A Question That Needs To Be Asked

You can’t put toothpaste back in the tube, but you can ask questions about how it got out of the tube in the first place. Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review today that asks a very obvious, but overlooked in the media, question about what happened to General Flynn.

Andrew McCarthy is a lawyer experienced in dealing the terrorism and other national security matters. In the article at National Review, he asks, “Why Was the FBI Investigating General Flynn?”

The contact between General Flynn and Russian ambassador Kislyak was appropriate–General Flynn was slated to be National Security Advisor under President Trump. He was making contacts in preparation for taking that job. It is also understandable that the conversation would have been recorded–the article states, “We are told that the FBI was monitoring the phone calls of Russian ambassador Kislyak under FISA. Makes sense — he’s an overt foreign agent from a hostile government.”

However, there is more to the story.

The article reports:

The call to Kislyak, of course, was intercepted. No doubt the calls of other American officials who have perfectly valid reasons to call Russian diplomats have been intercepted. It is the FBI’s scrupulous practice to keep the identities of such interceptees confidential. So why single Flynn out for identification, and for investigation? FBI agents did not need to “grill” Flynn in order to learn about the call — they had a recording of the call. They also knew there was nothing untoward about the call. We know that from the Times report — a report that suggests an unseemly conjoining of investigative power to partisan politics.

The article also notes the timing of these events. The information about the phone call was released at a point where it was designed to do the most damage. We had the FBI and the press working together to undermine the new President.
The article concludes:
And the FBI has no business probing the veracity of public statements made by presidential administrations for political purposes — something it certainly resisted doing during the Obama administration.
There appears to have been no foreign-intelligence or criminal-investigative purpose served by the FBI’s interrogation of General Flynn. It is easy to see why Democrats would want to portray Flynn’s contact with the Russian ambassador as worthy of an FBI investigation. But why did the FBI and the Justice Department investigate Flynn — and why did “officials” make sure the press found out about it?

Please follow the link to read the entire article. It is rather lengthy but explains the matter much more clearly and fully than I did. It is time for all of us to become our own news reporters and investigate everything the major media tells us. Otherwise we will tend to believe the lies the press is promoting.

The Explanation You Might Not Have Heard

Hot Air posted an article today about the resignations and firings at the State Department. The article explains that State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy had planned to stay on during the Trump Administration, but then suddenly resigned. So what happened?

Rex Tillerson visited the State Department on Wednesday and met with the people there. The Washington Post reported that the Trump Administration was looking to replace the State Department’s undersecretary for management, Patrick Kennedy. Then suddenly Kennedy and three of his top officials resigned.

The article at Hot Air sheds light on a possible explanation:

Patrick Kennedy was the person working behind the scenes to downgrade classified emails found on Hillary Clinton’s private server. When the first SECRET email turned up on Clinton’s server, Kennedy intervened three different times to ask the FBI to change its mind about the classification.

As it turned out, Kennedy’s attempt to fix the problem for Hillary didn’t matter. There were 110 email chains on her server that were classified (at the time they were sent not upgraded as the State Department repeatedly claimed) so reclassifying one email would not have helped much.

In addition to his role as fixer for Clinton at the State Department, Kennedy was ultimately responsible for decisions regarding security at the Benghazi consulate. The review board did not find Kennedy responsible for the decision to cut security, but chargé d’affaires Gregory Hicks testified he believed Kennedy should have been held at least partly responsible.

The article quotes a Politico report stating that Patrick Kennedy disputed the classification of some of Hillary Clinton’s emails at least three times.

The above may explain the sudden resignation of Patrick Kennedy. Actions have consequences, and he is one example of the swamp that needs to be drained. The State Department is not supposed to be political,. Obviously it was. It would be healthy for the country to see that change.

Don’t Get Lost In The False Narrative

As I sit here writing this post, I am listening to the news. The news is telling me that a number of Democrats will not attend the inauguration of President Trump because they feel that he is an illegitimate President. Hopefully most Americans realize how ridiculous this charge is. However, there is a full-blown effort by the media and the political left to undermine Donald Trump before he is even sworn in as President.

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review yesterday detailing one aspect of the attack on soon-to-be President Trump. The article deals with the strategy behind the Justice Department Inspector General’s review of some aspects of the Justice Department’s handing of the Hillary Clinton email scandal. Mr. McCarthy explains how the parameters of this investigation will make sure the investigation determines exactly what the political left wants the investigation to determine. It is important to note that the investigation will not look into the meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Arizona during the Justice Department investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private server. They will not look into immunity granted to witnesses and evidence destroyed during the original investigation. They will not look at ways in which Mrs. Clinton‘s private server compromised national security. So what is going on here?

The article explains:

The aim is obvious: If Comey’s statements were against protocol, then they will be portrayed as violations that caused Clinton to lose — the argument will be that Trump’s victory was as razor thin as it gets, Clinton decisively won the popular vote, so surely Comey’s impropriety is what swung the few thousand votes Clinton would have needed in key states to win in the Electoral College. Therefore, the narrative goes: Trump’s victory, and thus his presidency, is illegitimate.

…The Democrats erase your first argument by reducing the whole election down to the e-mails investigation, such that Mrs. Clinton’s many other flaws as a candidate do not matter. The Democrats erase your second argument by making sure the IG investigation focuses on James Comey, not on Hillary Clinton’s crimes and the Justice Department’s outrageous machinations to make sure she was not prosecuted for those crimes.
There you have it. The public’s perception of Trump’s legitimacy may hinge on the public’s understanding of the Justice Department inspector-general’s probe. The Democrats fully grasp this and are lining things up so that they’ll win before Republicans even realize the game is on.

