Justice Dept. Re-Opens Clinton “Crime Cartel” Investigation | John Cardillo, Rebel Media via YouTube, January 6, 2018
(Please see also, Byron York: What the Trump dossier criminal referral means. — DM)
Justice Dept. Re-Opens Clinton “Crime Cartel” Investigation | John Cardillo, Rebel Media via YouTube, January 6, 2018
(Please see also, Byron York: What the Trump dossier criminal referral means. — DM)
JW Pres. Tom Fitton discussing Clinton/Russia Collusion, 72K New Clinton Docs, & Purple Heart Battle via YouTube, October 27, 2017
The blurb beneath the video states,
JW President Tom Fitton was live discussing the latest on Hillary Clinton’s camp colluding with the Russians to obtain the infamous Trump dossier. Also, why hasn’t the State Department finished reviewing all of the 72,000 email records from Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State? Finally, Judicial Watch is in court fighting for a soldier injured in the Fort Hood massacre to be posthumously-awarded the Purple Heart.
Dismantling the Deep State: From JFK to HRC, FrontPage Magazine, Lloyd Billingsley, October 24, 2017
(Has anybody out there read MacBird? It’s
a 1967 satire by Barbara Garson that superimposed the transferral of power following the Kennedy assassination onto the plot of Shakespeare’s Macbeth.
Thus John F. Kennedy becomes “John Ken O’Dunc”, Lyndon Johnson becomes “MacBird”, Lady Bird Johnson becomes “Lady MacBird”, and so forth. As Macbeth assassinates Duncan, so MacBird is responsible for the assassination of Ken O’Dunc; and as Macbeth is defeated by Macduff, so MacBird is defeated by Robert Ken O’Dunc (i.e. Robert Kennedy). This action is significantly influenced by the Three Witches, representing Students, Blacks, and Leftists.
— DM)
JFK conspiracy theories drag in just about everybody but the 1963 New York Yankees. As a theory on the left has it, the city of Dallas itself was responsible, along with the entire state of Texas, bristling as it was with Bircher anti-communists. Whatever the new release contains, it is not likely to satisfy the left, which remains in the subjunctive mood. For his part, President Trump can use the release to kick off revelations on more recent events.
For example, the U.S. Department has Hillary’s emails about Benghazi and such but is delaying release of them until 2020. Donald Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson should give the word to reveal the emails immediately, and in full. This will be a big win for the people, and a loss for the deep state denizens who seek to suppress the truth.
********************************
As Reuters reports, President Trump, subject to receipt of further information, plans to allow “the opening of long-secret files on the November 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy due for release next week.” This move is long overdue and sets a precedent for further revelations on the deep state.
Few if any events have been more picked over than the Kennedy assassination. The gunman was Lee Harvey Oswald, an American Communist who had lived in the USSR. Seven months earlier, Oswald deployed the same Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in an attempt to kill U.S. general Edwin Walker, a staunch anti-communist.
JFK conspiracy theories drag in just about everybody but the 1963 New York Yankees. As a theory on the left has it, the city of Dallas itself was responsible, along with the entire state of Texas, bristling as it was with Bircher anti-communists. Whatever the new release contains, it is not likely to satisfy the left, which remains in the subjunctive mood. For his part, President Trump can use the release to kick off revelations on more recent events.
For example, the U.S. Department has Hillary’s emails about Benghazi and such but is delaying release of them until 2020. Donald Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson should give the word to reveal the emails immediately, and in full. This will be a big win for the people, and a loss for the deep state denizens who seek to suppress the truth.
Prominent among them is Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador charged with investigating what occurred at the State Department before and after the Benghazi attack. His report failed to criticize senior officials, including Clinton and undersecretary Patrick F. Kennedy. Pickering also allowed Clinton aide Cheryl Mills to read his report before it was released and failed to interview Secretary of State Clinton. As he explained, he had already decided she was not responsible.
Clinton’s Shadow Diplomat, an investigative report from the Center for Security Policy, charts Pickering’s overlapping roles as Clinton’s foreign policy advisor, an advisory board member for two Iranian advocacy groups, and a paid director for Trubnaya Metallurgicheskaya Kompaniya (TMK), a Russian firm selling pipeline equipment to Iran and Syria.
While on the TMK board, Pickering was emailing Secretary of State Clinton and her staff, and arguing for an end to sanctions on Iran. Those emails, from the private server, will reveal much about Clinton and her shadow diplomat.
