Posted tagged ‘Hillary Clinton indictment?’

You can Smell Hillary’s Fear

November 4, 2016

You can Smell Hillary’s Fear, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 4, 2016

hilsmells

Hillary Clinton has awkwardly wound her way through numerous scandals in just this election cycle. But she’s never shown fear or desperation before. Now that has changed. Whatever she is afraid of, it lies buried in her emails with Huma Abedin. And it can bring her down like nothing else has.

******************

In the final stretch of the election, Hillary Rodham Clinton has gone to war with the FBI.

The word “unprecedented” has been thrown around so often this election that it ought to be retired. But it’s still unprecedented for the nominee of a major political party to go war with the FBI.

But that’s exactly what Hillary and her people have done. Coma patients just waking up now and watching an hour of CNN from their hospital beds would assume that FBI Director James Comey is Hillary’s opponent in this election.

The FBI is under attack by everyone from Obama to CNN. Hillary’s people have circulated a letter attacking Comey. There are currently more media hit pieces lambasting him than targeting Trump. It wouldn’t be too surprising if the Clintons or their allies were to start running attack ads against the FBI.

The FBI’s leadership is being warned that the entire left-wing establishment will form a lynch mob if they continue going after Hillary. And the FBI’s credibility is being attacked by the media and the Democrats to preemptively head off the results of the investigation of the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton.

The covert struggle between FBI agents and Obama’s DOJ people has gone explosively public.

The New York Times has compared Comey to J. Edgar Hoover. Its bizarre headline, “James Comey Role Recalls Hoover’s FBI, Fairly or Not” practically admits up front that it’s spouting nonsense. The Boston Globe has published a column calling for Comey’s resignation. Not to be outdone, Time has an editorial claiming that the scandal is really an attack on all women.

James Carville appeared on MSNBC to remind everyone that he was still alive and insane. He accused Comey of coordinating with House Republicans and the KGB. And you thought the “vast right wing conspiracy” was a stretch.

Countless media stories charge Comey with violating procedure. Do you know what’s a procedural violation? Emailing classified information stored on your bathroom server.

Senator Harry Reid has sent Comey a letter accusing him of violating the Hatch Act. The Hatch Act is a nice idea that has as much relevance in the age of Obama as the Tenth Amendment. But the cable news spectrum quickly filled with media hacks glancing at the Wikipedia article on the Hatch Act under the table while accusing the FBI director of one of the most awkward conspiracies against Hillary ever.

If James Comey is really out to hurt Hillary, he picked one hell of a strange way to do it.

Not too long ago Democrats were breathing a sigh of relief when he gave Hillary Clinton a pass in a prominent public statement. If he really were out to elect Trump by keeping the email scandal going, why did he trash the investigation? Was he on the payroll of House Republicans and the KGB back then and playing it coy or was it a sudden development where Vladimir Putin and Paul Ryan talked him into taking a look at Anthony Weiner’s computer?

Either Comey is the most cunning FBI director that ever lived or he’s just awkwardly trying to navigate a political mess that has trapped him between a DOJ leadership whose political futures are tied to Hillary’s victory and his own bureau whose apolitical agents just want to be allowed to do their jobs.

The only truly mysterious thing is why Hillary and her associates decided to go to war with a respected Federal agency. Most Americans like the FBI while Hillary Clinton enjoys a 60% unfavorable rating.

And it’s an interesting question.

Hillary’s old strategy was to lie and deny that the FBI even had a criminal investigation underway. Instead her associates insisted that it was a security review. The FBI corrected her and she shrugged it off. But the old breezy denial approach has given way to a savage assault on the FBI.

Pretending that nothing was wrong was a bad strategy, but it was a better one that picking a fight with the FBI while lunatic Clinton associates try to claim that the FBI is really the KGB.

There are two possible explanations.

Hillary Clinton might be arrogant enough to lash out at the FBI now that she believes that victory is near. The same kind of hubris that led her to plan her victory fireworks display could lead her to declare a war on the FBI for irritating her during the final miles of her campaign.

