Archive for the ‘Clinton investigation’ category

Am I back in Argentina?

November 2, 2016

Am I back in Argentina? Israel National News, Rabbi David L. Algaze, November 1, 2016

I awoke last night from a nightmare dream: I was in my ancestral country of Argentina and I was afraid once again of the dictator named Juan Domingo Peron and his wife Evita. That was scary indeed. The government was dominated by a party that made the laws as they pleased and no one had the power to check them, let alone prosecute their misdeeds. Even the press was muzzled or complicit. Here the wife of the president had a special foundation, Fundacion Eva Peron that accepted donations from wealthy donors and who received special treatment from the government. Anyone who dared to challenge this state of affairs was in trouble and the debate over the propriety of any act was thus ended.

But it was morning now and I relaxed knowing that I was now in a democratic country protected by a Constitution, honest organizations and lack of corruption, where no one is above the law, ordinary citizens are not threatened by any arm of the government and where no special favors are dispensed to high donors or foreign entities. Here the law is equal for all, and we can be sure that no one gets special treatment because they give money to a special foundation. My night was over and with it that awful dream.

Suddenly, though, I saw a high government official who was testifying that she never sent any classified material incorrectly, who lied about keeping a private email server. When the secret was out, she and her staff were busy destroying evidence.  But wait, the government was investigating and we could breathe easily. After months of “investigation” by top enforcers of the law, the government forgave her trespassing. They criticized her for just being “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information but let her off the hook. The FBI did not pursue evidence of any statements that could be false, did not investigate any obstruction of justice and the destruction of evidence.

Even more, the agents gave immunity to people who could have provided evidence of crimes and these people went on to plead the Fifth Amendment refusing to testify before Congress. The entire investigation by the FBI and the Department of Justice reeked of willful negligence or favoritism – that is, until this week when the investigation was reopened because of a new set of emails.

Even more striking, I saw that the Clinton Foundation and the State Department headed by Hillary Clinton were one seamless entity, employing the same people and coordinating schedules. Emails discovered by people outside of government — who had forced their release against State Department wishes, showed that Clinton Foundation staff was questioning some State Department decisions by stating that President Clinton “will be very unhappy if that’s the case.”

Donors to the Foundation expected to receive special treatment such as being invited to State dinners or being given special business opportunities. The scandal of President Clinton in Haiti and his business partners, i.e., donors to the Foundation, and the confluence of extraordinarily high speaking fees at groups that later received profitable business deals and special access to the State Department headed by his wife—are these real or imagined?

Donors to the Foundation expected to receive special treatment such as being invited to State dinners or being given special business opportunities. The scandal of President Clinton in Haiti and his business partners, i.e., donors to the Foundation, and the confluence of extraordinarily high speaking fees at groups that later received profitable business deals and special access to the State Department headed by his wife—are these real or imagined?

Top Justice Department Official Overseeing Clinton Probe Is Close Friend of Podesta

November 1, 2016

Top Justice Department Official Overseeing Clinton Probe Is Close Friend of Podesta, PJ MediaDebra Heine, November 1, 2016

kadzikPeter Kadzik, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs at the Department of Justice

A Department of Justice official who is overseeing the reopened Hillary Clinton email investigation has a close relationship with Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, leaked emails show. Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik, who notified Congress on Monday that the agency would “dedicate all necessary resources” to the investigation, appears to have a major conflict of interest in the case.

Via the Washington Examiner:

Emails made public by WikiLeaks over the past several weeks raise fresh questions about the Justice Department’s handling of an investigation into a case with such close ties to the agency’s leadership. Just one week before FBI Director James Comey closed the original Clinton email probe in July, Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s private meeting with Clinton’s husband sparked a wave of outrage that ultimately clouded the Justice Department’s decision to end the investigation.In 2008, Podesta raved about Kadzik to Cassandra Butts, a member of President Obama’s transition team, and noted Kadzik was “willing to help” with vetting for Obama’s Cabinet.

“Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail,” Podesta wrote of Kadzik.

wikileaks-john-kadzik

Kadzik and Podesta, who were classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, are in frequent contact. The leaked emails show them discussing plans to celebrate Podesta’s birthday, and arranging other social get-togethers. Podesta had dinner with Kadzik and some other well-connected friends the day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October of 2015, in fact.