Like Clinton, the privileged Pickering believes he deserves special protection. Trump and Tillerson have good reason to release the emails immediately and in full.
It may not have been the JFK assassination, but at Benghazi in 2012 radical Islamic terrorists killed four Americans, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. As a former ambassador, Pickering should want the people to know the full truth of how those murders went down.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it was all about a protest over some video, the story Susan Rice brokered on television news. Was that the case? Or did Clinton know it was a terror attack from the start and pass off a fake story?
If former First Lady and Secretary of State Clinton was not responsible, who was? Why did Pickering protect her? The President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, needs to make sure that all comes out.
Likewise, as The Hill reported, the Obama Justice Department blocked an undercover witness “from telling Congress about conversations and transactions he witnessed related to the Russian nuclear industry’s efforts to win favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton and influence Obama administration decisions.”
Eric Holder no longer runs the Justice Department. Jeff Sessions, President Trump’s pick for the post, should see that that this witness tells all he knows. After all, this is about 20 percent of U.S. uranium falling under the control of Russia, a nation Democrats allegedly regard as a dangerous adversary of the United States.
This is the story President Trump wants the media to cover, the real story of Russian interference. As he pushes for exposure, the president should not neglect another deadly terrorist attack.
November 5 marks eight years since U.S. Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan, a self-described “Soldier of Allah,” gunned down 13 unarmed Americans at Fort Hood and wounded more than 30 others. U.S. intelligence knew Hasan was communicating with jihadist Anwar al-Awlaki but did nothing to stop Hasan’s mass murder.
Who were the people who knew but did nothing? What penalty, if any, did they suffer? Are they still working in American government, and in what capacity? What other terrorist actions did they ignore?
The commander-in-chief of U.S. armed forces should make that information known. Like the Clinton Benghazi and uranium revelations, that would be a huge win for the American people. It would also be a huge defeat for the privileged deep state operatives, who place such little value on American lives, and the old-line establishment media that peddle their lies.
Weekly Update: It’s amateur hour at State, Judicial Watch, September 15, 2017
(The second part of the article deals with the failure of the Department of Justice to prosecute former IRS head Lois Lerner. I have not corrected typos in the article because my internet keeps going down and I want to get this posted promptly.– DM)
We continue to accumulate details of the communications abuses in the Hillary Clinton State Department, but after you read the following report pause and consider the big picture. For four years the inner workings of her department were porous to prying eyes. Is it just a coincidence that Hillary Clinton’s diplomatic efforts so often failed?
This week we released 1,617 new pages of documents revealing numerous additional examples of classified information being transmitted through the unsecure, non-state.gov account of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, as well as many instances of Hillary Clinton donors receiving special favors from the State Department.
The documents included 97 email exchanges with Clinton not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 627emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over, and further contradicting a statement by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails had been turned over to department.
The emails are the 20th production of documents obtained in response to a court order in a May 5, 2015, lawsuit we filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)). We sued after State failed to respond to a March 18, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking: “All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-‘state.gov’ email address.”
On September 11, 2009, the highly sensitive name and email address of the person giving the classified Presidential Daily Brief was included in an email forwarded to Abedin’s unsecure email account by State Department official Dan Fogerty. The State Department produced many more Clinton and Abedin unsecured emails that were classified:
Could I ask you to review the memo below that I wrote yesterday on my return from Israel? If you think it worthwhile, I’d be very grateful if you showed it to HRC (I have already shared it with Mitchell and Feltman). A confrontation with Bibi appears imminent. I’ve never been one to shy away from that, as she may know. But it has to be done carefully, and that doesn’t appear to be happening. And I’m concerned that she will be tarred with the same brush if this leads to a bad end. So I think she needs to make sure that the friction is productive. I’ve made some suggestions at the end of the memo
Other emails contain sensitive information that was sent via Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email servers.
(The FBI interviewed Hanley in its probe of Clinton’s email practices, and State’s Diplomatic Security staff reprimanded her after she left classified material behind in a Moscow hotel room. Hanley was the staffer tasked with finding BlackBerry phones for Clinton to use.)
The new documents show that Clinton donors frequently requested and received special favors from the State Department that were connected to the Clinton Foundation.