I hope most Americans will see through this dog and pony show. It is really sad that the political left is doing everything it can to damage the Presidency of Donald Trump even before he is sworn in. If Donald Trump is such a horrible person with such bad ideas, why not just sit back and wait for him to fail? It is disheartening to hear politicians on the left repeating charges that have no proof behind them as if they were fact. Unfortunately I think this is going to get worse. The only cure for the lying media is for Americans to stop listening to the mainstream media and their lies. Maybe at that point, the mainstream media will realize that it is in their best interests (and the interests of America) to report the truth.

I Need A Technical Person To Explain This To Me

Twitchy reported yesterday that the FBI never examined to Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers in its investigation of the claim that Russia was behind the email leaks. Huh? Then how do they know who hacked into the computers if they never examined them?

The article includes the following:

The “he said, she said” allegations being exchanged by the FBI and the Democratic National Committee continued Thursday, with the FBI insisting that the DNC would not allow direct access to its hacked servers, leaving the FBI to rely on a forensic analysis performed by a third party.

Next we will probably find out that the third party is a relative of some high ranking official of the DNC. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

The article continues:

DNC deputy communications director Eric Walker told BuzzFeed in an email that the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers. Instead, the FBI relied on an analysis done by security firm CrowdStrike, which investigated the breach for the DNC.

NBC’s intelligence and national security reporter added this information to the mix.

This was also included in the article:

Why are we still hearing about this? Because the longer it stays in the news, the better chance it has of undermining Donald Trump’s Presidency. It doesn’t matter how many times the statement is made that the hacking did not impact the election, the media wants to keep the story alive. Also, if the focus is on the hacking, it is not on the content of the leaked emails. Remember, the leaked emails showed a rigged Democratic primary and a media that was coordinating with the Democratic party. Those are the two things we need to remember about the hacking of the DNC computers.

However, I do need a computer person to tell me how you can investigate a hacking without access to the hacked computers.

Stay Tuned–This May Get Interesting

The Daily Caller reported yesterday the the FBI has instructed its New York office to continue its investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

The article reports:

“There were no instructions to shut it down, to discontinue or to stand down on the investigation, but to continue its work,” the former official told the Daily Caller News Foundation in an interview.

He said he received this information about a week ago and that the order originated from the bureau’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. well after the November 8 election.  He did not know who at FBI Headquarters issued the order.

…Senior Justice Department officials reportedly were openly skeptical of the Clinton Foundation case and repeatedly tried to shut down the bureau’s probe.  But the department was not able to shut down the FBI activities.

There is probably a serious case here. Looking at the finances of the Clinton Foundation, it becomes obvious that a very small percentage of the money donated iwent toward charitable causes. The administrative expenses of the Foundation account for a large percentage of the money donated. I suspect that there are many legal issues with the foreign money the Foundation has accepted and the decisions made by the State Department involving the donors. However, I don’t want to see Bill or Hillary Clinton go to prison. I suspect that they deserve to be there, but I think sending them there would only serve to divide the country further. Also, neither one of them has aged well, and it would be a nightmare to have an ex-President or ex-First Lady die in prison. At any rate, Americans have a right to know what was compromised because of donations to the Clinton Foundation, and I would be glad to see the investigation into the Foundation continue under a less politicized Justice Department.

A Valiant Marine Wins His Court Case

In December 2015, I wrote a story about Major Jason Brezler, a Marine reservist being discharged from the Marine Corps.

I quoted a Marine Corps Times article which reported:

A Marine veteran in Congress has called on the country’s top law enforcement agency to investigate a senior Navy official’s decision to force out a Marine officer who tried to warn his comrades in Afghanistan about a suspected Taliban conspirator.

In a Dec. 3 letter to Defense Secretary Ash Carter, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said the FBI should look into the case involving Maj. Jason Brezler, a Reserve civil affairs officer who sent classified information from a personal email account in 2012.

Scott Lutterloh, the acting assistant Navy secretary for manpower and reserve affairs, recently upheld the decision that Brezler be honorably discharged from the Marine Corps. But Hunter said Brezler’s case received “inadequate attention by the Department of Defense Inspector General and Navy criminal investigators.”

In his letter, Hunter urged the Pentagon to take steps to launch an FBI investigation of the case, to include the U.S. military’s relationship with Sarwar Jan, a corrupt Afghan police chief and the man at the center of Brezler’s email warning.

Unfortunately, the American military has allowed the actions of sexual predators in Afghanistan to continue, turning a blind eye or accepting it as part of the culture. That was the system Major Brezler was fighting.

The Marine Times updated the story today.

The article reports:

A federal judge has overturned a Marine Corps decision to discharge Marine Maj. Jason Brezler, who was accused of mishandling classified information after he warned Marines in Afghanistan about an Afghan police chief days before a deadly insider attack in August 2012.

A board of inquiry recommended in December 2013 that Brezler be discharged for using his personal email account to send classified information to Marines in Afghanistan about an Afghan police chief accused of sexually assaulting young boys. Brezler was also accused of taking classified documents home from Afghanistan so he could write a book.

But Brezler filed a lawsuit contesting the Marine’s decision, claiming the Corps wrongfully retaliated against him for contacting Capitol Hill about his concerns.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bianco in New York ruled that the government had not granted Brezler full access to records related to his claim. Brezler was referred to the board of inquiry, which adjudicates claims of officer misconduct, after a story published in Marine Corps Times reported that Brezler asked for help from Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.

“For example, if communications prior to the Marine Corps Times article indicate that the Navy did not contemplate a BOI [board of inquiry] , or indicate an affirmative decision not to initiate a BOI, such communications would be highly relevant to Major Brezler’s claim that the BOI was retaliatory,” Bianco wrote in Tuesday’s decision.