Kadzik also had dinner with Podesta at his home on Jan. 12, 2016, while the first Clinton email probe was well underway. Kadzik emailed Podesta: “We on?” Podesta replied, “Yes sorry. 7:30 at our place.”

Kadzik helped keep Podesta out of jail in 1998 when independent counsel Kenneth Starr was investigating him for his role in helping Bill Clinton’s former intern and girlfriend Monica Lewinsky land a job at the United Nations.

Via the Daily Caller:

As deputy chief of staff to Clinton in 1996, Podesta asked then-United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson to hire the 23-year-old Lewinsky.In April 1996, the White House transferred Lewinsky from her job as a White House intern to the Pentagon in order to keep her and Bill Clinton separate. But the Clinton team also wanted to keep Lewinsky happy so that she would not spill the beans about her sexual relationship with Clinton.

Richardson later recounted in his autobiography that he offered Lewinsky the position but that she declined it.

Podesta made false statements to a grand jury impaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for the investigation. But he defended the falsehoods, saying later that he was merely relaying false information from Clinton that he did not know was inaccurate at the time.

“He did lie to me,” Podesta said about Clinton in a National Public Radio interview in 1998. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in Feb. 1999 of perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to the Lewinsky probe.

Kadzik, then a lawyer with the firm Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, represented Podesta through the fiasco.

Fox News reported:

Kadzik had been an attorney with Dickstein Shapiro LLP for 18 years before he represented Podesta in the Clinton/Lewinsky investigation. He was hired in 2000 as a lobbyist for tax cheat Marc Rich, who was controversially granted a pardon by President Bill Clinton during Clinton’s final days in office. Kadzik got the job “because he was ‘trusted by [White House Chief of Staff John] Podesta,’ and was considered to be a ‘useful person to convey [Marc Rich’s] arguments to Mr. Podesta,’” according to a 2002 House Oversight Committee report.Podesta and Kadzik kept up their relationship after Kadzik was appointed to the DOJ. In a May 5, 2015 email, Kadzik’s son, PJ, wrote to Podesta seeking a job on Hillary Clinton’s newly launched presidential campaign.

“I have always aspired to work on a presidential campaign, and have been waiting for some time now for Hilary [sic] to announce so that I can finally make this aspiration a reality,” PJ Kadzik wrote.

Podesta said he would “check around,” but it’s unclear what came of the request.

The Kadzik conflict of interest is not the only one to have been noticed in recent weeks.

Andrew McCabe, second in command at the FBI, has come under scrutiny for the campaign donations his wife received from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton ally.

Some Republicans are now charging that the Obama DOJ is nothing more than a cover-up operation for corrupt Democrats.

“There is public information that the Justice Department is protecting the Clinton Foundation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton Tuesday morning on Fox and Friends. 

Fox News reported:

Kadzik had been an attorney with Dickstein Shapiro LLP for 18 years before he represented Podesta in the Clinton/Lewinsky investigation. He was hired in 2000 as a lobbyist for tax cheat Marc Rich, who was controversially granted a pardon by President Bill Clinton during Clinton’s final days in office. Kadzik got the job “because he was ‘trusted by [White House Chief of Staff John] Podesta,’ and was considered to be a ‘useful person to convey [Marc Rich’s] arguments to Mr. Podesta,’” according to a 2002 House Oversight Committee report.Podesta and Kadzik kept up their relationship after Kadzik was appointed to the DOJ. In a May 5, 2015 email, Kadzik’s son, PJ, wrote to Podesta seeking a job on Hillary Clinton’s newly launched presidential campaign.

“I have always aspired to work on a presidential campaign, and have been waiting for some time now for Hilary [sic] to announce so that I can finally make this aspiration a reality,” PJ Kadzik wrote.

Podesta said he would “check around,” but it’s unclear what came of the request.

The Kadzik conflict of interest is not the only one to have been noticed in recent weeks.

Andrew McCabe, second in command at the FBI, has come under scrutiny for the campaign donations his wife received from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton ally.

Some Republicans are now charging that the Obama DOJ is nothing more than a cover-up operation for corrupt Democrats.

“There is public information that the Justice Department is protecting the Clinton Foundation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton Tuesday morning on Fox and Friends. 

“Right now there’s a cover-up going on within the Obama Justice Department and the FBI about what the Clinton Foundation has been up to with these pay to play scams which has been confirmed essentially by WikiLeaks, and we’ve been exposing for almost a year at Judicial Watch,” he said.

