“Lordy, that would be really bad”

Truer words, as above, have not recently been written. It’s all about James Comey.

And the testimony of FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday before the US Senate Judiciary Committee on FBI Oversight only serves to underline and prove one thing: Mr Comey needs to be forced to resign, and immediately.

Certainly Hillary Clinton thinks so. It was Comey and the Russians who did her in despite saying she is taking “absolute personal full responsibility” for her loss. Uh, no. She doesn’t take full responsibility. She spoke to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday.

“If the election had been on October 27, I would be your president,” she told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour at a Women for Women International event in New York.

“I take absolute personal responsibility. I was the candidate, I was the person who was on the ballot. I am very aware of the challenges, the problems, the shortfalls that we had,” Clinton said, before adding that she was “on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off.”

This is the same Hillary Clinton who was enraged that the election wasn’t simply handed over to her as required by us underlings, proles. commoners, serfs and unwashed rabble.

[It’s interesting to note that Hillary Clinton is writing a book about her loss, Huma Abedin is writing a book and Barack Hussein Obama is making $400,000 speeches to Wall Street.]

The very next day following Clinton’s fuzzy softball interview, Director Comey’s testimony in the Senate was jam-gepacked with bursting volumes of self-serving and contradictory statements. (The full testimony can be read here. Full video is here.) Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley originally called the Wednesday oversight hearing of the FBI to examine what the agency knows about a 2015 terrorist attack in Garland, Texas. Things got a bit off-topic, however.

To what am I referring? From Breitbart.com:

Comey: Anthony Weiner Received Classified Clinton Emails

by Kristina Wong

FBI Director James Comey hit back Wednesday against Democratic criticism of his decision to reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails 11 days before the 2016 election.

He said although it made him “mildly nauseous” to think he could have had some impact on the election, he believes he did the right thing and to this day, would not change his mind.

In explaining his decision to reopen the investigation, he said investigators found metadata on the seized laptop of Anthony Weiner — top Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s husband — that showed there were “thousands” of Clinton’s emails on the device, including classified information.

Investigators believed the emails could include emails missing from her first three months as secretary of state.

Comey said after repeatedly telling members of Congress that the FBI had concluded its investigation into Clinton, the only right thing to do was to let Congress know the case was reopened.

“I could see two doors and they were both actions. One was labeled ‘speak,’ the other was labeled ‘conceal,’” he said.

But wait. Was classified information really involved in any of those emails?

He said Abedin forwarded “hundreds of thousands” of emails to Weiner, 40,000 of which they reviewed. Three thousand of those were work-related, and 12 of them contained classified information, he said.

But he said Abedin and Weiner were not charged with any wrongdoing since investigators did not find a general sense of criminal intent — a decision that Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) scoffed at.

The hearing conducted on Wednesday featured Senator Diane Feinstein asking a question that, in retrospect, she wished she never touched.

She received a lot more information, damning information, than she wanted. She opened the door and FBI Director James Comey walked right through it. I suspect she was hoping Comey would simply reply that the information was classified. Sorry, senator. Feinstein was just pissed, regarding 702 data**, that her Demorat ox got gored.

But what really happened here? Again, just like July of 2016, Comey makes an argument for prosecution — first, against Hillary Clinton now, here, against Huma Abedin — and then does nothing about it. How did Weiner come to be in possession of classified information? Huma Abedin sent it to him. This is a violation of 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, to wit:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

As I wrote in July of last year regarding Director Comey’s decision to refuse sending the Hillary Clinton case on to DOJ:

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 today’s 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.

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

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.

As noted about Comey’s wrong-headed decision to give a pass to Hillary Clinton regarding the classified information on her server and in her emails, there are crimes of specific intent and general intent. Comey insists he must have specific intent before forwarding a case to DOJ. That’s wrong. There are sections, as above, that demand no such thing. Watch:

“She had no sense that what she was doing was a violation of the law.” Really, Mr Comey? “We couldn’t prove any sort of criminal intent.” You might try reading the law, Mr Comey. Federal law. The law you’re tasked with following and upholding.

Senator Ted Cruz had questions.

The fact patterns in Hillary Clinton’s case and Huma Abedin’s case do violate federal law as indicated by Senator Cruz above and common sense.

Director Comey’s job is not to be the attorney, but to be the compiler, and assembler of cases and, then, submitting a case to the Department of Justice. He essentially has and is usurping the function of prosecutors by withholding cases from the DOJ.

Tucker Carlson, below, interviews Democrat Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio and, more pointedly, former US Attorney Jim Digenova. Listen to Digenova’s clear and cogent case against FBI Director James Comey.

On Wednesday, for good measure, Director Comey decided to throw former US Attorney General Loretta Lynch under the bus — deservedly but quite willingly.

Now there is information from RightScoop.com, announced by Catherine Herridge of Fox News:

REVEALED: FBI found email that Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from CRIMINAL CHARGES

Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director, pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution:

 

This was the story from Wednesday. And who covered it? Anyone but Fox?

Note how Director Comey refuses to answer. The fix was in. Comey is a disreputable political hack and has proven himself time and again to be so.

FBI Director James Comey must go. He is too self-centered, too much the political animal and, frankly, too narcissistic to continue in his current position. He insists he is apolitical but every movement he makes and statement he gives proves otherwise.

It’s all about James Comey.

BZ

NOTE:

** 702 data, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978:

Section 702 permits the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly authorize targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, but is limited to targeting non-U.S. persons. Once authorized, such acquisitions may last for periods of up to one year.

Under subsection 702(b) of the FISA Amendments Act, such an acquisition is also subject to several limitations. Specifically, an acquisition:

  • May not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;
  • May not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;
  • May not intentionally target a U.S. person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
  • May not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States;
  • Must be conducted in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[10]

 

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

 

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

 

Hillary Clinton throws a camshaft on many levels

And frankly, it’s funny as hell to watch.

Hillary Clinton has still not gotten over the fact that she lost the 2008 presidential election to a black man who had not paid the dues that she perceived she has.

She may lose the first debate tomorrow, Monday.

By all accounts, Hillary believes she is simply “due” the office because of her water-carrying for the Demorats over the years and her seemingly-unflagging support of her serial-philandering husband, William Jefferson Clinton. You know, the man who has his “blond bimbo” over to the Clinton family Chappaqua compound when Hillary is gone with such frequency that the Secret Service calls her the “Energizer.”

It is Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “basket of deplorables.” It is her sense of entitlement to the White House. It is beneath HRC to have to remotely attempt to justify her bid for the White House. The air of entitlement is both thick and rich on many levels. Her victory is due her. “You don’t like me, therefore you are wrong and bad and worth destroying.”

Hillary Clinton cannot connect with independent voters, she fails to connect with younger voters for obvious reasons, she attempts to “re-introduce” herself on damned near a weekly basis. North Carolina, Ohio and Nevada have become “swing states.”

However, you can visibly perceive the unwellness in not only the body but the soul of Hillary Rodham Clinton. And just as she makes the speech above, two new articles emerge about her health — following her odd exhibition of strabismus during a recent speech in Philadelphia.

Though the immediate video below is amusing to a degree, its source material is not doctored and reveals an incredibly-serious and continuing health issue.

Following her fall as I documented here, a number of sources have weighed in with regard to health. Again. From TheHill.com:

Clinton’s eyes — a window into her health issues

by John R. Coppedge

In 2014 Conan O’Brien did a spoof of Hillary Clinton‘s interview with Diane Sawyer about her lack of lingering health issues following her 2012 concussion. In an obviously photoshopped version Clinton’s eyes are made to oscillate crazily.

It was a very funny piece. Now, it may not seem so funny.

Hillary Clinton exhibited abnormal eye movements during her recent speech in Philadelphia and they were not photoshopped.