But the other explanation is that her people panicked.

Going to war with the FBI is not the behavior of a smart and focused presidential campaign. It’s an act of desperation. When a presidential candidate decides that her only option is to try and destroy the credibility of the FBI, that’s not hubris, it’s fear of what the FBI might be about to reveal about her.

During the original FBI investigation, Hillary Clinton was confident that she could ride it out. And she had good reason for believing that. But that Hillary Clinton is gone. In her place is a paranoid wreck. Within a short space of time the “positive” Clinton campaign promising to unite the country has been replaced by a desperate and flailing operation that has focused all its energy on fighting the FBI.

There’s only one reason for such bizarre behavior.

The Clinton campaign has decided that an FBI investigation of the latest batch of emails poses a threat to its survival. And so it’s gone all in on fighting the FBI. It’s an unprecedented step born of fear. It’s hard to know whether that fear is justified. But the existence of that fear already tells us a whole lot.

Clinton loyalists rigged the old investigation. They knew the outcome ahead of time as well as they knew the debate questions. Now suddenly they are no longer in control. And they are afraid.

You can smell the fear.

The FBI has wiretaps from the investigation of the Clinton Foundation. It’s finding new emails all the time. And Clintonworld panicked. The spinmeisters of Clintonworld have claimed that the email scandal is just so much smoke without fire. All that’s here is the appearance of impropriety without any of the substance. But this isn’t how you react to smoke. It’s how you respond to a fire.

The misguided assault on the FBI tells us that Hillary Clinton and her allies are afraid of a revelation bigger than the fundamental illegality of her email setup. The email setup was a preemptive cover up. The Clinton campaign has panicked badly out of the belief, right or wrong, that whatever crime the illegal setup was meant to cover up is at risk of being exposed.

The Clintons have weathered countless scandals over the years. Whatever they are protecting this time around is bigger than the usual corruption, bribery, sexual assaults and abuses of power that have followed them around throughout the years. This is bigger and more damaging than any of the allegations that have already come out. And they don’t want FBI investigators anywhere near it.

The campaign against Comey is pure intimidation. It’s also a warning. Any senior FBI people who value their careers are being warned to stay away. The Democrats are closing ranks around their nominee against the FBI. It’s an ugly and unprecedented scene. It may also be their last stand.

Hillary Clinton has awkwardly wound her way through numerous scandals in just this election cycle. But she’s never shown fear or desperation before. Now that has changed. Whatever she is afraid of, it lies buried in her emails with Huma Abedin. And it can bring her down like nothing else has.

The Most Frightening Political Fix

July 5, 2016

The Most Frightening Political Fix, Front Page MagazineDavid Horowitz, July 5, 2016

u.s._secretary_of_state_hillary_rodham_clinton_testifies_in_front_of_the_u.s._house_committee_on_foreign_affairs_091202-n-tt977-397

What can be done? First of all it’s a matter of deciding who you believe – the political elites who are telling you everything is normal, or your lying eyes? The political system is corrupt and cannot clean its own house.  What is needed is an outside political force that will begin the job by putting the interests of our country first again. Call it what you will – nationalism or common sense – it is the most pressing need for the country now. Such a force would have to find its support outside Washington. Call that what you will – populism or democracy – no reforming leader can be elected without it. No political leader can begin to accomplish this task, without the support of ordinary Americans registered at the ballot box.

***********************

Today we have witnessed a most frightening manifestation of the corruption of our political system. Doubly frightening because of what it augurs for all our futures if Hillary Clinton should prevail in the November elections. At the center of this corruption – but hardly alone – are the criminal Clintons – the Bonnie and Clyde of American politics – and their Democratic Party allies; but we should not fail to mention also the Republican enablers who would rather fight each other and appease their adversaries than win the political wars. 

We knew they could fix the Department of Justice; we suspected they could fix the FBI. What we didn’t know was that the fixes would be this transparent: the secret meeting with a chief culprit and the DOJ head; the next day announcement by Justice that the Clinton bribery investigations would be postponed until well after the election; the suspiciously brief FBI interrogation of the former Secretary of State who during her entire tenure had recklessly breached national security protocols, deleted 30,000 emails; burned her government schedules; put top secret information onto a hackable server in violation of federal law; and topping it all the failure of the FBI director after enumerating her reckless acts to recommend a prosecution – all within a single week, and just in time for the Democrats’ nominating convention. It was, all in all, the most breathtaking fix in American history.

And it wasn’t ordinary criminal corruption. It was corruption affecting the nation’s security by individuals and a regime that have turned the Middle East over to the Islamic terrorists; that have enabled America’s chief enemy in the region, Iran, to become its dominant power; that allowed the Saudis, deeply implicated in the attacks of 9/11, to cover their crimes and spread Islamic hate doctrines into the United States; it was about selling our foreign policy to the high bidders at home and abroad, and about making America vulnerable to our enemies.

What can be done? First of all it’s a matter of deciding who you believe – the political elites who are telling you everything is normal, or your lying eyes? The political system is corrupt and cannot clean its own house.  What is needed is an outside political force that will begin the job by putting the interests of our country first again. Call it what you will – nationalism or common sense – it is the most pressing need for the country now. Such a force would have to find its support outside Washington. Call that what you will – populism or democracy – no reforming leader can be elected without it. No political leader can begin to accomplish this task, without the support of ordinary Americans registered at the ballot box.

Why Not the Worst?

July 3, 2016

Why Not the Worst? Power LineScott Johnson, July 3, 2016

(The Video is at the link. I was not able to find it on YouTube. — DM)

Considering the Democratic presidential nominees since 1992 — Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton — we find a parade of repugnant characters. What a crew. Who is the most repugnant of them all?

We can be overwhelmed by the present. At the time I thought Bill Clinton was an extraordinarily bad man, but Barack Obama has helped me understand how good we had it with Bill Clinton. Not to say that Clinton isn’t the most repugnant, but we now have a larger context within which to judge him. Perhaps Hillary Clinton will lend a similar context to our judgment of Obama. Ah, the uses of history.

Have the Democrats ever nominated a more repugnant human being for president than Hillary Clinton? Now that is a difficult question. The questions comes to mind in connection with her seven-minute interview with Chuck Todd about her session with the FBI yesterday (summary and video accessible here). She had graciously consented to give Todd five minutes. She told NBC’s Todd she was “eager” for the meeting and “pleased to have the opportunity to assist the department [sic] in bringing its review to a conclusion.” It was a historic occasion; she is the first presidential candidate to be summoned by the FBI to give evidence as the subject of a pending criminal investigation.

(Embedded video goes here — DM)

The question also comes to mind in connection with the release of the House Benghazi Committee report last week. The supplemental report by Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo does an excellent job of setting forth Madam Hillary’s duplicity on the Benghazi attack. Steve Hayes takes up this aspect of the supplemental report in “The Benghazi lie in black and white.” Like her husband, Clinton is a sickening liar. And that may not be her worst trait!

The FBI Interrogates Hillary Clinton at FBI Headquarters

July 2, 2016

The FBI Interrogates Hillary Clinton at FBI Headquarters, PJ MediaDebra Heine, July 2, 2016

Hillary FBISecretary of State Hillary Clinton marks the State Department’s observance of the first International Day of the Girl Child, Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2012, at the State Department in Washington.(AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

The Clinton campaign has long characterized the FBI investigation as a “security review” or “security inquiry” in order to downplay the severity of the probe. In what PJ Media’s J. Christian Adams interpreted as a very bad sign, Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently used the same language, calling it a “security inquiry.” But FBI Director James Comey said he wasn’t familiar with such language, saying in May, “we’re conducting an investigation… That’s what we do.”

***********************

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was questioned by the FBI for over three hours Saturday over her use of a private email server for official correspondence while secretary of state. The meeting — characterized as “voluntary” because there was no subpoena — lasted about three and a half hours according to reports, and was conducted at the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Via Fox News:

Clinton “is pleased to have had the opportunity to assist the Department of Justice in bringing this review to a conclusion” campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement. He also said Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, will not make further comment about the interview.Clinton’s use of the private server and email address — particularly whether the setup was used for classified information and how secure they were — has cast a shadow over her campaign from the start.

The FBI investigation is purportedly coming to a close, and the Clinton interview is considered among the final steps in the case.

The Clinton campaign has long characterized the FBI investigation as a “security review” or “security inquiry” in order to downplay the severity of the probe. In what PJ Media’s J. Christian Adams interpreted as a very bad sign, Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently used the same language, calling it a “security inquiry.” But FBI Director James Comey said he wasn’t familiar with such language, saying in May, “we’re conducting an investigation… That’s what we do.”

“She is the main subject — we believe with good reason — of a criminal investigation here,” said former FBI Assistant Director Steve Pomerantz on Fox News today. “And this interview — interrogation if you will — is the culmination of that lengthy investigation.”

Pomerantz said, “the agents who conducted this interview have prepared for weeks, if not months, and have a list of questions very long to ask her. It’s an adversarial process.” He continued, “these agents — if you’ll excuse the terminology — they want to sweat her. They want to get her under pressure, and they want to get answers to tough questions that they have.”

The former G-man added, “this is not a pleasant process for her.”

The ongoing email scandal blew up earlier this week when Bill Clinton initiated a meeting with Lynch on her airplane on an airport tarmac in Phoenix, prompting calls for Lynch to recuse herself. “There’s no good reason for her to have met with him. None. Zip,” said former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova during an interview with The Daily Caller.

Halperin: Lynch Won’t Recuse Herself or Apologize for Meeting With Clinton

July 1, 2016

Halperin: Lynch Won’t Recuse Herself or Apologize for Meeting With Clinton, Washington Free Beacon, July 1, 2016

Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin reported Friday that Loretta Lynch will not recuse herself from the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and reserves the right to overrule the guidance of prosecutors and FBI investigators.

Lynch set off a political firestorm this week when it was revealed she met privately with former president Bill Clinton on her plane in Phoenix, Arizona. She insisted repeatedly their conversation was innocent, but both sides of the aisle decried the appearances of their discussion. The New York Times reported Friday that she would accept recommendations by the FBI and career prosecutors over whether to file charges against Clinton, but Halperin’s revelation elaborates on that story:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is reserving the right to overrule prosecutors and FBI investigators on whether to bring charges after their probe into Hillary Clinton’s personal e-mail server, but she is strongly inclined to follow their recommendation, a Justice Department official said.

The attorney general will discuss the inquiry during an appearance at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado on Friday, according to the official, who asked not to be identified in advance of Lynch’s comments that are aimed at reaffirming that she will follow usual Justice Department practices. News of a private meeting between the attorney general and former President Bill Clinton sparked rebukes from Republicans and concern among some Democrats about perceptions of impropriety.

Because Lynch will stop short of recusing herself, debate may continue over whether she will exert influence over the case as an appointee of President Barack Obama, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. The New York Times reported earlier that Lynch would accept whatever recommendation career prosecutors and the FBI director made, and a Justice Department official confirmed the gist of that report to Bloomberg News but later clarified Lynch’s intentions.

In a clip flagged by Breitbart on Morning Joe, Halperin said the DOJ official was “playing down that this is anything new” and that Lynch wouldn’t apologize for her meeting.

“Quote, she’s not recusing herself, she’s not stepping aside, and does not expect that the Attorney General today will say it was a mistake to meet with Bill Clinton for 20 or 30 minutes privately,” Halperin said.

He said the logic was “confusing” for her to be in a half-way position of being in the chain while still saying she would likely accept recommendations.

“She’s turned this over to [James] Comey now, and again, that’s just not good news for the Clintons on any front,” MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said.