Hopefully this is the end of the story. I will stay tuned in case it is not.

We Need To Secure Our Borders Quickly

On Wednesday, Pamela Geller posted a story on her website reporting that three Pakistani Muslims were arrested at the Arizona border.

The article reports:

U.S. Border Patrol agents in Nogales, AZ, apprehended three Pakistani nationals on Nov. 11. As a standard procedure, agents processed the individuals and checked their identities against numerous law enforcement and national security related databases. Record checks revealed no derogatory information about the individuals. The individuals are currently in Federal custody while they await the outcome of their immigration cases.

Additional information on the individuals was obtained by federal agents working under the umbrella of CBP, but it is important to note that the additional details were not confirmed by CBP.

“One of them had a shit load of hits from a bunch of places he’s been. He had entered and exited numerous countries that were not in his route to the U.S. This raises red flags because people leaving a foreign country to come here usually take the quickest route, but one of them did not,” said one of the sources.

The source continued, “One of the men had his hair died [sic] blonde to disguise his appearance and all of the men spoke perfect English.”…

It is possible (although unlikely) that these men were simply refugees fleeing Pakistan. However, the fact that one of the men had a list of various countries he had visited before coming here is a concern. Where did he get his travel money? Who were his contacts in those countries?

Breitbart posted this story on November 17th, but included the following additional information:

Breitbart Texas previously broke the news that five men from Pakistan and one from Afghanistan were caught within 17 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border in the same vicinity as the current apprehensions of Pakistani men. In that case, the FBI later confirmed to other news outlets that the details from Breitbart Texas sources were correct.

Sealing the border is about national security. A wall is a really good step to take in keeping Americans safe from terrorism. It won’t solve the entire problem, but it would be a step forward.

Where The Real Money In Politics Lives

Yesterday PJ Media posted an article explaining the role George Soros‘ money has played and is playing in America’s electoral process. The article lists the specifics in detail. I will only highlight a few.

The article reports:

Below are some highlights of this expansive Soros-funded campaign to alter the legal environment and rules of American elections.

Litigation

  • Soros funded multiple attacks on state voter identification laws in places such as Wisconsin, North Carolina and Virginia. While not successful at the trial court in North Carolina and Virginia, the Soros litigation won a victory in the appeals courts resulting in North Carolina election integrity laws being suspended for the presidential election.  Worse, the litigation resulted in opinions by federal appeals courts which could potentially turn the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into a one-way political ratchet that helps Democrats, as long as Democrats can enforce racially polarized voting patterns.
  • Soros documents show funding for the League of Women Voters and their effort “to catalyze greater participation from Black and Latino youth in advocacy both before and after elections.” The LWV is currently in federal court trying to stop efforts by Kansas, Georgia, and Alabama to verify that only citizens are registering to vote. The same organization intervened in a lawsuit by the Public Interest Legal Foundation to clean voter rolls in a Virginia jurisdiction with more registered voters than eligible citizens.
  • Soros documents show funding of $250,000 for the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP before the group then sued to stop the use of voter ID in North Carolina.  Other groups in North Carolina that were on the funding documents include: “Action Institute NC – $75,000 over one year . . . North Carolina Latino Coalition – $75,000  . . .  New World Foundation – $300,000 over one year . . . North Carolina Fair Share Education Fund – $75,000 . . . School for Creative Activism – $75,000.”
  • Soros documents show that it funded efforts to attack the efforts of Tea Party organizations such as True the Vote to promote election integrity and triggered Department of Justice action. One funding document states that the Campaign Legal Center, [former John McCain lawyer] Trevor Potter, and the Brennan Center worked on “voter registration reform” and efforts to attack Tea Party groups. “CLC is focusing most of its efforts on the threat posed by these private ‘challenger’ groups and, to that end, has been gathering information on the activities of such groups, including Houston-based True the Vote. Working in partnership with Transparency Fund grantee Project Vote, CLC has pieced together a narrative that strongly suggests a widespread effort by True the Vote to suppress minority voting. CLC made Open Records Requests to officials in Houston to obtain all communications between True the Vote and Houston election offices, obtained and analyzed these documents and presented their findings to the United States Department of Justice last month. Following this meeting, the Justice Department sent federal officials to Houston to monitor the May primary elections. One other aspect of CLC’s work in this area is its Executive Director, J. Gerald Hebert’s role as chief counsel to a group of intervenors in State of Texas v. Holder.”
  • The funding documents name groups which received in excess of $500,000 each year from Soros. They include: “Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Center for American Progress, Advancement Project, Center for Community Change, Brennan Center.” Three of the largest recipients are engaged in litigation and strategic communications denying voter fraud and seeking to transform the rules of elections.
  • Soros money is moving away from pressing for “campaign finance reform” and speech regulations, and instead into election process areas.  The funding documents state “We do recommend shifts in a significant area of previous strategy. Historically, OSI played a leading role in promoting campaign finance reform models at the national and state levels. In recent years, changed conditions caused us to re-examine our approach, and our analysis led us to begin discontinuing our support to campaign finance reform groups.”
  • Soros money fought voter ID, everywhere.  The leaked documents state: “The 2012 elections proved that momentum is with the voting rights and civil rights community rather than their detractors. Not only was this field successful at blocking restrictive laws from being implemented in Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin and South Carolina, but a strong coalition in Minnesota came from behind to achieve the first victory against photo ID on the ballot.”
  • Soros money was directed at the Advancement Project and Brennan Center to influence media coverage on election integrity issues and provide voter fraud denial propaganda.  Leaked funding documents state: “In a specific grant update, the U.S. Programs board-funded communications and messaging project was successfully led by the Brennan Center and the Advancement Project, and played an important role in the spike in media attention on voting rights this year. The groups developed affirmative voting rights messages and shared them widely in and beyond the field. The messages were used verbatim hundreds of times in sources ranging from The New York Times to the Philadelphia Inquirer, quickly and fully working their way into the media, national and local, and across social networking sites.”  Verbatim.
  • Soros funding documents reveal that the Brennan Center and Advancement Project, two organizations regularly opposing election integrity measures in court, were among the largest Soros funding recipients for the entire Soros program.
  • ERIC, the program seeded by PEW to allow states to verify voter identity which many states now use, was started with Soros money and an “anonymous” donor.

Please follow the link above and read the entire article. It is chilling. George Soros made his money by destroying the currency of various countries and betting on that failure. We don’t need to give him an opportunity to do that in America. He does not have the interests of America in mind at all–he is a globalist with a one-world government agenda. America needs to find a way to keep him from meddling in our political affairs.

Perspective

The National Review posted an article today about all the gnashing of teeth on the Democratic side of the aisle about the letter FBI Director James Comey sent to Congress (sent to Republicans and Democrats–not just Republicans as the Clinton campaign claimed). The article reminds us that Director Comey is not the person actually responsible for the problems of the Democratic Presidential Candidate.

The article reports:

In July, the same James Comey contorted himself into rhetorical pretzels to avoid recommending Hillary Clinton be prosecuted for exposing classified information, despite laying out a compelling case that she would be facing serious charges were she possessed of any surname besides the one she has. He settled on saying that while she was “extremely reckless,” her actions did not constitute “gross negligence,” a distinction that remains unclear.

Democrats were miffed that Comey had the audacity to go even that far, but, all in all, he was praised as a fine public servant. As my colleague Andy McCarthy has explained at length, Comey’s press conference was an extravagant departure from Justice Department protocol, but Democrats were more than comfortable pardoning Comey’s excesses then, since he had acted in the service of helpful ends. He just wanted to “stay out” of the election, they explained.

The feeling among Democrats is that when Director Comey wrote the letter to Congress, his actions aided the Trump campaign.

The article reminds us of the root of the problem:

This is the type of ends-justifies-means thinking that has guided Democrats since the beginning of this process, conveniently occluding their ability to recall that this whole problem is entirely of their own making. It was Hillary Clinton who set up a private e-mail server, almost certainly to evade federal transparency laws. It was Hillary Clinton who, in violation of the law, sent dozens of classified e-mails from the unsecured private account run through that server. It was Hillary Clinton who swore under oath that she had surrendered to investigators all work-related e-mails. It was Democrats who then went and nominated the woman under FBI investigation. And it was Loretta Lynch, a Democratic attorney general, who met with Bill Clinton behind closed doors on an airport tarmac in Phoenix and compromised any possibility of her trustworthiness when it came to this investigation.

It is already becoming obvious to those of us old enough to remember the 1990’s that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be nothing more than Hillary Clinton operating under a veil of secrecy and covering up any of her actions that Americans became aware of. That is not a recipe for a successful presidency.

 

 

Sometimes You Have To Go Across The Pond To Find Out What Is Going On Here

On Sunday, The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about the re-opening of the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The article reports the following:

James Comey‘s decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.

‘The atmosphere at the FBI has been toxic ever since Jim announced last July that he wouldn’t recommend an indictment against Hillary,’ said the source, a close friend who has known Comey for nearly two decades, shares family outings with him, and accompanies him to Catholic mass every week.

…According to the source, Comey fretted over the problem for months and discussed it at great length with his wife, Patrice. 

He told his wife that he was depressed by the stack of resignation letters piling up on his desk from disaffected agents. The letters reminded him every day that morale in the FBI had hit rock bottom.

There is also another theory as to why the investigation was re-opened–we are still awaiting more emails from Wikileaks. It would be embarrassing (to say the least) if the Wikileaks emails made the case for charging Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information. It seems to me that based on Director Comey’s original statement, we already have that case, but having Wikileaks confirm it would further create the appearance of a compromised FBI.

The thing to remember here is that the person ultimately responsible for this mess is Hillary Clinton. The personal server was set up to avoid scrutiny of the symbiotic relationship between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s State Department. It has become obvious that President Obama and other officials sent emails to addresses on that server and were aware of it. The fact that the issue of the personal server was never confronted during Mrs. Clinton’s term as Secretary of State raises the question of complicity. That might explain why the Executive Branch of our government is having so much trouble getting to the truth of this matter.

We Have A Warrant

Sources have it that the re-opening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails is related to emails found on Anthony Weiner‘s laptop. Rumor has it that the Justice Department does not have a warrant to look at those emails. Well, as of yesterday, that rumor is false.

NBC News reported yesterday:

The FBI obtained a warrant to search emails related to the probe of Hillary Clinton’s private server that were discovered on ex-congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop, law enforcement officials confirmed Sunday.

The warrant came two days after FBI Director James Comey revealed the existence of the emails, which law enforcement sources said were linked to Weiner’s estranged wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The sources said Abedin used the same laptop to send thousands of emails to Clinton.

The FBI already had a warrant to search Weiner’s laptop, but that only applied to evidence of his allegedly illicit communications with an underage girl.

Agents will now compare the latest batch of messages with those that have already been investigated to determine whether any classified information was sent from Clinton’s server.

Combined with any surprises coming in the next few days from Wikileaks, this information will make for an interesting week. Get out the popcorn and watch the spin!

 

A Tale Of Two Investigations

When the FBI is not interfered with, it conducts a thorough, complete investigation. The investigation of Anthony Weiner for sexting an underage girl was well done; the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server was a sham. That is the reason FBI Director James Comey was forced to reopen the investigation into Hillary’s private email server and the security risks created by Hillary Clinton and her staff’s careless handling of classified information.

On Friday, The New York Post posted an article about the impact the Weiner case has had on the email scandal.

The article stated the following:

It appears the FBI agents investigating Anthony Weiner for sexting an underaged girl have done the job that the FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information didn’t or weren’t allowed to do.

Agents reportedly found thousands of State Department-related emails ostensibly containing classified information on the electronic devices belonging to Weiner and his wife and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The discovery has prompted FBI Director James Comey to, on the eve of the election, reopen the Clinton case he prematurely closed last July.

How did agents examine the devices? By seizing them. It’s a common practice in criminal investigations, but one that clearly was not applied in the case of Clinton or her top aide — even though agents assigned to that case knew Abedin hoarded classified emails on her electronic devices.

Contrast the seizure of the devices in the Weiner case with the way electronic devices were handled in the Clinton case (as reported here on October 12):

The bombshell this week is that Loretta Lynch and James Comey not only gave immunity to Hillary’s closest co-conspirators Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson—who, despite being attorneys, destroyed evidence right and left—but, in a secret side deal, agreed to limit the FBI’s review of the Clinton team laptops to pre-January 2015 and to destroy the laptops when the FBI review was complete.

Congress and every law-abiding citizen in this country should be outraged. This blatant destruction of evidence is obstruction of justice itself.

I can’t help but think that if Hillary Clinton had cooperated with the investigation from the beginning, it might have all blown over by now. On the other hand, she might be sitting in a jail cell pondering her future and waiting for a pardon from President Obama.

 

Will It Make A Difference?

I don’t know whether the fact that FBI Director James Comey is reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails will matter to anyone or not. Everyone (including me) is tired of hearing about Hillary’s private server. I suspect if you took a poll you would find out that half of the people polled believe that whatever new information the FBI finds will not make a difference in her support and the other half believe that whatever new information the FBI finds will never lead to any penalty for her actions.

However, John Hinderaker at Power Line had an interesting take on this story. He posted a story today that pointed out the fact that the first instinct of the Clinton campaign when faced with this story was to lie.

The article reports:

I find it revealing that when the Clinton campaign launched its attack on Comey, it led off with a lie. In her press conference last night, Hillary Clinton accused Comey of partisanship, falsely claiming that he had sent his letter only to Congressional Republicans. In fact, Comey followed the standard protocol, addressing his letter to the chairmen of the relevant committees and sending copies to the ranking minority members of each committee:

This statement in the Power Line article is followed by a complete copy of the letter, including the people it was addressed to. Follow the link to Power Line to see the letter.

The article concludes:

But that’s not all: Hillary’s campaign manager, John Podesta, echoed Hillary’s smear:

“FBI Director Comey should immediately provide the American public more information than is contained in the letter he sent to eight Republican committee chairmen,” Podesta said in a statement.

Note that this was a written statement, not an off the cuff characterization at a press conference. So the campaign’s lie–Comey is a partisan, he only communicated with Republicans!–was deliberate. That being the case, it is hard to take the Democrats’ indignation seriously.

It is unfortunate that this is coming up a week or so before the election, but all this could have been avoided by not using a private server or by complying with subpoena requests when they were made. The only person responsible for this scandal is Hillary Clinton. Her staff simply reflected her handling of classified material. Had she cooperated with the investigation, it would simply be an unhappy memory by now, but that is not the way the Clintons historically handle their own bad behavior. Bill Clinton, as President, rode out his numerous scandals by delaying, distracting, and lying. That seems to be a popular strategy in the Clinton family.

How To Undermine An Investigation

Wikileaks is giving us tremendous insight into the corruption that seems to encompass Washington politics, but there are still some people who are doing investigative reporting and posting the information on the internet for everyone to see. This article is a combination of an article citing information from Wikileaks and an article that is the result of some good investigative reporting.

Yesterday Lifezette posted an article about some emails released by Wikileaks relating to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

The article reports:

The email in question is a list of recent voicemail messages left for Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta around Oct. 6, 2015, including one from McCaskill. “Give me a call back at your convenient [sic] on my cell or at home. Got some info about the state department IG,” she said. “You guys should digest and figure out what if anything we can do.”

…Adam Jentleson, a top aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, planted a story in The New York Times alleging a past connection between a single staffer in the IG’s office and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley was evidence of “fishy” activity.

Jentleson noted the deputy inspector general at the State Department was Emilia DiSanto, who had previously been a top aide to Grassley and alleged DiSanto could be improperly feeding information on the State Department inquiry to her former boss.

“There does seem to be a fishy pattern here, and a fishy connection,” Jentleson told The New York Times.

A separate email released by WikiLeaks last week seems to confirm the Clinton camp had put Reid’s office up to the attack on the IG’s credibility.

Let’s get something straight. Hillary Clinton’s private email server was a threat to national security. There is little doubt that the server was hacked by any foreign intelligence service worth its salt. This is a national security matter–not a political matter. It speaks volumes that the Democratic party and The New York Times were willing to turn it into a political matter.

Now to go to the investigative reporting part of the story. Twitchy posted an article yesterday about another aspect of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server.

The article reports:

The quick and dirty summary is that Gov. McAuliffe’s super PAC donated the $467,500 in a failed attempt to elect Dr. Jill McCabe to the state senate in 2015. She lost the race to the incumbent Republican, but shortly after the election her husband — Andrew McCabe — was promoted to Deputy Director of the FBI and one of his jobs was an “oversight role in the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s emails.”

It is long past time to clean house in Washington. Americans have become the victims of political incest!

A Republic Or A Banana Republic?

Yesterday Kelly Riddell posted an article at The Washington Times entitled, “The Obama-Clinton banana republic” with the subtitle, “The nation’s core values would continue to suffer under a Clinton presidency.”

In the article, she describes some of the traits of a healthy republic:

A fair, balanced, and independent Justice Department. Neutral diplomats, who serve the public over politics, at the State Department. An unbiased, honest, mainstream media.

She then notes that these values have eroded during the Obama Administration.

The article then cites examples of that erosion:

Two days after The Associated Press broke the story that Mrs. Clinton was using a private server in March 2015, John Podesta sent an email to her attorney Cheryl Mills, asking if they should decline to turn over emails between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama to Congress, invoking “executive privilege.”

The email clearly implies Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton had been exchanging emails on her private server — a huge potential security threat, given everything the president sends or receives is highly classified.

FBI notes also signal Mr. Obama was indeed aware and had corresponded with Mrs. Clinton on her private server long before the news broke.

In an April 2015 interview with Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide, the FBI alerted her of an exchange between Mr. Obama — using a pseudonym — and Mrs. Clinton from 2012, where she exclaimed: “How is this not classified?” the report says.

As I noted in a previous post, Ms. Abedin also asked for a copy of the email–an insurance policy?

The article continues:

The FBI’s documents expose there was a “shadow government” at the State Department that tried to protect Mrs. Clinton throughout the email probe.

“There was a powerful group of very high-ranking State officials that some referred to as ‘The 7th Floor Group’ or ‘The Shadow Government.’ This group met every Wednesday afternoon to discuss the FOIA process, Congressional records, and everything Clinton-related to FOIA/Congressional inquiries,” the FBI’s interview summary said.

…The media has responded to these scandals by largely ignoring them — they’re too concerned with Donald Trump’s rhetoric than they are with anything that would impugn Mrs. Clinton’s or Mr. Obama’s record.

Instead, Yahoo’s Katie Couric was looking to do pieces that “would showcase her [Clinton‘s] personality and has a lot of viral potential,” according an email she sent to Mr. Podesta.

Our Founding Fathers put in the U.S. Constitution the concept of equal justice under the law. Under the Obama Administration we have obviously lost that concept. Unfortunately under a Hillary Clinton Administration, it could be permanently lost.

To anyone who is reading this who is voting for Hillary Clinton because you are an upstanding citizen, remember that when justice is unequally applied, even a small mistake can be used to make war against an ordinary citizen. I remind you that the only person who went to jail because of the Benghazi attack was the filmmaker, and he was innocent. The legal action that sent Dinesh d’Souza to jail was totally extreme in relation to the crime he committed–an illegal campaign donation.

As America approaches banana republic status, any breach of any law, regardless of how minor, can be used to put any America who opposes the government agenda in jail. Are you ready for that?

 

 

There Seems To Be Some Anger Among Those In Law Enforcement

The problem with corruption is that it only works if everyone participates and is rewarded equally. Otherwise someone is likely to get disgruntled and blow the whistle. There is also the danger that as bits of corruption get exposed, rats have a tendency to desert a sinking ship. That is part of what is currently happening as details of the investigation into the Hillary Clinton email scandal continue to emerge. Just as an aside, if you are wondering why you are not currently hearing a lot about the email scandal, keep in mind that Reporters Without Borders has dropped America’s Freedom of Press rank to 41st world-wide. Currently we are being told what the Washington establishment wants us to be told.

Sidney Powell posted an article in the Observer yesterday. Ms. Powell worked in the Department of Justice for 10 years, in three federal districts under nine United States Attorneys from both political parties.

Here are some excerpts from her article:

The bombshell this week is that Loretta Lynch and James Comey not only gave immunity to Hillary’s closest co-conspirators Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson—who, despite being attorneys, destroyed evidence right and left—but, in a secret side deal, agreed to limit the FBI’s review of the Clinton team laptops to pre-January 2015 and to destroy the laptops when the FBI review was complete.

Congress and every law-abiding citizen in this country should be outraged. This blatant destruction of evidence is obstruction of justice itself.

We no longer have a Department of Justice: We have a Department of Obstructing and Corrupting Justice to protect the power elite of the chosen side.

It’s easy to see now why Lynch secretly met Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac on June 27. Only a few days later, the FBI had its little chat with Hillary—neither under oath nor with a rights warning—in the presence of her coconspirators. Then, Hillary announced she would keep Lynch as Attorney General if she is elected president. Surely by coincidence, the very next day Comey does his song and dance ending the “investigation.”

…Now we have a candidate for president of the United States who has committed lie after lie, obstructed justice, and destroyed evidence with the support of the president himself—conduct for which many people are in prison. Sometimes it’s called False Statements to federal officials, punishable by up to five years in prison under 18 USC 1001. Under other circumstances, such as in sworn statements to federal judges or testimony to Congress, it can be perjury under 18 USC 1621 or 1623.

Ms. Powell points out something we all need to remember:

Clinton ran her shenanigans without an Inspector General in the State Department. An Inspector General is appointed by the President, but his or her job is to serve as a watchdog on behalf of the taxpayers. As The Wall Street Journal reported, Clinton declined to allow an Inspector General at the State Department during her entire tenure—so there was no internal oversight, and President Obama allowed that. More than a year ago, the Inspector Generals for State and for the Intelligence Community conducted a limited review of only 40 of Clinton’s emails. They quickly found several containing classified information which they immediately reported to the executive branch and advised Congress. They wrote: “This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”

Remember Richard Nixon? Remember Attorney General John Mitchell?  Remember White House Counsel John Dean? Nixon White House cronies Haldeman and Erlichman? They all went to prison.

