OpenCDA

October 27, 2016

… And Now We Know Who and Why

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , , — Bill @ 12:59 pm

hillaryfsb78FBI Director James Comey’s July 5th announcement surprised many people, but it completely stunned the over 100 FBI investigators and 6 DoJ National Security Division attorneys who had worked on the Clinton private email server investigation.   The investigative team had nearly unanimously recommended charging Democrat Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton with numerous very serious violations of national security laws.

But thanks to recent FBI releases of more of her emails which Clinton thought she had not only deleted but overwritten as well, the world now knows that President Barack Hussein Obama had directed his sycophant Attorney General Loretta Lynch that under no circumstances was Clinton to be charged with any crimes.

Many people would assume Obama’s order to Lynch was to protect Clinton’s candidacy.  But again thanks to the FBI releases of the emails, even liberal propaganda mills the New York Times and Politico were forced to report that Obama was more likely trying to prevent one of his own very serious lies to the American public from being revealed.

On March 15, 2015, Obama gave a highly-publicized interview in which he told the world he had learned about Clinton’s private email server the same way as everyone else — from the news.  The Clinton email dump reveals that Obama was lying, and Hillary Clinton, her lawyer Cheryl Mills, and her campaign advisor John Podesta knew it.   A March 7, 2015, email from Mills to Podesta told Podesta about emails from Obama (using a pseudonym) to Clinton on her private server that long predated his March 15, 2015, interview.   Here are the Politico story and the New York Times story.

And now we know why FBI Director James Comey said what he said on July 5.

Comey almost certainly had been told by Lynch that she really didn’t care what evidence the FBI and DoJ investigators found.  She had already made an agreement with Barack Hussein Obama to decline prosecuting Clinton.  Why?  Because any prosecution of Clinton would most certainly have revealed the President’s own bald-faced lie to the people.

Infinitely more worrisome than Obama’s lie to the public, a Clinton criminal trial could and probably would reveal that Obama was aware the server was illegally being used to store classified information.  Even the very bribable Democrats and lily-livered Republicans in Congress would be forced to deliberate impeachment, not of Obama (who will presumably be gone on January 20, 2017) but of President Hillary Clinton.

Loretta Lynch’s loyalty may at some point in her legal career have been to the principle of rule of law and the US Constitution.  No longer.  Loretta Lynch’s loyalty is to Barack Hussein Obama.   The public will rightly wonder what tangible gratuity Lynch will receive in return from the Clintons or their Foundation.

It’s highly doubtful that Lynch has either the personal or professional integrity and dignity to follow in the steps of Nixon’s Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus.  They resigned rather than follow Nixon’s politically-motivated orders to fire the special prosecutor.  Lynch didn’t even have the courage to refuse to meet privately on her government airplane with the disgraced former President William Jefferson Clinton even though her Justice Department was investigating Clinton’s wife for her crimes which gravely imperil the national security.

The American public should be very, very concerned that Obama’s US Department of Justice, particularly but not exclusively Mahogany Row at Main Justice, has become so politicized.

One of the often-heard arguments against Hillary Clinton’s presidency is that she will likely be able to appoint at least three US Supreme Court justices.  Voters need to recognize that it is worse than that.

The ideological contamination will not be limited to appellate decisions by the US Supreme Court.

The next President will appoint not only Supreme Court justices.  The next President will also appoint some new or additional federal judges and appoint or reappoint some or all of the 94 US Attorneys.  For citizens who need to seek the remedy and justice of the federal courts, the thought that any or all of those appointees could be like Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch or Janet Reno or John Mitchell or Ed Meese or Alberto Gonzales is terrifying.

4 Comments

  1. At this stage of the game, it is all looking like one big chicken coo(p).

    Comment by Stebbijo — October 28, 2016 @ 7:48 pm

  2. Stebbijo,

    Yes. However, Comey’s letter to key Congressional committee chairmen was a follow-up he promised during his earlier testimony in front of some of them. During that earlier testimony, Comey was asked if he would reopen the investigation if new evidence came to light. Comey declined to answer in the abstract but did say that any new information would be examined. Presumably that’s exactly what is happening, but the information’s value or relevance (or lack of them) won’t be known until the examination is complete.

    Once FBI investigators found possibly sensitive national security information on Carlos Danger’s computer, they had no alternative but to investigate to determine why and how it got there. The FBI and the agency which originated the information will also need to assess how much damage to the national security has been caused. That is part of the FBI’s statutory foreign counterintelligence responsibilities and duties.

    Comment by Bill — October 29, 2016 @ 6:16 am

  3. I agree, I remember Comey saying that if new evidence was found, he could reopen. However, the timing is just too bizarre. I hope he cuts to the chase and just arrests her. It really must be compelling if not treasonous information to pull this newest development off. President Obama advised her to listen to her heart and put politics aside, I wonder if he is trying to tell her something?

    Comment by Stebbijo — October 29, 2016 @ 7:06 am

  4. Stebbijo,

    It does seem likely that the newly-found information is more than just cumulative or incremental. If it were just more of the same, if it offers no new proof of wrongdoing jeopardizing the national security, then it doesn’t seem likely Comey would have gone to Congress with it. Apparently the investigators think they saw something new, and Comey felt obligated to tell Congress.

    Clinton and her campaign and even Trump’s VP nominee Pence are demanding that the FBI divulge the information to the public immediately. That would be very irresponsible, especially if it is sensitive national security information.

    Comment by Bill — October 29, 2016 @ 8:46 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2017 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved