Trump’s mistake: he kept Comey

[Note: I have been away from blogging and my various radio broadcasts since last Sunday, due to the fact that I was smacked with the flu. My apologies. I will be attempting to ramp things up as the days go on.]

When I voted for Donald Trump I did so with my eyes wide open. My vote was cast primarily because he was not Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. I also voted for Trump because I sensed he would make more sensible nominations for SCOTUS; first to replace Antonin Scalia then to fill what I suspect will be another two to possibly three additional jurists in the next four years.

I’ll be honest. I can only hope that SCOTUS truly is stacked with moderate or conservative jurists that will keep the court on a common sense track for at least another generation, perhaps two.

As an adult I knew Trump would do things with which I’d disagree. He has done so. From the WashingtonPost.com:

FBI Director James Comey to stay on in Trump administration

by Matt Zapotosky, Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller

FBI Director James B. Comey was among the senior U.S. officials who had the unpleasant task of traveling to Trump Tower last month to inform the president-elect that Russia had interfered in the election process to help him win office.

Then Comey asked his colleagues — including the CIA director — to step outside so that he could discuss something even more awkward: a dossier in wide circulation in Washington that alleged that Moscow had gathered compromising financial, political and personal material about the incoming U.S. president.

That Comey was asked after that encounter, described by U.S. officials briefed on its details, to stay on as FBI director speaks to his survival instincts and ability to inspire confidence. But the meeting may also have provided a preview of the perilous position he occupies serving in the Trump administration while his agents pursue investigations that seem to lead to the president’s associates.

That was a poor decision, Donald John Trump, and I believe you’ll regret it. Director Comey allows politics to intervene in critical decisions where politics should be the very last consideration. Case in point: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Make no mistake. James Comey is a country-destroying weasel, first for not recommending the prosecution of Hillary Clinton, and second for not placing Hillary Clinton under oath or recording her in any fashion when interviewed on the July 4th weekend of 2016.  There is, thusly, no transcript of her interview. Though that’s general FBI policy, in this critical case, an exception should have been made.

To me it is quite clear that FBI Director James Comey, about whose probity I wrote quite a number of times on the blog, has dishonored his law enforcement oath, showing that he has no fidelity, no bravery and no integrity with regard to his decision to not recommend prosecution of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But in the July 2016 hearing with Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz as documented at Politico, James Comey revealed his flawed and craven, cowardly political thinking when one is familiar with law enforcement prosecutorial thresholds as I am. First:

Director Comey determined a manner in which to weasel his way out of recommending the prosecution of Clinton.  At one hearing he went out of his way — again, just like the previous day — to make his own case and then fall back on a position/decision that isn’t his to make.

FBI director: Clinton’s statements were not true

by Nick Gass

FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton’s statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau’s investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.

During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI’s investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified.

“That is not true,” Comey said. “There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”

Asked whether Clinton’s testimony that she did not email “any classified material to anyone on my email” and “there is no classified material” was true, Comey responded, “No, there was classified material emailed.”

“Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”

Comey admits that Clinton lied.  But here is the difference (that we won’t know precisely because there was no oath and no recording).

You can lie publicly all you want, if people are sufficiently stupid to believe it — like much of the electorate and the American Media Maggots are doltish enough.  But you should not lie to the FBI.  My guess is that Hillary Clinton came relatively clean in 3.5 hours.  And that is why I believe she was not placed under oath and the interview was not recorded.  Things like that make it easier to dispute later when politically necessary.  There is no record and it is not completely official.  As the Church Lady would have said, “how con-veee-nient.”

Gowdy asked whether Clintons’ lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, “No.”

But here, ladies and gentlemen, comes the crux of the proverbial biscuit.  Please read this carefully, though through Gowdy’s bit of humor:

“In interest of time, because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through anymore of the false statements but I am going to ask you put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements, they are used for what?” Gowdy inquired.

Wait for it.

“Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?” Gowdy asked. “Consciousness of guilt and intent.”

Please read the rest of the article here, because we are going to jump to another Politico article.  Politico purposely does not let you make this link.  You have to be smarter than Politico and make the link as I now display to you.  We continue:

Comey: Clinton did not lie to the FBI

by Nick Gass

Hillary Clinton did not lie to FBI investigators during their probe into her use of a private server as secretary of state, FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday.

“We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI,” Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing’s opening exchanges.

Chaffetz then asked whether Clinton lied to the public. “That’s a question I’m not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI,” Comey said.

Weasel words.  Mealy-mouthed.  Word pablum.  You cannot determine that Clinton lied to the public?  You just made your best case that she did.  If she didn’t lie to your agents under oath, and you’re unsure if she lied to the public, then why didn’t you simply say so?  Instead, you went out of your way to say the opposite.  Your statements are conflicting and make no sense whatsoever.

But the most insightful part has arrived.  Comey outs himself:

Chaffetz then asked whether it was that he was just not able to prosecute it or that Clinton broke the law.

“Well, I don’t want to give an overly lawyerly answer,” Comey said. “The question I always look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute, and my judgment here is there is not. “

And that was how James Comey attempted to rationalize his decision.  He stated he did not believe his case established guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

NEWSFLASH: It is not UP to YOU, Director Comey, to assemble a case that yields a determination of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  That threshold is up to the DOJ or more pointedly a Grand Jury, not you or your organization.  All you need to compile a case for submission is “probable cause.”  That’s what real cops and real DAs in America do.  Their jobs.  They stay in their lanes and do their jobs.

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. She stepped back and placed the festering pile of shite in the lap of Comey.

FBI Director James Comey figured out how to cover his own ass by revealing some truths about Hillary Clinton whilst simultaneously making nice with those in DC power positions who could hurt him seriously.  This is Comey’s false justification for his decision.  And it is clearly wrong and damaging.  He created his “out.”

Or did he just believe he “took one for the team”?

In my opinion: no.  He dishonored his oath.

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.

From FoxNews.com:

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

by Malia Zimmerman and Adam Housley

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

Read that again: “No trial level attorney, no agent working the case agree, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision.”

Precisely. That decision came directly from the Oval Office via a telephone call to Loretta Lynch and then a call to Director James Comey. It all dovetails and ties up neatly. I wrote about “connecting the dots” of corruption in the Obama administration here. Please take time to read the article — it explains most everything you’ve seen and heard.

Comey can’t stand political or personal heat. From anyone. He instead wants to please everyone, somehow keep his job, and does real justice no service whatsoever. If there ever were an indecisive, cowardly and misdirected man, it is James Brien Comey.

A) Following his July decision to forego a recommendation of either an indictment or a grand jury impaneled regarding Hillary Clinton’s private server and disregard for US security and intelligence protocols (not to mention laws), FBI Director James Comey created a firestorm not just within his own agency but the American public — and it affected his private as well as public or work life. Letters of resignation from good and true FBI line level agents began to pile up on his desk, and even Comey’s wife Pat told him he must make amends.

B) Under mounting pressure, on October 28th Director Comey indicated he was re-opening the investigation into more of Hillary Clinton’s emails — an estimated 650,000 of them, stemming from the examination of a case involving Anthony Wiener, husband of Huma Abedin, close assistant and confidant of HRC. The American Media Maggots and the Clinton campaigners moo’d in unison: “bad decision, Jim, bad decision.”

C) Following his determination to re-open the Clinton email case, the OSC (Office of Special Counsel) received complaints about Director Comey regarding violations of the Hatch Act, which is a “law designed to prevent federal officeholders from abusing their power to influence an election.” This complaint was filed Saturday, October 29th with the OSC by lawyer Richard Painter.

D) Nine short days later, armed with a team of miracle workers, FBI Director James Comey reaffirmed his original July decision: yeppers, nothing to see here. No corruption, no collusion, move along. The American Media Maggots and the Clinton campaigners moo’d again in unison: “great decision, Jim, great decision.”

You cannot convince me that James Comey can take political heat. He has instead bent and broken to whatever prevailing political prairie winds were coursing through DC at any given time. He is still sitting in a dark leather chair in his corner orifice whilst the bulk of his peers have left DC — including former AGs Holder and Lynch, as well as the former president. Comey, by appearing confused and/or conciliatory and utilizing his finest set of pablum-packed weasel words, is still standing.

Comey vacillates, he is a flawed thinker, and has proven that he is untrustworthy. Those are now his best qualities.

You keep Comey, President Trump, at your own peril.

Be forewarned, President Trump.

BZ

 

A reminder: the actual TRUTH about ObamaKare

First, let us watch and listen to its secondary architect, Jonathan Gruber, as he speaks before his knowing peers. The primary architect of ObamaKare is actually Hillary Rodham Clinton back in the 90s. She just didn’t have the political clout to make it happen. And because she was running against Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, he stole her idea and ran with it. To wit:

  • “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”
  • “Call it the stupidity of the average American voter or whatever.”
  • “Americans are too stupid to understand the difference.”
  • “It’s a very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

Then let us watch and listen to a highly intelligent individual, Trey Gowdy, slice apart the base motivations behind ObamaKare.

Thank you. ObamaKare is brutally failing. Why?

Because of Cloward-Piven.

You have to tear down in order to build up. And regarding ObamaKare, Jonathan Gruber was actually one of the few people telling the truth.

Because ultimately, Demorats and Leftists want nothing more than Single Payer. That is to say: the US government running every aspect of your life, including your health care.

