Meaning: agents were directed to identify exculpatory instead of incriminatory evidence in the Hillary Rodham Clinton illegal server email case “conducted” by the FBI.
And trust me: that grated in the craw of every good line-level FBI agent remotely connected with the investigation.
As it grates with regard to DOJ special agents and some of the attorneys who aren’t yet full Leftist sycophants.
— Neil Turner 🐸 (@NeilTurner_) November 3, 2016
That said, some of the finest work these days with regard to revealing the truth behind politics is being done at the ACLJ, or the American Center for Law and Justice. As with Judicial Watch, these two watchdog groups are more than deserving of your donations. Please click the links, read and donate. I have.
Now, from ACLJ.org:
The Obama Administration’s Orwellian Justice Department Strikes Again
by Harry G. Hutchison
Last week in a deeply Orwellian turn, FBI Director Comey announced that the department has reopened its investigation into the use of an unauthorized private server and the rogue transmission of classified national security information by senior state department officials, including the former Secretary of State. In response to this development, which surfaced from an independent investigation into alleged misconduct by former Congressman Weiner, a spectacular firestorm has enveloped the FBI and the Justice Department.
And a firestorm it was — with the exception that it was primarily predicated but upon a Leftist – slash – American Media Maggot lie. Please allow me to veer away for a few moments.
The Leftist media and various Demorat politicians bled and vomited all over themselves at the thought that Comey would dare to revisit HRC. Leftists and Demorats bleated about the “long standing policy” that prevents the FBI “from interfering with elections.” The crafting of that sentence itself is biased by its very nature, in terms of being “not consistent with department policy.”
Bullshite alert. There is no such “long standing policy.” Fox News and Judge Jeanine Pirro are flat out wrong. The policy isn’t “long standing” — it was created by Eric Holder a mere four years ago.
WRONG. There is no “long standing policy” that prevents the FBI from “interfering with elections”. It was created by Obama just 4 years ago. pic.twitter.com/Apk9HwFDuj
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) October 31, 2016
And even then there is interpretation. Moving on:
First, it is crystal clear from the evidence released by the FBI after the first investigation that the former Secretary of State used a private email server to transmit national security information rather than safeguard such information, as required by law, and that she subsequently made statements contrary to the facts as we continue to learn.
Second, the real villain in this play is the Justice Department’s decision to commence an investigation that was a sham at its inception. After all, it was the Justice Department, which failed to convene a grand jury, issue search warrants for computers, place witnesses under oath and appoint a special prosecutor who could operate free from conflicts of interest.
Read that again, please, if you will: “It was the Justice Department, which failed to convene a grand jury, issue search warrants for computers, place witnesses under oath and appoint a special prosecutor who could operate free from conflicts of interest.”
Third, senior law-enforcement officials sought to condense the FBI’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation and its possible connection with a pay-to-play scandal that implicates the State Department. This decision in essence hamstrung FBI agents’ investigatory powers, disabling field agents from pursuing fruitful lines of inquiry.
Finally, the capstone of the Justice Department’s shambolic investigation occurred when Attorney General Lynch took a deliberate decision to meet with the spouse of the target of the investigation on a plane in Phoenix on June 27, 2016. Her conduct gave rise to the appearance of impropriety and a conflict of interest. This inappropriate meeting occurred shortly before Director Comey concluded his investigation, which determined that former Secretary Clinton had transmitted classified information on her private server and that she had not turned over all of her work-related emails despite her sworn testimony to the contrary. Concluding that former Secretary Clinton’s behavior was extremely careless, Director Comey nonetheless refused to issue a criminal referral to the Justice Department because he opted to rewrite the applicable criminal statute to require intent when only gross negligence was required by the text of the statute.
Let me be the first to readily admit that, to the uninitiated or the ignorant, this appears to be nothing but babbling minutiae. Except that this is the kind of minutiae that will end up ramming a white-hot piece of governmental rebar up the ass of every legal American Taxpayer in the country whilst simultaneously removing your freedoms and — if you are lucky — selling them back to you at usurious rates.
These people are dirty to the bone.
As I have said time and again, there are two kinds of crimes as written by statute: those of general intent and those of specific intent. Comey stated that HRC had to have possessed a very specific intent to commit her crimes. EXCEPT that the US codes applicable are not those of specific intent because they do not include the phrase “with the intent to.”
That is how a crime of specific intent is crafted. It is stated.
Even more disturbing: Attorney General Lynch did not recuse herself from the final decision on whether to prosecute the case — nor did she give that decision to a career prosecutor at the Department of Justice. She instead prejudged the case by supposedly blindly accepting the FBI’s recommendation.
“[AG Lynch] said…she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made…” –NYTimes July 1, 2016
Of course she would. The fix was in. And Comey was predestined to take whatever fall occurred, not her. After all, he is white and male; she is black and female.
In order to restore the credibility of the Justice Department—an agency whose reputations lies in tatters—the ACLJ believes that the American people deserve answers to a number of significant questions including (1) why did the former Secretary of State’s staff wipe her server clean after her emails were subpoenaed by Congress; (2) why did the Justice Department give out immunity like candy to Clinton aides, Cheryl Mills and Heather Sameulson, while also agreeing to destroy their laptops rather than issuing search warrants for relevant information; (3) why did Andrew McCabe, the deputy director of the FBI, decline to recuse himself after his promotion to this new post in light of the fact that he had previously met with Clinton ally, Terry McAuliffe the Governor of Virginia, who subsequently contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars in financial resources to McCabe’s wife’s political campaign in 2015. Most importantly, the American people need to know why Attorney General Lynch did not recuse herself after meeting with the spouse of the target of the email investigation on the tarmac in Phoenix.
In conclusion, most recently, the UKDailyMail.com nails it here:
Why didn’t the FBI demand Clinton aides’ phones and laptops in email probe? Agency relied on Huma Abedin’s OWN lawyers to tell them what was on her devices
by David Martosko
FBI never demanded laptops and smartphones from top Hillary Clinton aides as part of their investigation into her emails
Huma Abedin’s lawyers gave the Justice Department the State Department-related data they had from Abedin’s devices
But they relied on her to tell them which devices held emails and other materials from her State Department years
Her estranged husband Anthony Weiner had a laptop containing 650,000 emails, and the FBI believes some of them are Clinton-related
Abedin says she doesn’t know how they got there
Investigators seized Weiner’s laptop while probing his alleged online sexting relationship with a 15-year-old girl
Might I dare to remind everyone again: the fix was in.