Fitton reminisced about how the politicized DOJ handled the IRS targeting scandal.

“An under-reported aspect of the IRS scandal is that the Justice Department reached out to the IRS and asked, ‘how is it that we can prosecute the very groups you’re suppressing?'” he said.

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch in July of 2015 revealed that Lois Lerner and officials from the DOJ and FBI met in October 2010 to plot the possible criminal prosecution of targeted nonprofit organizations for alleged illegal political activity. “They wanted to go after donors,” Fitton said. “They were thinking of creative ways to put Obama’s opponents in jail. And this is the same Justice Department that is looking the other way on the Clinton Foundation.”

Rep. Trey Gowdy,R.-S.C., meanwhile said on “Fox & Friends” that he wasn’t concerned about any potential conflicts of interest. “Peter Kadzik is not a decision maker, he is a messenger,” Gowdy said.

Don’t Be Fooled: Hillarygate Probe Is Now a Formal Federal Criminal Investigation

November 1, 2016

Don’t Be Fooled: Hillarygate Probe Is Now a Formal Federal Criminal Investigation, American Thinker, James G. Wiles, November 1, 2016

The NY Times and the Wall Street Journal both reported on Monday morning that an FBI warrant application to a federal judge over the weekend for permission to search Huma Abedin’s emails and laptop had been granted. The application was made on the basis of the Clinton email investigation. Necessarily, that application (as required by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment) would have been supported by FBI affidavits.

This new fact is a development of immense potential significance – both for Mrs. Clinton personally and for us as American citizens. It is also unprecedented in American history.

At a minimum, it enables us to pierce the thick cloud of black ink and disinformation released over the weekend by Team Hillary and which is being widely misreported in the current news cycle.

The FBI agents had to make this warrant application because their existing Fourth Amendment search authority was on the basis of Anthony Weiner’s (unrelated) suspected misconduct with an underage girl. That investigation was already a grand jury matter. However, that grand jury’s authority – which is supervised by a federal judge — did not authorize the Bureau to pursue information which might be pertinent to the inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a personal email server while she was Secretary of State. Making that application, under standard DOJ protocol, required approval from Main Justice. In this case, the assistant attorney in charge of the Criminal Division, if not the attorney general.

Since the application was made, it’s safe to conclude that the Criminal Division at Main Justice authorized the warrant application. Thus, at a minimum, the senior leadership of the Justice Department is not as unanimously condemnatory of FBI director Comey’s letter to Congress on Friday as media reports would lead us to believe.

It also explains why Director Comey issued his letter to Congress. The reporting tells us that the FBI’s decision to make a warrant application to the supervising judge of the Weiner grand jury triggered Mr. Comey’s decision to notify Congress. Having promised Congressional leaders (perhaps unwisely, since he was not required to do so) that, if the Bureau uncovered new evidence relating to Hillarygate which required further inquiry, he would so notify them, he proceeded on Friday to keep his word and do so.

Now he’s being condemned by the Democrats and the MSM for not saying why. We’ll get to the reason why he’s not in a minute. But, first, the granting of the warrant application means several important and new things:

1) A federal judge supervising a grand jury has now made a finding, based on FBI affidavits which present evidence gathered during the preliminary Hillary inquiry (the one which the FBI director stated had been closed back in July), that there’s probable cause to believe that a federal crime was committed in connection with Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server.

We still, however, don’t know what crime(s) are suspected to have been committed. Or by whom.

2) The FBI can use this new grant of grand jury authority to investigate Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for the first time to issues subpoenaes to obtain testimony from witnesses and compel the production of documents and things. The Bureau and DOJ can, furthermore, use the judge’s probable cause finding to support further warrant applications.

This means that, if DOJ authorizes it, a United States attorney now has the ability for the first time to put subpoenaed witnesses before a grand jury. There, without their lawyer in the room, they may be questioned under oath by a federal prosecutor. If the witnesses take the Fifth – and the witness’s lawyer is allowed to sit outside the grand jury room and be consulted by the witness before answering a question, they can be immunized and, if they still refuse to testify, a judge can jail them indefinitely until they change their mind.

Huma Abedin, according to prior reporting, received a grant of immunity during the FBI’s preliminary investigation. During the first Clinton presidency, Clinton allies chose jail over cooperating with the federal grand jury investigating both Clintons.