When you walk into that voting booth in two days, just remember: who wants you on a short leash and who does not?

Who lies to you incessantly?

Demorats. Barack Hussein Obama.

And Hillary Rodham Clinton.

BZ

 

Honest federal LE agents disgusted with Comey & DOJ

James Comey, No F B IFor those who listen to the radio show or read the blog, this is not news. I said back in July that, due to the contacts I still have, the line-level agents in the FBI were extremely displeased by the selling of James Comey’s soul in terms of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. The show was rigged from the beginning, including HRC’s failure to be recorded during the interview, the fact that she was not placed under oath, and the fact that agents on the investigation had to sign non-disclosure statements — an unprecedented move in similar cases or circumstances.

I wrote about Comey’s verbal game-playing here:

But the most insightful part has arrived.  Comey outs himself:

Chaffetz then asked whether it was that he was just not able to prosecute it or that Clinton broke the law.

“Well, I don’t want to give an overly lawyerly answer,” Comey said. “The question I always look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute, and my judgment here is there is not. “

And this is how James Comey attempts to rationalize his decision.  He states he does not believe his case established guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

NEWSFLASH: It is not UP to YOU, Director Comey, to assemble a case that yields a determination of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  That threshold is up to the DOJ or more pointedly a Grand Jury, not you or your organization.  All you need to compile a case for submission is “probable cause.”  That’s what real cops and real DAs in America do.  Their jobs.  They stay in their lanes and do their jobs.

From FoxNews.com:

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

by Malia Zimmerman and Adam Housley

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

Read that again: “No trial level attorney, no agent working the case agree, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision.”

hillary-clinton-and-fbiPrecisely. That decision came directly from the Oval Office via a telephone call to Loretta Lynch and then a call to Director James Comey. It all dovetails and ties up neatly. I wrote about “connecting the dots” of corruption in the Obama administration here. Please take time to read the article — it explains most everything you’ve seen and heard.

“Mills was allowed to sit in on the interview of Clinton as her lawyer. That’s absurd. Someone who is supposedly cooperating against the target of an investigation [being] permitted to sit by the target as counsel violates any semblance of ethical responsibility,” the source said.

“Every agent and attorney I have spoken to is embarrassed and has lost total respect for James Comey and Loretta Lynch,” the source said. “The bar for DOJ is whether the evidence supports a case for charges — it did here. It should have been taken to the grand jury.”

Also infuriating agents, the New York Post reported, was the fact that Clinton’s interview spanned just 3½ hours with no follow-up questioning, despite her “40 bouts of amnesia,” and then, three days later, Comey cleared her of criminal wrongdoing.

Many FBI and DOJ staffers believe Comey and Lynch were motivated by ambition, and not justice, the source said.

hillary-clinton-health-problem-reasoningBut wait; this next paragraph is grand.

“Loretta Lynch simply wants to stay on as Attorney General under Clinton, so there is no way she would indict,” the source said. “James Comey thought his position [excoriating Clinton even as he let her off the hook] gave himself cover to remain on as director regardless of who wins.”

Then, this week from Wikileaks:

Adding to the controversy, WikiLeaks released internal Clinton communication records this week that show the Department of Justice kept Clinton’s campaign and her staff informed about the progress of its investigation.

Read that again: “the Department of Justice kept Clinton’s campaign and her staff informed about the progress of its investigation.”

us-doj-corrupt-smaller-aAstounding. The bare, naked corruption. And the American Media Maggots sit idly by and do nothing.

There you have it. Thank you Zimmerman and Housley. And that’s how massively corrupt our federal law enforcement system truly is.

Under Hillary Clinton this trend will simply continue and grow larger.

BZ

 

FBI DESTROYS EVIDENCE

fbi-director-james-comey-weaselTit for tat, pay to play, time to make sure we do in fact cover the arses of DC politicians who just “happen” to be of the Demorat stripe.

Right on the heels of FBI Director James Comey providing a line-item list of reasons to recommend a criminal indictment for Hillary Clinton then — declines to recommend same.

From FoxNews.com:

FBI agreed to destroy laptops of Clinton aides with immunity deal, lawmaker says

by Catherine Herridge and Adam Shaw

Immunity deals for two top Hillary Clinton aides included a side arrangement obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices, House Judiciary Committee sources told Fox News on Monday.

Sources said the arrangement with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also limited the search to no later than Jan. 31, 2015. This meant investigators could not review documents for the period after the email server became public — in turn preventing the bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice, sources said.

The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee fired off a letter Monday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking why the DOJ and FBI agreed to the restrictive terms, including that the FBI would destroy the laptops after finishing the search.

“Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers,” Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., wrote in the letter obtained by Fox News.