It’s not just the private server. It’s not about personal emails or even a few business emails sent from a personal account.

It is about the fair administration of justice and trust in our justice system. It is about the accountability of our highest officials. It is about destroying evidence in the face of a serious investigation. It is about national security breaches of the highest order, and it’s about the privatization and sale of our State Department for personal enrichment.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for two standards of justice in America–one for the Washington elite (who are supposed to be accountable to the people) and one for the ‘little people’ that Hillary Clinton claims to protect. If you are one of the ‘little people’ that is planning to vote for Hillary Clinton, you might want to keep that in mind.

 

 

I Am Sure This Is Just An Incredible Coincidence

Fox News posted a story yesterday about missing evidence in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

The article reports:

Buried in the 189 pages of heavily redacted FBI witness interviews from the Hillary Clinton email investigation are details of yet another mystery — about two missing “bankers boxes” filled with the former secretary of state’s emails.

The interviews released earlier this month, known as 302s, also reveal the serious allegation that senior State Department official Patrick Kennedy applied pressure to subordinates to change the classified email codes so they would be shielded from Congress and the public.

The details about the boxes are contained in five pages of the FBI file – with a staggering 111 redactions – that summarize the statements of a State Department witness who worked in the “Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS).” The employee told the FBI that, “Initially, IPS officials were told there were 14 bankers boxes of former Secretary of State Hillary CLINTON’s emails at CLINTON’s Friendship Heights office.” Friendship Heights is a neighborhood that straddles the Northwest neighborhood of the District of Columbia and Maryland.

The State Department witness further explained to the FBI that “on or about December 5, 2014, IPS personnel picked up only 12 bankers boxes of CLINTON’s emails from Williams & Connolly.”

The officials were not sure if the boxes “were consolidated or what could have happened to the two other boxes. “ 

The article goes on to report that the missing boxes cover the period from January-April 2009. The emails from this time are particularly critical because they cover the beginning of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and the time that she would have been setting up her private email server. Somehow all of those emails have disappeared.

The Gateway Pundit also posted an article about the missing emails yesterday.

The Gateway Pundit article concludes:

Destroyed and missing evidence, evidence tampering, cell phones destroyed with hammers, secret meetings on airplanes, etc., etc., etc.

How does our media react?

Look! Trump said something mean about a beauty queen 20 years ago!

I am willing to bet that voters who rely on the mainstream media for their news have no idea of the extent of the email scandal or the cover-up. Instead they are busy listening to 10-year old comments from Donald Trump. What about the words Hillary Clinton used in addressing her Secret Service detail? The hand that will be on the nuclear button is the same hand that is documented to have thrown a vase at Bill Clinton. Watch your news sources–we are in danger of majoring in the minors.

Why This Story Keeps Coming Back

Even during a political campaign, most stories have a limited life-span. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case with Hillary Clinton’s emails and private server. Clinton supporters see this as just another unwarranted attack on this innocent person, but unfortunately the facts that are slowly leaking out tell a very different story.

Townhall posted a story tonight stating that the FBI made a side deal with some of the witnesses in the email investigation to destroy their laptop computers. That seems odd to say the least. Usually evidence in an investigation is not destroyed very quickly.

The article at Townhall points out some irregularities in the investigation:

This was just your average FBI investigation, you see, in which the same woman was: (1) a subject of the probe, (2) a key witness in the probe, (3) a dubious immunity recipient, and (4) a lawyer to the primary subject — who was allowed to sit in on her quasi-client’s interview with investigators. And if that wasn’t enough, the FBI reportedly agreed to permanently destroy two pieces of evidence after reviewing them. I’ll defer to law enforcement experts as to whether or not this sort of thing is remotely standard practice, but to a layperson, it seems like yet another peculiarity surrounding this case.

On Saturday, Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review with his comments on the investigation. Please follow the link above to read the entire article–it details some of the technicalities in the investigation that were obviously mishandled.

The article points out:

Second, though Comey says the FBI is in no position to enforce attorney ethical rules that barred Mills from representing Clinton at the interview, this was not just an FBI interview. According to the director, several Justice Department lawyers also participated. Those lawyers, too, are bound by the ethical rules. They had an obligation to object to this unseemly arrangement and to do what was in their considerable power to prevent it.
Finally, as Shannen Coffin has pointed out, Mills was not just violating an ethical rule. Her representation of Clinton runs afoul of federal law. Section 207 of the penal code makes it a crime for a former government official to attempt to influence the government on behalf of another person in a matter in which the former official was heavily involved while working for the government. It was against the law for Mills, as an attorney, to attempt to influence the Justice Department’s consideration of the case against Clinton.
The reason this scandal will not go away is that the investigation has been compromised at every turn. We don’t have a “Watergate” media that is willing to report on the obstructionism and lying that has been going on both by Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration. There are still a few Americans left who believe in the integrity of the FBI and want to know why that integrity was seemingly compromised.

 

Voter Fraud Is A Felony–It Needs To Be Prosecuted

Yesterday The Washington Post posted an article about nineteen dead people who have recently registered to vote in Virginia.

The article reports:

One case came to light after relatives of a deceased man received a note congratulating him for registering, Rockingham County Commonwealth’s Attorney Marsha Garst said Thursday.

“His family members were very distraught,” said Garst, who confirmed the existence of the FBI and police investigation but said she could provide few details because the case is ongoing.

…All of the forms had been submitted by a private group that was working to register voters on the campus of James Madison University, according to the Harrisonburg registrar’s office. The group was not identified. No charges have been filed.

Republicans in the state House of Delegates, who in recent years have supported tighter voter ID laws, held a conference call with reporters to call attention to the investigation.