Her eyes did not always move in the same direction at the same time. It appears that she has a problem with her left sixth cranial nerve. That nerve serves only one function and that is to make the lateral rectus muscle contract. That muscle turns the eye in the direction away from the midline. 

Please allow me to step in at this point and allow that the author is John R. Coppedge, MD, FACS, a general surgeon from Texas. Not a pundit, not a political hack.

First: this is the Conan O’Brien video to which Coppedge refers:

Like all things medical, there is a long list of potential causes but in my opinion the most likely one, based on Clinton’s known medical history is an intermittent lateral rectus palsy caused by damage to or pressure on her sixth cranial nerve.

It is known that she suffered a traumatic brain injury in late 2012 when she fell and struck her head. What is also known is that she was diagnosed with a transverse sinus thrombosis — blood clot in the major vein at the base of the brain. Almost all patients with a transverse sinus thrombosis suffer swelling of the brain and increased intracranial pressure. Most have headaches, balance issues and visual disturbances — all of which Clinton was reported to have following that event.

Clinton’s physician reported that she was placed on Coumadin (a blood thinner) to dissolve the blood clot. Actually, that is incorrect, because Coumadin has no effect on an existing clot. It serves only to decrease the chance of further clotting occurring Clinton’s physician has also reported that on follow up exam, the clot had resolved. That is surprising since the majority of such clots do not dissolve. The way it was documented that the clot had resolved has not been reported.

Does Hillary Clinton play a part in her situation? Continue reading.

Critics will rightly point out that I have not examined Clinton. They will point out that I am not ophthalmologist or a neurologist. But I am a physician and the concepts discussed above are taught to every medical student early in their education. Her traumatic brain injury, transverse sinus thrombosis, subsequent symptoms, falling, passing out and now the obvious problem with eye movement are all fact, not speculation.

It would be very helpful if Clinton agreed to an independent exam and to have the questions raised here answered. It is too important not to get this right.

Has Hillary Clinton been controlling her own medical treatment, avoiding the obvious?

From the NYPost.com:

Hillary refuses to take neurocognitive test

by Daniel Halper

Hillary Clinton won’t be taking a neurocognitive test, and releasing the results to the public — telling a reporter “there’s no need for that,” even after collapsing as she was leaving a 9/11 memorial event last week in Manhattan.

Clinton made the comment, suggesting she will not be releasing any further medical information this presidential campaign, in an interview Wednesday with Florida’s WFTS ABC Action News.

Why am I focusing so closely on the “medical issues” of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Because the American Media Maggots would do precisely the same thing had the roles been reversed with regard to Donald Trump. Like a pit bull, they would have worn the issue down to the bone with Donald Trump. If it took weeks, if it took months, they would not have cared.

Desperate times for Hillary, requiring desperate measures — to include wearing an earpiece through which she could receive verbal prompts when placed in, say, “challenging situations” such as — wait for it — the debates with Donald Trump, the first of which occurs tomorrow, Monday the 26th.

The thought first emerged from a series of photographs taken on September 8th at the Commander In Chief Military Forum with she and Donald Trump, as they were interviewed separately.

But this is not simply my speculation. There is an email released by WikiLeaks in which Huma Abedin makes reference to Hillary’s “earpiece” in 2009.

hillary-clinton-earpiece-email-via-wikileaksPlease note: one does not customarily refer to, say, hearing aids as an “earpiece,” should the Hillary defenders weigh in.

Further, once the issue came to light, a source whose work includes intelligence stated he saw her wearing a similar flesh-colored piece in her ear a number of years ago. Certainly nothing like the USSS wears for dignitary protection.

hillary-clinton-earpiece-repWas and is Hillary Clinton being fed information from an outside source, either by way of RF or Bluetooth technology and, moreover, will she be wearing a similar unit during the debates?

Hillary Rodham Clinton, I think you have a problem. Quite a number of them, in fact.

Donald Trump is a risk.

But Hillary Clinton is a certain disaster.

BZ

P.S.

Sorry, can’t pass this up.

Nor can I pass up Pepe the Frog: