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)
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.
Dina Habiv Powekk: McMaster’s Huma Abedin, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, August 11, 2017
The media had agitated for Hijazi because it served its agenda of opposing Sisi and supporting the Brotherhood. Bringing Hijazi to the White House appeared to serve the same agenda. She was meant as an object lesson to Trump that the real bad guys weren’t the Brotherhood, but the Egyptian military.
Hijazi was escorted back from Egypt by Dina Habib Powell. And Habib Powell was there sitting opposite Ivanka and Jared at the meeting with President Trump. In the media, Powell is often associated with Ivanka. And indeed, Ivanka posed with Hijazi in a widely circulated photo. But she is also so much more.
Dina Habib Powell was an influential figure in the Bush administration. The Egyptian-American immigrant had served as a gatekeeper for George W. Bush. If you wanted a job, you went through her. Barely 30, Habib Powell had more power than many of the big Bush era names you do know.
The swamp is deeper than most understand or imagine. When you come to the city of government buildings and lobbyists, it’s all around you. And if you take a wrong step, it sucks you in. The real power doesn’t belong to the politicians you elect, but to bureaucrats and staffers, to the people who, like Huma Abedin or Dina Habib Powell, are talented at knowing the right people.
*******************************************
The media dubbed her the Republican Huma Abedin. She’s been one of the most powerful women in two Republican administrations. She’s friends with Valerie Jarrett. And you’ve never heard her name.
Flash back to the spring of this year.
Cameras flashed as Aya Hijazi sat next to President Trump. Media reports described her as an imprisoned rescue worker who had been released from Egypt after administration intervention.
Aya Hijazi was also the photogenic face of a campaign against the post-Brotherhood Egyptian government. If you believed the stories, Hijazi had learned French and Spanish while in prison. Photos showed her reading Maya Angelou’s ‘I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings’ behind bars. Snaps from that calculated photoshoot would be used to illustrate countless media sob stories about her plight in prison.
Mohamed Hassanein, her husband, received far less attention. As did the other arrested members of the Belady Foundation which had been accused of using street children in Muslim Brotherhood riots.
Aya’s cause was quickly taken up by all the usual suspects.
Hillary Clinton had met with President Sisi and called for Hijazi’s release. Rep. Gerry Connolly, the go-to guy for Muslim Brotherhood front groups, had blustered, “The Egyptian government mistakes American resolve.” Avril Haines, the former indie bookstore owner who had been appointed by Obama as Deputy Director of the CIA and Deputy National Security Advisor, despite having no relevant experience, met with Hijazi’s family and issued a statement demanding her release.
None of this meant that Hassanein and Hijazi were guilty of the charges. Politically they appeared to be closer to the left than to the Islamists. Hijazi hasn’t worn a hijab outside of her imprisonment.
But the larger question is whose interests were being served by bringing her to the White House?
In a PBS interview, Aya Hijazi challenged President Trump’s praise for Egypt’s leader. She accused him of keeping “thousands of wrongly imprisoned people” in prison. “It’s not just for fighting terrorism,” she insisted. And she made a point of correcting President Trump on the Muslim Brotherhood.
“It seemed like he had this idea that… it was at the time of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Hijazi said. “So, he was like, ‘So was your arrest — be at the time of the Brotherhood?’ And I said, no. And then he said, ‘Oh, it was at the time of Sisi.’ And he was taken aback. It seemed, like, different to what he had in mind.”
The media had agitated for Hijazi because it served its agenda of opposing Sisi and supporting the Brotherhood. Bringing Hijazi to the White House appeared to serve the same agenda. She was meant as an object lesson to Trump that the real bad guys weren’t the Brotherhood, but the Egyptian military.
Hijazi was escorted back from Egypt by Dina Habib Powell. And Habib Powell was there sitting opposite Ivanka and Jared at the meeting with President Trump. In the media, Powell is often associated with Ivanka. And indeed, Ivanka posed with Hijazi in a widely circulated photo. But she is also so much more.
Dina Habib Powell was an influential figure in the Bush administration. The Egyptian-American immigrant had served as a gatekeeper for George W. Bush. If you wanted a job, you went through her. Barely 30, Habib Powell had more power than many of the big Bush era names you do know.
Then she took on the mission of promoting America to the Muslim world at the State Department. There were cultural exchanges with Iran and money for Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. Afterward it was off to make millions through philanthropy at the Goldman Sachs Foundation.
When President Trump took office, Avril Haines was replaced by K. T. McFarland at the National Security Council. McFarland had worked at the Pentagon under Reagan and her views on Islamic terror were forthright. “Global Islamist jihad is at war with all of Western Civilization,” she said after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. She called for profiling terrorists and an end to the big lie of political correctness.
“They have launched a guerrilla war against us in our own neighborhoods. They shout ‘Allahu Akbar, The Prophet is Avenged.’ We’re still calling it ‘workplace violence,’ ‘senseless killings’ or ‘man-caused disasters.’ Our leaders insist these are criminal acts, not acts of war.”
Of the Muslim Brotherhood, McFarland correctly pointed out that, “The Muslim Brotherhood was the godfather of al-Qaeda. The number 2 guy in al-Qaeda was Muslim Brotherhood.”
When Flynn was forced out and McMaster took over, there was no room for her views at the NSC.
At an NSC meeting, H.R. McMaster insisted that Islamic terror had nothing to do with Islam. The use of “radical Islamic terrorism” was a mistake. McFarland was in attendance.
Before long, McMaster had pushed out McFarland and replaced her with Dina Habib Powell.
Habib Powell had all the right friends. Like Valerie Jarrett. Arianna Huffington praised the White House for bringing her in. Her ex-husband heads up Teneo Strategy: the organization created by the same man who made the Clinton Foundation happen and which employed Huma Abedin.
You could see her posing next to Huma, Arianna and a Saudi princess. You can see her photographed at the American Task Force of Palestine gala. The ATFP was originally Rashid Khalidi’s American Committee on Jerusalem. Khalidi was the former PLO spokesman at the center of the Obama tape scandal. And Habib Powell was there as a presenter at the Middle East Institute after a speech by the PLO’s Hanan Ashrawi.
Unlike McFarland, Habib Powell had no national security background. But though her parents were Christians, she had the “right” views on Islam. In Egypt, she had described how Bush after September 11 had, “visited a mosque, took off his shoes and paid his respects.” “I see the president talk of Islam as a religion of peace, I see him host an iftar every year.” Habib Powell had attended such an iftar dinner.
While President Trump fights to restrict Muslim immigration, back in the Bush era, Habib Powell had bragged on CNN, “Over 90% of student visas are now issued in under a week, and that is in the Middle East.”
Habib Powell has been described as the Republican Huma Abedin. And she was quoted as saying that Abedin “feels a deep responsibility to encourage more mutual understanding between her beliefs and culture and American culture.”
Within a short time, Habib Powell became the Senior Counselor for Economic Initiatives, the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy and was being put forward as Chief of Staff. If Kelly doesn’t work out, the effort to move her up will resume. And then the gatekeeper will be back at the gate.
Dina Habib Powell is a deep part of the Republican establishment. Her top role at the NSC represents McMaster’s vision for our approach to Islam. And it’s an echo of the failed approach of the Bush years. Flynn made the NSC into a tool that matched Trump’s vision. McMaster is remaking it to match Jeb Bush’s vision.
The Hijazi stunt was the public manifestation of an effort to pull Trump away from President Sisi and guide him into the same old swamp of pushing democracy and political change in Egypt. There is worse taking place behind the scenes. The NSC purge of personnel who understand the threat of Islamic terrorism is not a mere political power struggle, it’s policy. McMaster is just the public face of it.
The swamp is deeper than most understand or imagine. When you come to the city of government buildings and lobbyists, it’s all around you. And if you take a wrong step, it sucks you in. The real power doesn’t belong to the politicians you elect, but to bureaucrats and staffers, to the people who, like Huma Abedin or Dina Habib Powell, are talented at knowing the right people.
When we talk about the swamp, it’s not an organization. It’s a way of life. If you’re not fighting the swamp all the time, if you don’t wake up resisting it and go to bed fighting free of it, you will drown in it.
NYC: Undercover journalist in full burka allowed to vote as Huma Abedin, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, November 7, 2016
“Yeah, but they could do it by wearing a burka. But then no one could say, ‘Oh, wait, let me see your ID,’ because they don’t have ID, because they don’t want to discriminate because they’re wearing a burka.”
This hesitancy to “discriminate” even to stop voter fraud could be the death of the republic, and it all flows from today’s general solicitude toward Muslims and anxiousness to avoid charges of “Islamophobia.”
The Glazov Gang-Hillary and the Muslim Brotherhood via YouTube, November 3, 2016
Clinton Cash Revisited, National Security Edition, PJ Media, Roger Kimball, November 4, 2016
And people worry that Donald Trump had a few nice things to say about Vladimir Putin. The Clintons, to feather their own nest, have actually empowered him. Extraordinary. Despicable. Disqualifying.
***************************
Back in May, I had the opportunity to see a screening of Clinton Cash, the documentary based on Peter Schweizer’s book of the same title. I wrote about it in this space here. Now that the commentariat is finally beginning to catch up with reality — at last count, there were five, count ’em five, FBI investigations into the machinations of the money factory known as the Clinton Foundation — I thought it might be worth briefly revisiting the subject.
In May, I asked my readers: “Are you worried about ‘money in politics’?” If so, I suggested that they “Stop the car, get an extended-stay room, and take a long, hard look at the Clintons’ operation for the last sixteen years.”
How did they do it? By “reading The Wall Street Journal” (classical reference)?
Not quite. The Clintons have perfected pay-to-play political influence peddling on a breathtaking scale. Reading Clinton Cash [which I recommend] is a nauseating experience.
At the center of the book is not just a tale of private greed and venality. That is just business as usual in Washington (and elsewhere). No, what is downright scary is way the Clintons have been willing to trade away legitimate environmental concerns and even our national security for the sake of filthy lucre.
It’s this last item that’s most worrisome. That the Clintons are a greedy, money-hoovering machine has been clear since they left the White House with cartloads of swag in tow (the exact amount is disputable: that they did so is not). There are some who say her mishandling of classified material is no big deal — it’s just a technicality, who really cares? Can’t we put this behind us? Can’t we move on? At this point what difference does it make?
Well, there used to be such people. If they still exist, they are scarce on the ground now. Thanks to Wikileaks and some recent FBI revelations, it is now clear that Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified material was no casual act of inadvertence. It was not, as she at first claimed with false naiveté, done simply as a matter of convenience by someone who was technically ill-informed and maladroit.
No, the whole process was a thoroughly calculated tactic. Given what we know now, there is something slightly nauseating about watching clips of Clinton lie when asked about her emails. One classic is this clip, in which, when asked about whether she wiped her server she said coyly “Like with with a cloth or something?” She knew all about wiping servers, since her IT guys employed a sophisticated tool called Bleach Bit to do the job. (The company even uses an image of Hillary Clinton at their web page.)
Scrutinize Clinton’s performance in this clip. In a way it’s quite masterly. Watch how she coolly modulates between impatience, naiveté, evasion, and outright lies. We turned over the server, she says, what more can we do? “We turned over everything that was work related, every single thing.”
We now know (well, we’ve always known, but now we really do know) that assertion is a lie — not just an untruth, but a deliberate lie.
It’s hard to know what is the most brazen thing about her behavior. Turning over a server for investigation after having it professionally wiped is a candidate for the prize. But for my money the most outrageous thing was responding to a Congressional subpoena by destroying 33,000 emails. (Andy McCarthy lays out the whole story with his customary clarity here.)
The revelation by the FBI last week that material that could be “relevant” to the Clinton email investigation had been found on a laptop shared by Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, amateur photographer and penpal to pubescent multitudes Anthony Weiner, propelled the story to a new and vertiginous stage. Apparently, we are talking about 650,000 emails. How many had to do with yoga routines? How many concerned State Department business? How many did Anthony Weiner see or share? These are just a few of the questions prompted by this ever more bizarre story.
The really amazing thing about the Clintons’ greed is how cavalier it has made them about national security issues. “Oh, that’s just a despicable right-wing talking point,” I sometimes here. Well, here’s what that well known right-wing publication The New York Times had to say in a long and devastating story about the how the Clintons sold out some twenty percent of American uranium assets to a Russian company controlled by Vladimir Putin. “At the heart of the tale,” the Times reported:
… are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Worried yet? It gets worse:
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
And people worry that Donald Trump had a few nice things to say about Vladimir Putin. The Clintons, to feather their own nest, have actually empowered him. Extraordinary. Despicable. Disqualifying.
You can Smell Hillary’s Fear, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, November 4, 2016
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 Clinton Degradation, Power Line,
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, PJ Media, Debra Heine, October 30, 2016
(The rain on Hillary’s parade may be turning into a thunderstorm. — DM)
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.
Anthony Weiner cooperating with FBI on email probe, Washington Examiner,
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.
Recent Comments