On September 29, 2009, Abedin followed up with Duffy, telling him that “we are happy to assist with any and all meetings” and that she had “discussed you and your trip with our assistant secretary of state for east asia and pacific affairs,” suggesting that Duffy write the assistant secretary, Kurt Campbell. Duffy replied, “Thank you very much. I did connect with Kurt Campbell today.”
The emails also provide insight on the inner workings of the Clinton State Department, in particular her engagement with her staff.
Abedin’s involvement in a major appointment at the State Department is controversial given that Abedin’s mother was an Islamist activist.
Abedin also offered her opinion to Clinton on administration leaders: On January 21, 2011, while on a trip to Mexico, Abedin emailed Hillary that, “Biden is a disaster here.”
So, here I sit in the meeting surrounded by ever other person dressed in a white shirt provided by the Mexicans. Patricia is not wearing the exact style that all others are but her own white shirt. But, since no one ever told me about this, and instead assumed I didn’t need to know, I had no idea about any of this until I just walked into the large meeting in front of the entire press corps and I’m wearing a green top. So, what’s my answer when asked why I think I’m different than all my colleagues and why I’m dissing our hosts? I am sick of people deciding what I should know rather than giving me the info so I can make a decision. This really annoys me and I told Monica [Hanley] I just didn’t understand.
These emails show ‘what happened’ was that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin obviously violated laws about the handling of classified information and turned the State Department into a pay for play tool for the corrupt Clinton Foundation. The clear and mounting evidence of pay for play and mishandling of classified information warrant a serious criminal investigation by an independent Trump Justice Department.
To read more about Huma Abedin’s emails, click here.
In a baffling move, President Trump’s Justice Department has decided not to prosecute Lois Lerner, former director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS, whose own emails place her at the heart of the politicization of the IRS for the targeting of conservative groups:
When we learned of this, I issued this statement:
I have zero confidence that the Justice Department did an adequate review of the IRS scandal. In fact, we’re still fighting the Justice Department and the IRS for records about this very scandal. Today’s decision comes as no surprise considering that the FBI collaborated with the IRS and is unlikely to investigate or prosecute itself. President Trump should order a complete review of the whole issue. Meanwhile, we await accountability for IRS Commissioner Koskinen, who still serves and should be drummed out of office.
Let’s review the history.
Judicial Watch released 294 pages of FBI “302” documents revealing top Washington IRS officials, including Lois Lerner and Holly Paz, knew the agency was specifically targeting “Tea Party” and other conservative organizations two full years before disclosing it to Congress and the public. An FBI 302 document contains detailed narratives of FBI agent investigations. The Obama Justice Department and FBI investigations into the Obama IRS scandal resulted in no criminal charges.
The FBI 302 documents confirm the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 2013 report, which said, “Senior IRS officials knew that agents were targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny as early as 2011.” Lerner did not reveal the targeting until May 2013, in response to a planted question at an American Bar Association conference. The documents revealed that then-acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller actually wrote Lerner’s response: “They used names like Tea Party or Patriots and they selected cases simply because the applications had those names in the title. That was wrong, that was absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate.”
Our litigation forced the IRS first to say that emails belonging to Lerner were supposedly missing and later declare to the court that the emails were on IRS back-up systems. Lerner was one of the top officials responsible for the IRS’ targeting of President Obama’s political opponents. Judicial Watch exposed various IRS record keeping problems:
While Washington spins in circles trying to find election rigging on the part of Donald Trump, it closes its eyes to genuine election skullduggery.
Judge Orders FBI to Release Unredacted Subpoenas From Clinton Investigation, Washington Free Beacon, Elizabeth Harrington, September 1, 2017
A federal judge has ordered the FBI to release new details regarding the subpoenas the bureau issued during the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
On Thursday, James Boasberg, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled in favor of watchdog groups Cause of Action and Judicial Watch, which are suing the government for failing to properly preserve the former secretary of state and failed presidential candidate’s emails.
“The 2016 presidential election may have come and gone, but Plaintiffs Judicial Watch and Cause of Action Institute’s quest for Hillary Clinton’s emails lives on,” Boasberg wrote in the order. “As most readers will remember, Clinton used private email accounts during her tenure as Secretary of State, embroiling the government in myriad Freedom of Information Act suits.”