We may get to see if a new generation of Clinton allies are willing to do the same.

3) The liberal media’s reporting that the Hillarygate email server investigation has not, in fact, been “reopened” is totally false.

Why?

Because, not only is the probe reopened, it has been upgraded and expanded. It has been upgraded from a preliminary inquiry to a formal criminal investigation with grand jury power. That also means that, at least at the level of the federal grand jury itself, assistant U.S. attorneys assigned to that grand jury are now for the first time formally involved.

In other words: the Beast is now fully awake.

4) This weekend’s development potentially escalates the threat to Mrs. Clinton. While several other procedural steps and processes are necessary, it is a federal grand jury, not the FBI,  which issues indictments. The FBI — using the the grand jury to obtain testimony, conduct searches and compel the production of documents and things – investigates crimes. The U.S. Attorneys, acting though the grand jury, charge and prosecute those persons whom the grand jury finds probable cause to believe have committed those crimes.

5) This weekend’s development also means that, for the first time in American history, a candidate for President of the United States is likely now a subject/target of a federal grand jury investigation.

These facts now enable us to analyze and dispel Team Clinton’s attempts to lay down a thick fog of misdirection over the scene.

Here it is: Mrs. Clinton’s demand that the FBI be “transparent” is pure posturing — spinning to the max (which Mrs. Clinton, as the most criminally investigated presidential candidate in U.S. history, well knows). Younger readers, please take note: this is not, to put it mildly, Hillary Clinton’s first rodeo.

Not for the first time, Mrs. Clinton is being totally disingenuous with the voters (and the media). She is also making FBI director Comey into her personal punching bag. And she’s doing it because she knows that the director can’t fight back.

In this, Mrs. Clinton is simply repeating a tactic which she and her catspaw Sidney Blumenthal used to good effect during the Whitewater, Travelgate, and Monica Lewinsky investigations in the 1990s. And that tactic worked.

It’s called grand jury secrecy. Now that Hillarygate is, for the first time, a grand jury investigation, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) prohibits the FBI and prosecutors from saying anything about “matters occurring before the grand jury.” Their lips are sealed.

Team Hillary’s lips, however, are not. They are neither federal prosecutors nor “agents of the grand jury.” So, Mrs. Clinton and her spokesmen — unlike the federal law enforcement officials they’ve been targeting all weekend — are free to tell us everything they know.

Let’s see if they do. A reporter should ask them.

And, in the meantime, let’s not bother to hold our breaths.

If Hillary really wants “transparency,” let her release the FBI’s warrant application for permission to search Huma Abedin and Mr. Weiner’s emails for evidence relating to whether Hillary’s use of a private server violated federal law. Huma’s lawyers likely have it. If not, they can certainly get it.

Huma, of course, is also free to release the emails too.

That’s why Hillary’s demand for “transparency” by the FBI is moonshine. She damn well knows the feds can’t do it.

She also now knows that the threat level against her has just been upgraded to ORANGE.

William Safire and Christopher Hitchens, thou shouldst be living at this hour!

Feminists defend Hillary Clinton against ‘sexist’ FBI investigation: ‘Bitch hunt’

October 31, 2016

Feminists defend Hillary Clinton against ‘sexist’ FBI investigation: ‘Bitch hunt’, Washington TimesBradford Richardson, October 31, 2016

campaign_2016_clinton-jpeg-6c739_c0-134-3190-1993_s885x516Attendees listen as Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign rally at Kent State University, Monday, Oct. 31, 2016, in Kent, Ohio. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Hillary Clinton supporters are employing a tried-and-true defense in the wake of the renewed FBI investigation into the Democratic presidential nominee’s emails: It’s “sexist.”

Writing in Time magazine, University of California, Berkeley linguistics professor Robin Lakoff described the investigation into the private server Mrs. Clinton used while secretary of state as a “bitch hunt.”

“I am mad,” Ms. Lakoff wrote. “I am mad because I am scared. And if you are a woman, you should be, too. Emailgate is a bitch hunt, but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us.

“The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female,” she wrote. “Can you imagine this happening to a man? Clinton is guilty of SWF (Speaking While Female), and emailgate is just a reminder to us all that she has no business doing what she’s doing and must be punished, for the sake of all decent women everywhere.

Clinton has repeatedly apologized, but apparently not enough for her accusers,” the professor continued. ”In fact, her apologies were her only mistake. By apologizing she acknowledged guilt. But that’s what women are supposed to do (because women are always guilty of something). ”

National Book Award winner Joyce Carol Oates echoed that sentiment, arguing that the investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server compromised national security interests is “sexist.”

If the former secretary of state’s emails are subject to FBI scrutiny, Ms. Oates said, then so should those of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“Time to investigate FBI emails. GOP emails. T***p emails,” Ms. Oates tweeted Monday, censoring Mr. Trump’s name. “Why focus exclusively on Hillary Clinton? Insane bias, indefensible & sexist.”

FBI director James Comey announced Friday that the bureau is taking another look at Mrs. Clinton’s email practices, after investigators found 650,000 emails on a laptop purportedly belonging to disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton confidant Huma Abedin.

The emails were reportedly uncovered in a separate probe into the possibility that Mr. Weiner sent sexually lewd messages to a teenage minor.

Former AG Under Contempt Of Congress: “Deeply Concerned” Over Comey’s Actions

October 31, 2016

Former AG Under Contempt Of Congress: “Deeply Concerned” Over Comey’s Actions, Hot Air, Ed Morrissey, October 31, 2016

holder

Nothing will start a morning off with a good laugh more than an op-ed from Eric Holder touting his record of fighting public corruption. The former Attorney General, who earned a contempt citation from Congress and who participated in one of the most corrupt presidential pardons in US history, took time out from his retirement to wag his finger at James Comey because the FBI director kept Congress informed. Why, Holder writes, that goes against everything I did as AG!

That may actually be one good argument in favor of Comey:

I began my career in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section 40 years ago, investigating cases of official corruption. In the years since, I have seen America’s justice system firsthand from nearly every angle — as a prosecutor, judge, attorney in private practice, and attorney general of the United States. I understand the gravity of the work our Justice Department performs every day to defend the security of our nation, protect the American people, uphold the rule of law and be fair.

That is why I am deeply concerned about FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision to write a vague letter to Congress about emails potentially connected to a matter of public, and political, interest. That decision was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season. That guidance, which reinforced established policy, is still in effect and applies to the entire Justice Department — including the FBI.

Let’s take a moment to recall the career of the man who issued this scolding. Holder most famously stonewalled Congress over the ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious program, which ran guns into Mexico in an attempt to make political hay over allegedly widespread “straw man” purchases of firearms in the US. Instead, the ATF thoroughly botched the operation and dumped thousands of guns into the hands of the drug cartels south of the border; the weapons were later traced to hundreds of murders, including those of two Border Patrol agents. When Congress demanded records and communications from the ATF and the Department of Justice, Holder refused to comply, offering a specious claim of “executive privilege” that only applies to the President. Congress approved a contempt citation that the DoJ refused to enforce, and a later court rejected Holder’s claims of executive privilege.

But Holder cites his earlier work on “public integrity,” too. What did that look like? Well, Holder’s approach to public integrity was to promote pardons for tax fugitives whose friends and family kicked in a lot of dough to the Clintons. Slate’s Justin Peters recalled the case of Marc Rich after his demise, the multibillionaire who got off scot-free thanks to Bill Clinton’s last-minute pardon while on the run for tax evasion:

Eric Holder was the key man. As deputy AG, Holder was in charge of advising the president on the merits of various petitions for pardon. Jack Quinn, a lawyer for Rich, approached Holder about clemency for his client. Quinn was a confidant of Al Gore, then a candidate for president; Holder had ambitions of being named attorney general in a Gore administration. A report from the House Committee on Government Reform on the Rich debacle later concluded that Holder must have decided that cooperating in the Rich matter could pay dividends later on.

Rich was an active fugitive, a man who had used his money to evade the law, and presidents do not generally pardon people like that. What’s more, the Justice Department opposed the pardon—or would’ve, if it had known about it. But Holder and Quinn did an end-around, bringing the pardon to Clinton directly and avoiding any chance that Justice colleagues might give negative input. As the House Government Reform Committee report later put it, “Holder failed to inform the prosecutors under him that the Rich pardon was under consideration, despite the fact that he was aware of the pardon effort for almost two months before it was granted.” …

Since then, Bill Clinton hasn’t stopped apologizing for the pardons of Marc Rich and Pincus Green. “It was terrible politics. It wasn’t worth the damage to my reputation,” he told Newsweek in 2002—and, indeed, speculation was rampant that Rich (and his ex-wife) had bought the pardon by, in part, donating $450,000 to Clinton’s presidential library. Clinton denied that the donations had anything to do with the pardon, instead claiming that he took Holder’s advice on the matter. Holder, for his part, has distanced himself from the pardons as well. As the House Government Reform Committee report put it, he claimed that his support for the pardon “was the result of poor judgment, initially not recognizing the seriousness of the Rich case, and then, by the time that he recognized that the pardon was being considered, being distracted by other matters.”

