagine them spliced into a bevy of 30-second ads — all of which end with the FBI director rebuking Clinton as “extremely careless.”

So where are we?

(1) None of this should shock or surprise anyone since The Single Most Lawless Presidential Administration In The History Of This Country, The Nixon Administration Included corrupts everything it touches and everyone connected with it.  But the Federal Bureau of Investigation has taken a hit from which it may take a generation to recover.  And that hit was entirely self-inflicted.

(2) Remember when people asked, “Do you really want someone like Donald Trump anywhere near this country’s nuclear launch codes?”  Considering everything that’s transpired, any country that would allow Hillary Clinton near those codes has a national death wish.

(3) Hillary Clinton might be the stupidest person who has ever lived.  Or she might the most arrogant (but there’s no reason why she can’t be both).  Either way, electing her to the most powerful office in this land would signal open season on her and on rest of the left’s political enemies.  And probably the downfall of the republic.

(4) Because if the American people are mentally challenged enough to elect the Va-Jay-Jay, it’s not too hard to imagine many state legislatures suddenly taking a, for lack of a better term, “Jacksonian” view of the “rule of law.”

Let’s say that the State of Missouri elects a conservative Republican governor this fall and keeps its Republican-dominated General Assembly.  Let’s also say that the legislature passes and the new governor signs a measure which not only forbids “gay marriage” and legally invalidates all that have been performed in the state but allows anyone in a public or private capacity to opt out of direct or even indirect participation in a “gay marriage” without any possible legal sanction of any kind.

YOU CAN’T DO THAT, shrieks the left.  THE SUPREME COURT SAYS YOU CAN’T!!

Maybe so, replies Missouri.  But the Supreme Court has made its decision.  Now let the Supreme Court enforce it.  Because “the rule of law” either applies to everyone or it applies to no one at all. Continue Reading

6

Cui Bono?

images

 

 

Most commentators are assuming that the decision of the FBI not to recommend prosecution of Clinton is good news for her and bad news for Trump.  I don’t think the political calculus is so  simple.  Looking at this purely from the standpoint of Donald Trump, this might have been the best possible result for him.

 

If the FBI had announced today a recommendation to prosecute Clinton, the Democrat convention might well have decided to nominate Sanders instead.  Sanders does better than Clinton in polls against Trump.  This is the year of the outsider, and the socialist Sanders has successfully portrayed himself as an outsider.  If Clinton did prevail at the convention, it is by no means a given that her indictment would be political death.  Satan could be running for President on the Democrat ticket and he would probably get 45% of the vote.  News of the indictment would quickly become old hat, especially as the extensive and confusing legal maneuvering that goes on in a high profile federal prosecution.  Clinton would not come to trial until after the election and I would not wager that an indictment would prove a decisive issue in November. Continue Reading

12

Laws Are For Little People

images

 

 

 

That is the only conclusion one can draw from the presentation by the FBI Director today.  The mishandling of the e-mails was a strict liability offense, no mens rea required.  In other words no criminal intent need be shown in regard to Hillary Clinton which would make the prosecution much simpler.  Former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy at National Review Online explains how Director Comey in effect rewrote the applicable criminal statute to get Hillary off the hook:

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

Continue Reading

2

FBI Director News Conference: No Indictment of Clinton

 

I am in the law mines right now.  I will have two reactions to this later:  one legal and one political.

 

Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing.

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts. Continue Reading

3

Clinton E-Mail Depositions: Bryan Pagliano

 

When it comes to the Clintons the normal rules that apply to the rest of us apparently do not apply to them.  For example, in a FOIA act lawsuit brought over the Clinton e-mails by Judicial Watch, a conservative group, Hillary Clinton’s chief of state Cheryl Mills was deposed and her deposition was videotaped.  Prior to Mills’ deposition, her lawyers requested that it not be released to the public, so it could not be used against Clinton for partisan political purposes.  In a bizarre ruling, Judge Emmet Sullivan agreed that the video of the depositions could not be released to the public, but that transcripts of the depositions could be released.  He then, sua sponte ( by the court’s unilateral action) made this decision applicable to all depositions taken in the case.

Legal suits, in most cases, are public matters.  The public normally has a right to access to the materials of such a lawsuit, absent matters that a court finds to be subject to some sort of legal privilege.  There is no legal privilege protecting materials in a lawsuit from being used for political purposes.