“In this case, however, Plaintiffs have taken a different tack, alleging a violation of the Federal Records Act,” he wrote. “That is, they claim Defendants State Department and the National Archives and Records Administration failed to maintain records of Clinton’s emails and must now seek the Department of Justice’s Case assistance in their recovery.”
The groups sued the State Department and the National Archives for the unredacted grand jury subpoenas issued in the Clinton email investigation last month.
The existence of the subpoenas was revealed earlier this year, in a redacted declaration filed to the court in secret by E.W. Priestap, the assistant director for the FBI’s counterintelligence division.
Boasberg has now ordered the FBI to reveal the full, unredacted Priestap declaration, which will reveal more information on the government’s efforts to obtain emails stored on Clinton’s BlackBerry email accounts.
Cause of Action Institute president and CEO John J. Vecchione praised the court’s opinion: “The government attempted to end a case with evidence no one could review. This order makes public details submitted by the government about the FBI’s efforts to recover then-Secretary Clinton’s unlawfully removed emails.”
“Americans deserve to know the full scope of that investigation, and we, as Plaintiffs, should have an opportunity to contest the relevance of the government’s facts,” Vecchione said.
Cause of Action and Judicial Watch are still seeking thousands of Clinton’s emails, but the order Thursday is a first step in revealing more information into how the FBI’s case was handled.
The lawsuit led to the discovery of additional classified emails by Clinton that were never disclosed by the State Department, in March.
Washington Free Beacon editor in chief Matthew Continetti filed a declaration in support of the groups’ motion to reveal the unredacted subpoenas because of the “significant public interest” regarding the Clinton email investigation and its implications for national security.
FBI says lack of public interest in Hillary emails justifies withholding documents, Washington Times,
“I’m just stunned. This is exactly what I would have expected had Mrs. Clinton won the election, but she didn’t. It looks like the Obama Administration is still running the FBI,” Mr. Clevenger told The Washington Times.
“How can a story receive national news coverage and not be a matter of public interest? If this is the new standard, then there’s no such thing as a public interest exception,” he said.
***************************
Hillary Clinton’s case isn’t interesting enough to the public to justify releasing the FBI’s files on her, the bureau said this week in rejecting an open-records request by a lawyer seeking to have the former secretary of state punished for perjury.
Ty Clevenger, the lawyer, has been trying to get Mrs. Clinton and her personal lawyers disbarred for their handling of her official emails during her time as secretary of state. He’s met with resistance among lawyers, and now his request for information from the FBI’s files has been shot down.
“You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject,” FBI records management section chief David M. Hardy told Mr. Clevenger in a letter Monday.
“It is incumbent upon the requester to provide documentation regarding the public’s interest in the operations and activities of the government before records can be processed pursuant to the FOIA,” Mr. Hardy wrote.
Mrs. Clinton, is the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, former chief diplomat, former U.S. senator, and former first lady of both the U.S. and Arkansas. Her use of a secret email account to conduct government business while leading the State Department was front-page news for much of 2015 and 2016, and was so striking that the then-FBI director broke with procedure and made both a public statement and appearances before Congress to talk about the bureau’s probe.
In the end, the FBI didn’t recommend charges against Mrs. Clinton, concluding that while she risked national security, she was too technologically inept to know the dangers she was running, so no case could be made against her.
The FBI says it will only release records from its files if a subject consents, is dead, or is of such public interest that it overrides privacy concerns.
Mr. Clevenger said he thought it would have been clear why Mrs. Clinton’s case was of public interest, but he sent documentation anyway, pointing to a request by members of Congress for an investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton perjured herself in testimony to Capitol Hill.
“I’m just stunned. This is exactly what I would have expected had Mrs. Clinton won the election, but she didn’t. It looks like the Obama Administration is still running the FBI,” Mr. Clevenger told The Washington Times.
“How can a story receive national news coverage and not be a matter of public interest? If this is the new standard, then there’s no such thing as a public interest exception,” he said.
The FBI didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment Tuesday on how it balances public interest versus privacy in open-records requests.
Report: Obama Holdovers Slow-Roll Release of Clinton Emails, Officials Cite ‘Diminished Public Interest, Breitbart, Kristina Wong, July 24, 2017
Officials from the State and Justice Departments argue a hiring freeze and lack of public interest are responsible for its inability to process and release the 100,000 Hillary Clinton emails as ordered under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, according to a report.