Precisely correct. Because if you “do deals,” then you are — unless you’re a complete dunsel — expecting something in return.

“Doesn’t the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, doesn’t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?” Goodlatte asks.

Why yes, it does. Read that paragraph over very carefully, because of the reveal. IF the laptops were not important to the case, then why would they require destruction?

Surely, destruction of the laptops was not an issue brought to the table by the FBI. It would have been an issue brought to the table specifically by Mills and Samuelson.

Wait. Isn’t that called a clue?

Immunity was provided and EVIDENCE DESTROYED because of said immunity deal.

When the government provides immunity — and only government entities can do so — it is invariably because prosecution is focusing not on the level of those provided immunity but on levels above. In other words, immunity is provided in order to catch the so-called “bigger fish.”

So I ask: what “bigger fish” were caught by providing immunity to Mills and Samuelson and, further, why did this immunity include destruction of the hard drives from their laptops?

Please read the entire article.

What did the citizens of the United States receive for this stated immunity?

Nothing that I can see.

Hillary is still wearing $12,000 jackets.

BZ

 

Former Haitian senate president: exposing the Clinton Foundation

Just how truly helpful is the Clinton Foundation?

Astoundingly helpful, if one counts bribes and pressure and corruption.  Please watch and, more importantly, listen carefully to the video, then read the story.

I am pushback and, as such, it is my job to present the facts, figures and representations that the American Media Maggot lapdogs avoid altogether, provide as half-truths or lie about. Now that you’ve seen the video, read the Saturday story from 100percentfedup.com:

BREAKING FLORIDA: FORMER HAITIAN Senate President Drops CLINTON BOMBSHELL Exposing Unbelievable Corruption At Trump Event

Former Senate President of Haiti, Bernard Sansaricq, shocked a large crowd at a Trump campaign event in Little Haiti, FL. Sansaricq exposes all of the dirty dealings of the Clinton’s in Haiti while he was still in office. Donald Trump to his credit, allowed him to speak his mind and expose to the world what kind of criminals are attempting to scratch and claw their way back into our White House.

Sansaricq also claims he begged the Clinton Administration not to invade Haiti. His request was followed up with a visit by an anonymous messenger from the White House who encouraged him to “side” with the Clinton Administration and he would “be the richest man in Haiti.”

The Haitians said following the US invasion of Haiti: “ ‘Lave men ou, siye li a te.’ It looks like you wash your hands and dry them in dirt.”

Let me summarize what happened to Haiti. The US invaded it twice, the first during WWI. The second time was during the Bill Clinton administration in 1994, where 20,000 troops were sent by Willie J to quell the “illegitimate regime” of General Raoul Cedras and his terrorist rabble of gangbangers/enforcers, known as FRAPH.

This invasion occurred on the heels of, if you recall, the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia (Blackhawk Down).

What many people don’t know is that, as Bob Shacochis writes:

Col. Mark Boyatt, the overall commander of Special Forces in Haiti, told his commandos to begin regarding FRAPH as Haiti’s “loyal opposition,” as if the terrorists, overnight, had become Haiti’s equivalent to the Republican Party, rehabilitated patriots eager to remake Haiti into a modern democratic nation.

Who gave that order? Sandy Berger and the White House. Thank you Willie J. Why did we go there in the first place, you buffoon? Today’s PlaySkool T-ball journalistas are not the least bit curious.

Clinton pulled our forces from Haiti in 1996, with many considering Haiti to be in worse shape than when we arrived. Some Haitians asked “why has America come to save us? Who will save us now?”

He also suggests that Hillary Clinton “disclose the audit of all money” related to the Haiti earthquake crisis, as he claims they scammed the poorest citizens of Haiti out of BILLIONS of dollars through the Clinton Foundation.

“Not even 2% of that money went back to Haiti. So Mr. Trump, we are asking you, begging you, the Haitian community will side with you if one day, you ask Hillary Clinton publicly to disclose the audit of all of the money they have stolen from Haiti in 2010 after the earthquake. Haiti is a very poor country. Haiti needs defenders. You said you would champion our cause. We welcome you sir and we will work with you. Ask Hillary Clinton publicly, during your next debate for an audit of all of the money they have stolen from Haiti.” 

So, let me see if I have this correct: Haiti was made a Clinton Sandwich.  One piece of corrupt bread was applied in 1994 by Bill, and the other piece of corrupt bread was applied by Hillary in 2010 following the earthquake, in the name of the Clinton Foundation.

Yet the Clintons want the vote of every Haitian in America.

It’s like asking the mentally defective (now, damned near 50% of the voters) to take a ball-peen hammer and smack themselves in the temple, then beg to do it again from the person who provided the hammer.

BZ

hillary-clinton-theyd-still-be-in-power