Fortunately Phelim McAleer, an independent filmmaker, is dramatizing the depositions.  Only the text of the depositions is used in the films.  McAleer is used to telling the stories the news media tries to ignore for political reasons.  He has just finished filming on a movie about abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who he describes as the most prolific serial killer in American history.  He is kickstarting his project to dramatize the Clinton e-mail depositons.  Go here if you wish to contribute.  I did.

The above video is the deposition of Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s tech guru at the State Department who set up Clinton’s private e-mail server.  During his 80 minute deposition he took the Fifth Amendment 312 times. Go here to view the video of the deposition of Chery Mills. Go here to view the deposition of Stephen Mull.

6

Bill Clinton Meets the Attorney General in Private Meeting

 

 

Well isn’t this sweet?

 

A source tipped off the local ABC affiliate about the brief meeting, which reportedly lasted about 30 minutes, at the Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport.

President Clinton reportedly learned Lynch was arriving soon and waited to meet with her.

According to ABC 15, the meeting occurred hours before the House Select Committee on Benghazi released its final report to the public.

The private meeting comes as Lynch’s Justice Department is investigating presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal, private email server during her time as Secretary of State.

“Lynch said the private meeting on the tarmac did not involve these topics,” ABC 15 reports.

“I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as he was leaving and spoke to myself and my husband on the plane,” Lynch stated, confirming the meeting. “Our conversation was a great deal about grandchildren, it was primarily social about our travels and he mentioned golf he played in Phoenix.” Continue Reading

8

Clinton E-Mail Depositions: Stephen Mull

When it comes to the Clintons the normal rules that apply to the rest of us apparently do not apply to them.  For example, in a FOIA act lawsuit brought over the Clinton e-mails by Judicial Watch, a conservative group, Hillary Clinton’s chief of state Cheryl Mills was deposed and her deposition was videotaped.  Prior to Mills’ deposition, her lawyers requested that it not be released to the public, so it could not be used against Clinton for partisan political purposes.  In a bizarre ruling, Judge Emmet Sullivan agreed that the video of the depositions could not be released to the public, but that transcripts of the depositions could be released.  He then, sua sponte ( by the court’s unilateral action) made this decision applicable to all depositions taken in the case.

Legal suits, in most cases, are public matters.  The public normally has a right to access to the materials of such a lawsuit, absent matters that a court finds to be subject to some sort of legal privilege.  There is no legal privilege protecting materials in a lawsuit from being used for political purposes.

Fortunately Phelim McAleer, an independent filmmaker, is dramatizing the depositions.  Only the text of the depositions is used in the films.  McAleer is used to telling the stories the news media tries to ignore for political reasons.  He has just finished filming on a movie about abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who he describes as the most prolific serial killer in American history.  He is kickstarting his project to dramatize the Clinton e-mail depositons.  Go here if you wish to contribute.  I did.

The above video is the deposition of Stephen Mull, Executive Secretary of the State Department under Clinton.  As you can see from the video, he apparently has either a very lousy memory, or a very convenient one.  Go here to view the video of the deposition of Chery Mills.

7

Clinton E-Mail Depositions

 

When it comes to the Clintons the normal rules that apply to the rest of us apparently do not apply to them.  For example, in a FOIA act lawsuit brought over the Clinton e-mails by Judicial Watch, a conservative group, Hillary Clinton’s chief of state Cheryl Mills was deposed and her deposition was videotaped.  Prior to Mills’ deposition, her lawyers requested that it not be released to the public, so it could not be used against Clinton for partisan political purposes.  In a bizarre ruling, Judge Emmet Sullivan agreed that the video of the depositions could not be released to the public, but that transcripts of the depositions could be released.  He then, sua sponte ( by the court’s unilateral action) made this decision applicable to all depositions taken in the case.

Legal suits, in most cases, are public matters.  The public normally has a right to access to the materials of such a lawsuit, absent matters that a court finds to be subject to some sort of legal privilege.  There is no legal privilege protecting materials in a lawsuit from being used for political purposes.

Fortunately Phelim McAleer, an independent filmmaker, is dramatizing the depositions.  Only the text of the depositions is used in the films.  McAleer is used to telling the stories the news media tries to ignore for political reasons.  He has just finished filming on a movie about abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who he describes as the most prolific serial killer in American history.  He is kickstarting his project to dramatize the Clinton e-mail depositons.  Go here if you wish to contribute.  I did. Continue Reading