A U.S. official familiar with the case told Circa “there are still holdovers” within the State and Justice Departments who don’t want to see the emails released, and are slow-rolling the process. But the report also said the president’s own Justice Department attorneys are citing “diminished public interest” in the emails, and that the president should demand the agencies abide.
According to Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, the FBI turned over to the State Department a new disk of emails belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin that were discovered on a laptop owned by her husband, Anthony Weiner.
State and Justice Department lawyers say they can’t release them until they judge whether they are personal or government, and can be shared publicly. Fitton said there are apparently 7,000 emails on the laptop.
State Department spokeswoman Pooja Jhunjhunwala told Circa that the Department “takes its records management responsibilities seriously and is working diligently to process FOIA requests and to balance the demands of the many requests we have received.”
“We are devoting significant resources to meeting our litigation obligations,” she said.
Fitton argued they are moving too slowly. The State Department was ordered in November to process 500 pages per month, but he said it would take until 2020 for the bulk to be made public.
“President Trump needs to direct his agencies to follow the the law but right now they are making a mockery of it by saying they won’t finish releasing it until 2020,” he said.
Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, released 448 pages of documents the State Department did turn over from Abedin last week. The group said the emails describe preferential treatment “to major donors to the Clinton Foundation and political campaigns.”
“The documents included six Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 439 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department, and further contradicting a statement by Clinton that, ‘as far as she knew,’ all of her government emails had been turned over to the State Department,” the group said in a July 14 press release.
Is it time for the DOJ to reopen the probe into Clinton? Judicial Watch via YouTube, July 19, 2017
(But that would be misogynistic and besides, it’s just old news. Let’s just keep trying to impeach President Trump. That gets lots of headlines.– DM)
Today in Collusion, Power Line,
(Huh? “If you’re confused, I’d ordinarily suggest that you go back and read the report a time or two. But life is short and rereading would not much clarify this spaghetti bowl hurled against the wall, in the hope that some of the Flynn sauce might stick.” — DM)
Lee Smith notes in his Tablet column “The strange tale of Jay Solomon” that the news side of the Wall Street Journal is straining to join the opposition to the Trump administration led by the Washington Post and the New York Times. “As one senior D.C. reporter told me recently,” Lee writes, “‘lots of Journal reporters want to join the anti-Trump resistance but they can’t do that because the editorial board thinks the Trump Russia narrative is absurd, as does the readership.’”
In yesterday’s paper, the Journal made a downpayment on membership dues in the Resistance with Shane Harris’s story “GOP operative sought Clinton emails from hackers, implied a connection to Flynn.” Harris’s story is behind the Journal’s subscription paywall, but the New York Post has an accessible summary by Todd Venezia here.
Andy McCarthy breaks down Harris’s story in his weekly NRO column here. Here is his summary and first pass at it:
About ten days before he died in mid-May, an 81-year-old man who did not work for the Trump campaign told the Journal he had speculated that, but did not know whether, 33,000 of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails had been hacked from her homebrew server. The now-deceased man, “a longtime Republican opposition researcher” named Peter W. Smith, had theorized that the e-mails must have been stolen, “likely by Russian hackers.” But he had no idea if this was actually so, and he himself certainly had nothing to do with stealing them.
Smith’s desire to obtain the hacked emails, if there were any, peaked around Labor Day 2016 — i.e., during the last weeks of the campaign. This was many months after the FBI had taken physical custody of Clinton’s homebrew server and other devices containing her e-mails. It was also two months after the Bureau’s then-director, James Comey, had told the country that the FBI had found no evidence that Clinton had been hacked . . . but that her carelessness about communications security, coupled with the proficiency of hackers in avoiding detection, meant her e-mails could well have been compromised throughout her years as secretary of state.
In other words, Peter W. Smith was one of about 320 million people in the United States who figured that Clinton’s e-mails had been hacked — by Russia, China, Iran, ISIS, the NSA, the latest iteration of “Guccifer,” and maybe even that nerdy kid down at Starbucks with “Feel the Bern” stickers on his laptop.
Besides having no relationship with Trump, Smith also had no relationship with the Russian regime. Besides not knowing whether the Clinton e-mails were actually hacked, he also had no idea whether the Kremlin or anyone close to Vladimir Putin had obtained the e-mails. In short, he wouldn’t have been able to tell you whether Trump and Putin were colluding with each other because he wasn’t colluding with either one of them.
But — here comes the blockbuster info — Smith was colluding with Michael Flynn. Or at least he kinda, sorta was . . . except for, you know, the Journal’s grudging acknowledgement that, well, okay, Smith never actually told the paper that Flynn was involved in what the report calls “Smith’s operation.”
It’s a long column. As ancient history is involved, Andy helpfully fills in the backstory to Harris’s article:
The Journal does not see fit to remind readers that the 33,000 e-mails Smith was trying to dig up were the ones Clinton had tried to destroy, even though they contained records of government business (which it is a felony to destroy), contained at least some classified information (which it is a felony to mishandle), and had been requested by congressional committees (whose proceedings it is a felony to obstruct by destroying evidence).
These penal inconveniences aside, there were also explosive political implications. Clinton had insisted that the e-mails in question were strictly of a personal nature, involving yoga routines, daughter Chelsea’s wedding, and the like. She maintained that she had turned over any and all government-related e-mails to the State Department. She had also laughably claimed that her homebrew server system was adequately secure. And there is every reason to believe many of these destroyed e-mails related to Clinton Foundation business — the Bill and Hill scheme to monetize their “public service” — which was liberally commingled with government business during Mrs. Clinton’s State Department tenure. Public disclosure of these e-mails, then, would have been very damaging, concretely demonstrating her dishonesty and unfitness.
There is every reason to believe the destroyed e-mails related to Clinton Foundation business — the Bill and Hill scheme to monetize their ‘public service’ — which was liberally commingled with government business during Mrs. Clinton’s State Department tenure. Understand: None of that is Russia’s fault, or Trump’s, or Flynn’s, or Flynn Jr.’s, or Smith’s. It was solely the fault of Hillary Clinton. She was a five-alarm disaster of a candidate. That’s why she lost.
Harris has the goods on crimes committed in connection with his story, but Harris won’t be revealing the perpetrators:
All this sound and fury turns out to be throat-clearing. The juicy news in the Journal’s report is not about Smith; it stems from yet another leak of classified information. According to “U.S. investigators” involved in the Russia probe (i.e., the Mueller investigation), there are intelligence reports that “describe Russian hackers discussing how to obtain e-mails from Mrs. Clinton’s server and then transmit them to Mr. Flynn via an intermediary.”
Who are these investigators? The Journal doesn’t tell us — the actual crime of leaking classified intelligence being of less interest than the non-crime of “collusion.” The purported Russian hackers are not identified either. Nor is Flynn’s “intermediary” — the Journal cannot say whether the leak is accurate, whether there really was an intermediary, or whether Smith could have been the intermediary. There is, moreover, no indication that any supposed Russian hacker actually made any effort to obtain the Clinton e-mails, much less that Flynn — let alone Trump — had any knowledge of or involvement in such an effort.
Quick: somebody start writing up the articles of impeachment!
Well, Harris is still on the case. The Journal has his follow-up story today (with Michael Bender and Peter Nicholas).
At the same time, Lawfare has posted the first-person account of Matt Tait, Harris’s source. “I was involved in the events that reporter Shane Harris described, and I was an unnamed source for the initial story,” Tait writes. “What’s more, I was named in, and provided the documents to Harris that formed the basis of, th[e] follow-up story…” Tait’s account is full of smoke, including the assumption that Smith had obtained the deleted Clinton emails from an unnamed person representing the “dark web.”
Tait puts it this way: “[Smith] said that his team had been contacted by someone on the ‘dark web’; that this person had the emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email server (which she had subsequently deleted), and that Smith wanted to establish if the emails were genuine.” Tait thereafter assumes that Smith had obtained the deleted emails.
“In the end,” Tait concedes, “I never saw the actual materials they’d been given, and to this day, I don’t know whether there were genuine emails, or whether Smith and his associates were deluding themselves.” Tait to the contrary notwithstanding, I can find nothing in Tait’s column to suggest he knows whether Smith had in fact obtained the deleted Clinton emails. Tait adds that it’s possible, after all, that “Smith” only “talked a very good game.”
The Brookings Institute is promoting Tait’s first-hand mystifications as some kind of a contribution this morning. That’s how I was alerted to it. Andy McCarthy hasn’t gotten to Harris’s follow-up story or to Tait’s account yet, but I think his comment in the NRO column applies generally to Harris’s follow-up Journal article and Tait’s account: “If you’re confused, I’d ordinarily suggest that you go back and read the report a time or two. But life is short and rereading would not much clarify this spaghetti bowl hurled against the wall, in the hope that some of the Flynn sauce might stick.”
Loretta Lynch, Portrait of Corruption, Front Page Magazine, Ari Lieberman, June 16, 2017
She barely served two years as attorney general during Obama’s tenure but during that time, Loretta Lynch distinguished herself as arguably the most corrupt attorney general in the history of the United States. That’s a tall order considering that her predecessor was Eric Holder, who was notorious for politicizing his office and cited for contempt of Congress for stonewalling in the infamous Fast and Furious fiasco. Nevertheless, when it comes to outright corruption, it’s hard to find a better candidate than Loretta Lynch.
Lynch like everyone else who listened to the mainstream media elites believed that a Clinton presidency was all but guaranteed. She was likely angling for a position within the next administration and would utilize the power of her office to make certain that nothing altered the presidential trajectory charted by media elites, leftist pollsters and top Democratic Party insiders.
During his recent testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, former FBI director James Comey testified that Lynch directed him to refer to the FBI’s criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton as a “matter,” which “confused and concerned” him and gave him a “queasy feeling.” The benign language employed by Lynch directly tracked the Clinton campaign’s talking points in an effort to downplay the significance and negative ramifications of the criminal probe.
But it gets worse for Lynch, much worse in fact. Circa reports that in closed session before the Intelligence Committee, Comey testified that he confronted Lynch with a sensitive document in which it was suggested that Lynch was going to use her authority and power of her office to thwart prosecution of Clinton irrespective of the FBI’s findings in the email probe. Lynch reportedly stared at the document and then “looked up with a steely silence that lasted for some time, then asked him if he had any other business with her and if not that he should leave her office.”
These strange and rather adversarial interactions with Lynch, coupled with the now infamous 25-minute meeting that Lynch had with Bill Clinton (where the two allegedly discussed grandchildren and golf) at a Phoenix tarmac just days before Hillary was scheduled to testify before the FBI, led Comey to conclude that he needed to make his findings public “to protect the credibility of the investigation.”
The disturbing revelations regarding the nation’s top law enforcement officer and her attempts to interfere with an ongoing FBI investigation have prompted bipartisan calls by a growing chorus of Senate Judiciary Committee members to subpoena Lynch and investigate her conduct. Among those who have called for an investigation are Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) and surprisingly, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) the committee’s ranking member and certainly no ally of Donald Trump. But Lynch’s alleged conduct was so egregious and outrageous that it left Feinstein with little choice. Silence on the matter would reek of hypocrisy and double standards.
Fox reported that on Wednesday, Judiciary Committee chairman, Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter to Feinstein noting that the committee will pursue investigations into any efforts to influence FBI investigations. That would presumably include purported efforts by Lynch to influence or even thwart the outcome of the FBI’s email probe. The letter should have been sent days ago following Comey’s testimony and it is unclear why Chairman Grassley dragged his heals on the matter.
But even if Lynch is called before the committee, don’t expect much. Lynch is anything but straight-forward. She is adept at evading and obfuscating. During her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last year, exasperated congressmen marveled at her seeming inability to provide straight-forward answers to direct questions requiring a simple “yes” or “no” response.
One frustrated congressman, David Trott (R-Michigan) noted that Lynch refused to answer probative questions on at least 74 occasions. Rep. Trey Gowdy, (R-S.C.), noted that Lynch’s “lack of clarity is bad for the republic.” And Rep Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) bluntly told Lynch that she was “sending a terrible message to the world,” and that her “lack of clarity” before the committee was “pretty stunning.” Rep. Doug Collins (D- Ga) dryly commented that he missed Eric Holder because “at least when he came here he gave us answers.”
But Lynch remained unfazed by the criticism. Her stoic demeanor throughout the proceedings betrayed the thought-process of a well-connected, high-level law enforcement official who thought she was above the law. Nevertheless the new and troubling revelations provided by the former FBI director in his testimony before the Intelligence Committee have provided committee members with specific, concrete information and not just innuendo. There is now evidence of actual impropriety and not merely the appearance of impropriety. In light of this tangible evidence, it will be interesting to see how the former attorney general will attempt slither her way out of the corrupted hole she dug herself into.
Recent Comments