The excuses are weak. In the words of the committee report, “it is difficult to believe that Holder’s judgment would be so monumentally poor that he could not understand how he was being manipulated by Jack Quinn.”

Before the Washington Post offered its pages to Holder for this scolding on law-enforcement ethics, perhaps they should have consulted their own Richard Cohen. Not exactly a conservative activist, Cohen argued vehemently that Holder’s participation in the Rich pardon should have disqualified him for the AG position:

Holder was not just an integral part of the pardon process, he provided the White House with cover by offering his go-ahead recommendation. No alarm seemed to sound for him. Not only had strings been pulled, but it was rare to pardon a fugitive — someone who had avoided possible conviction by avoiding the inconvenience of a trial. The U.S. attorney’s office in New York — which, Holder had told the White House, would oppose any pardon — was kept ignorant of what was going on. Afterward, it was furious. …

But the pardon cannot be excepted. It suggests that Holder, whatever his other qualifications, could not say no to power. The Rich pardon request had power written all over it — the patronage of important Democratic fundraisers, for instance. Holder also said he was “really struck” by the backing of Rich by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the possibility of “foreign policy benefits that would be reaped by granting the pardon.” This is an odd standard for American justice, but more than that, what was Holder thinking? That U.S.-Israeli relations would suffer? Holder does not sound naive. He sounds disingenuous.

And he sounds just as disingenuous here, too. Perhaps Holder feels that he has the moral standing to argue that Congress should be kept in the dark about executive-branch operations, especially when they have a potentially large impact on the body politic; Holder himself certainly exemplified that in Operation Fast and Furious. Or perhaps Holder’s convinced that the Department of Justice should direct all its efforts to get potential felons off the hook, especially in cases where it benefits the Clintons, and Holder has definitely made that part of his life’s work. But Eric Holder lecturing James Comey for not following the examples he set at the DoJ qualifies as farce, and would get gales of laughter had the political parties been swapped.

An argument might be made that shows Comey misstepped, but this isn’t it — and Eric Holder is near the bottom of any list of former officials with the moral authority for public lectures on clean government.

PS: The Marc Rich pardon continues to pay dividends for the Clintons, too. They did big business with former Rich partner Gilbert Chagoury, even while the FBI looked into his connections to terror groups. We can thank Holder for that, too — a dividend of his 2000 efforts for “public integrity” that paid off for the Clintons over and over again.

David Sirota offers another reason to doubt Holder’s moral standing on questions of public integrity:

Comey may or may not be screwing up. But Eric Holder is an unconvincing voice on how law enforcement should act https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/792926441755127809 

I’d say my arguments are more directly on point, but YMMV.

The Clinton Degradation

October 30, 2016

The Clinton Degradation, Power Line, Scott Johnson, October 30, 2016

The prospect of a second Clinton presidency lies before us. I find it almost unbelievable. FBI Director Comey’s announcement of the investigation of newly discovered emails is a timely reminder of what a Clinton presidency holds in store for us simply in terms of lawlessness and scandal, not to mention the horribly destructive public policies she advocates.

In her four-minutes press conference this past Friday evening, Clinton was asked what she would say to a voter who “will be seeing you and hearing what you’re saying, saying I didn’t trust her before. I don’t trust her any more right now….” Clinton responded like a Democratic flack mouthing the obligatory talking point of the moment: “You know, I think people a long time ago made up their minds about the e-mails. I think that’s factored into what people think and now they are choosing a president.’

Yesterday at a rally in Florida, Clinton vowed: “No matter what they throw at us in these last day, we don’t back down.” She’s proud of it! The shamelessness abides.

With just 10 days until Election Day, Hillary’s on the trail in Florida.

Watch live: http://on.msnbc.com/2dY2IkN 

“No matter what they throw at us in these last days, we won’t back down. We won’t be distracted.” —Hillary: http://hrc.io/2fhUgTp 

The presidency of Bill Clinton was a long day’s journey into corruption, perjury, obstruction and national degradation. Thanks to Paula Jones, we even know the shape of the giver.

The revival of the Clinton investigation courtesy of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin is perfect. Thanks to Weiner himself, we know the shape of the giver as well. And the Weiner/Abedin marriage reflects Bill and Hillary’s arrangement in a funhouse mirror.

Through the first Clinton presidency Hillary Clinton served as Bill Clinton’s faithful enabler and attack dog. We nevertheless remain in her debt. Through her work on HillaryCare she produced the first Republican majority in the House of Representatives in 40 years. Some thought it couldn’t be done.

This is not to mention the rank corruption the Clinton family represents. Jack Engelhard captures an aspect of it in the column “How Hillary and Bill became Bonnie and Clyde.” When it comes to corruption, there is no bottom to the Clintons. We patiently wait “to find out what price/You have to pay to get out of/Going through all these things twice.” Bob Dylan said that.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke of defining deviancy down. With the Clintons we define degradation down.

Former FBI Asst. Director: FBI Has ‘Intensive, Ongoing’ Investigation into the Clinton Foundation

October 30, 2016

Former FBI Asst. Director: FBI Has ‘Intensive, Ongoing’ Investigation into the Clinton Foundation, PJ Media, Debra Heine, October 30, 2016

(The rain on Hillary’s parade may be turning into a thunderstorm. — DM)

comey3April 5, 2016 file photo, FBI Director James Comey

A former FBI assistant director told CNN Saturday night that the FBI has for months been conducting an “intensive” investigation into the Clinton Foundation. The former G-man, Tom Fuentes, also contradicted CNN’s reporting from earlier this year that said the FBI’s attempts to open a public corruption case into the Clinton Foundation were quashed by the DOJ. CNN reported back in August that three field offices wanted to launch an investigation, but DOJ officials had pushed back against opening a case because “the request seemed more political than substantive.” There were conflicting reports at the time, however, which said a joint FBI-U.S. Attorney probe was indeed underway.

Fuentes said, “The FBI has an intensive investigation, ongoing, into the Clinton Foundation.” He added that “the reports that three divisions came in with a request to Washington to open cases, and that they were turned down by the Department of Justice — that’s not true.”

“What was turned down was that they be the originating office,” Fuentes explained. “Headquarters at the FBI made the determination that the investigation would go forward as a comprehensive, unified case, and be coordinated. So that investigation is ongoing and Huma Abedin, and her role in the foundation and possible allegations concerning the activities of the secretary of state, the nature of the foundation and possible pay to play — that’s still being looked at.”

Fuentes continued, saying that “now you have her emails on a computer where the FBI already has a separate case going for Anthony Weiner’s alleged activities with a minor girl — so in a sense it’s almost turned into a one-stop shopping for the FBI. They could have implications affecting three separate investigations on one computer.”

Fuentes said that last week the team looking at Weiner’s computers went to the team that worked on the Clinton email case and showed the emails to them.

“And that team said, ‘this is really significant, we need to take this to the director, maybe we need to take another look at the email case,'” he explained. According to Fuentes,  Comey sent out the letter to the congressional leaders the very next day.

Fuentes seemed to want to stress the importance of the Clinton Foundation investigation: “Intermixed with all of this is still the ongoing foundation investigation … so three separate cases,” he said.

Fuentes told CNN that several “senior officials” in and out of the bureau had been apprising him of what was going on with the investigations.

Hitler Learns the FBI Reopened the Investigation

October 30, 2016

Hitler Learns the FBI Reopened the InvestigationSteve Hayward via YouTube, October 29, 2016

(This just had to happen. — DM)

Anthony Weiner cooperating with FBI on email probe

October 30, 2016

Anthony Weiner cooperating with FBI on email probe, Washington ExaminerDaniel Chaitin, October 30, 2016

weinerThe news that Anthony Weiner is cooperating would help law enforcement with the investigation. (AP Photo/Jin Lee)

Former Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner is cooperating with authorities in the FBI investigation of his laptop that contains emails that prompted the Federal Bureau of Investigation to reopen its probe into Hillary Clinton‘s use of an unauthorized email server.

The news that Weiner is cooperating, reported by Fox News’ Bret Baier on Sunday, would help law enforcement with the investigation, since officials didn’t yet have a warrant to read through the material found on the device.

Though FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers Friday his agency found emails related to Hillary Clinton‘s private email server, he didn’t yet have a warrant to read them.

As of Saturday night, the FBI had not received a search warrant from the Justice Department, an unnamed agency official told Yahoo News, but the agency was in talks to get one. When Comey wrote the letter, “he had no idea what was in the content of the emails,” said one official.

Neither the Justice Department nor the FBI immediately returned a request for comment.

Comey has begun participating in briefings with the Republican chairman and Democratic ranking members of congressional committees, according to Bill House, a congressional correspondent for Bloomberg News, citing unnamed sources.

Comey wrote a letter to eight lawmakers Friday to inform them that he was reopening the FBI case into Clinton’s unauthorized email server after the agency found emails in a laptop obtained from Weiner as part of a separate investigation into a sexting scandal. Weiner is the estranged husband to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

In his letter, Comey admitted he did not yet have the authority to assess the emails, but said the material “may be significant.”

Reports came out Saturday that Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s department disapproved of Comey’s decision to inform the lawmakers, as it deviated from agency policy not to comment on ongoing investigations.

Officials told CNN that the Justice Department could do little to stop Comey after the controversy that resulted from Lynch’s private meeting with former President Bill Clinton during the summer.

Comey has been hit by backlash for sending the letter to lawmakers just under two weeks before the Nov. 8 election. Democrats in particular have lashed out, adopting Republican nominee Donald Trump‘s refrain that the election is “rigged.”

The Clinton campaign, including the candidate herself, has called on the FBI to release all “relevant facts” they have on the emails.

In an internal memo obtained by Fox News on Friday, Comey explained to staffers he chose to break with normal procedure because he felt “an obligation” to tell Congress because he recently testified that the investigation had ended and that he recommended no charges be brought against the former secretary of state.

How Hillary and Bill became Bonnie and Clyde

October 30, 2016

How Hillary and Bill became Bonnie and Clyde, Israel National News, Jack Engelhard

The latest news about the Clintons, that Hillary’s case is being re-opened and that Bill got himself tremendously rich while Hillary was in office, gets to me to thinking about Bonnie and Clyde, the 1967 movie starring Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway about a real couple that worked brazenly outside the law during the 1930s Depression.

Love this line: “This here’s Miss Bonnie Parker. I’m Clyde Barrow. We rob banks.”

How’s that for a familiar ring as to how the Clintons operate? We’re the Clintons. The biggest schnorrers on the planet.

No wonder the FBI is re-examining the files. James Comey, finally channeling J. Edgar Hoover, dropped this bombshell on Friday.

In a few days, after Comey goes public and spills the beans, The New York Times will call for Hillary to step aside. You heard it here first.

In Hoover’s day Hillary and Bill would have their pictures hanging in the Post Office among the 10 Most Wanted.

Bonnie and Clyde did it for the money. Hillary and Bill do it for the money. Same people.

Except that Bonnie and Clyde, the real ones, were small-time. They’re credited with no more than about a dozen hold-ups, mainly banks and grocery stores.

Small potatoes compared to the Clinton Foundation that one way and another fattened the pockets of Hillary and Bill with dirty millions.

That, plus the emails that keep proving disrespect for most Americans and hostility against the State of Israel from members of the Hillary and Bill Syndicate – a crime family that features associates like Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and her sex-crazed (supposedly estranged) husband Anthony Weiner, who apparently kicked off the FBI dragnet from his sexting madness that fell into the wrong hands.

Imagine this confederacy of scoundrels with the keys to our country, starring Hillary and Bill.

Hollywood won’t need bullet blanks or special effects to show how those bandits used every underhanded trick to get away with highway robbery.

If I ever got around to writing the screenplay I’d have a tough time since there is no real action, no shoot-em-ups or car chases, only slippery dealings that find a way to corrupt everything – the State Department, the Department of Justice, the head of the FBI (until today), and finally the American people.

That’s who’s being robbed and most of us don’t own banks. We’re just trying to make a living and we don’t know how some people keep profiting from the sweat of our brow and have the nerve to present themselves as upstanding public servants when in fact they are gangsters and desperados.

Since it’s beyond me to write the screenplay, I do have the power of the vote, and it won’t go to a couple of drifters who ought to be behind bars.

This voter is putting a badge on Donald Trump. It’s time for a new sheriff in town.