“Oftentimes we hear our Democratic colleagues suggest that voter fraud doesn’t exist in Virginia, or it’s a myth,” House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) said. “This is proof that voter fraud not only exists but is ongoing and is a threat to the integrity of our elections.”

Unfortunately there are political candidates that think winning is more important than ethics.

As previously reported here in 2011:

“Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who formerly worked for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.”

A similar story appeared here earlier this year about Ohio:

True the Vote (TTV), the nation’s leading voters’ rights and election integrity organization, today announced details surrounding its effort to help Cuyahoga and Franklin County officials in Ohio remove more than a thousand duplicate voter registrations ahead of voting in 2016.

Upon receipt of True the Vote’s research, 711 duplicate voter registrations were removed in Cuyahoga County, while 465 sets were processed in Franklin County.

Voter fraud is a problem. We need to take a closer look at some of the groups engaged in registering dead or illegal voters. Voter fraud is a felony. We need to start sending people to jail when they engage in it.

UPDATE:

From The Gateway Pundit:

Just yesterday we wrote about an FBI investigation into potential voter fraud in the critical swing state of Virginia after it was revealed that 19 dead people had recently been re-registered to vote (see “FBI Investigating More Dead People Voting In The Key Swing State Of Virginia“).  While the Washington Post caught wind of the investigation, it was not known who was behind the operation…until now.

Meet, Andrew Spieles, a student at James Madison University, and apparently “Lead Organizer” for HarrisonburgVOTES.  According to the Daily News-Record, Spieles confessed to re-registering 19 deceased Virginians to vote in the 2016 election cycle.

Now I Get It

I will admit that sometimes I just don’t understand why things happen the way they do. When James Comey listed the laws Hillary Clinton broke and then said there was no reason to pursue the case, I was very confused. That made no sense to me. If she broke the law, why was the case dropped? Well, now I know.

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review today that explains why Hillary was not prosecuted and also explains Huma Abedin’s response when shown a copy of an email from President Obama to Hillary Clinton’s private server. I strongly suggest that you follow the link above to read the entire article. It explains a lot.

The article notes:

The FBI had just shown her (Huma Abedin) an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system — something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.

Abedin was sufficiently stunned that, for just a moment, the bottomless capacity of Clinton insiders to keep cool in a scandal was overcome. “How is this not classified?”

She recovered quickly enough, though. The FBI records that the next thing Abedin did, after “express[ing] her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym,” was to “ask if she could have a copy of the email.”

Why would she want a copy of the email? Because if she were ever charged with anything, she would have proof that President Obama was also guilty. If President Obama knows she has a copy of that email, what are the chances of her being charged with anything? It’s called insurance.

Andrew McCarthy sums up the situation very well:

To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information.

A thorough investigation into the email scandal would reveal the fact that President Obama was also negligent–therefore the Obama Administration cannot afford a thorough investigation into the email scandal. That explains the stonewalling of Congressional committees investigating the scandal and why the Justice Department and the State Department have been so uncooperative. This is a serious problem for our republic. When the corruption goes all the way to the top, who is going to hold our leaders accountable? When did we reach the point where the rule of law only applied to the ‘little people’?’

If Hillary Clinton is elected President, we will have the potential of the most corrupt administration in American history. We will, in fact, have become a banana republic–where the rules only apply to some of us. Mrs. Clinton is a danger to both our country and our Constitution.

A Very Complex Smoking Gun

The smoking gun has appeared in the Clinton email scandal. Unfortunately some aspects of it are so technical that those of us who think a megabyte is something you do at McDonald’s may struggle with it (Just for the record, I put myself in that category).

The Washington Post is reporting the story today. The headline of the story is, “Hillary Clinton‘s IT guy asked Reddit for help altering emails, a Twitter sleuth claims.”

These are the important parts of the story:

In the posts, stonetear asks for technical advice on retaining and deleting email messages that are more than 60 days old, as well as on removing the email address of an unnamed “VERY VIP” client from email archives.

“Hello all,” one of the posts begins. “I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP’s (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file. Basically, they don’t want the VIP’s email address exposed to anyone. … Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?”

The screen shot of one of the requests for help altering the emails:

emailsredditThe timeline:

The timing of two of Stonetear’s Reddit posts coincides with events in the Clinton email saga. One post, dated July 24, 2014, came one day after the House Select Committee on Benghazi and the State Department reached an agreement on producing records. The second, which is dated Dec, 10, 2014, and describes a 60-day email retention policy, came the same month that a longtime Clinton aide requested that their email retention policy be shortened to 60 days.

What cover up?

If you are going to do something illegal (like destroy subpoenaed evidence), you really should make sure that everyone involved has the knowledge required to do their part. This is really sloppy criminality. No self-respecting criminal would expect an IT guy to do this unless they were sure they would never be prosecuted (even if they were caught). That alone should provide food for thought.

 

 

 

Compromised Justice

Last Wednesday The Wall Street Journal ran an article about the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton and her emails. There are some genuine concerns about some aspects of the email investigation that the FBI chose to ignore.

The article reports:

The calculated release before the long Labor Day weekend suggests political favoritism, and the report shows the FBI didn’t pursue evidence of potential false statements, obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence.

Mr. Comey’s concessions start with his decision not to interview Mrs. Clinton until the end of his investigation, a mere three days before he announced his conclusions. Regular FBI practice is to get a subject on the record early then see if his story meshes with what agents find. In this case they accepted Mrs. Clinton’s I-don’t-recall defenses after the fact.

The notes also show the G-men never did grill Mrs. Clinton on her “intent” in setting up her server. Instead they bought her explanation that it was for personal convenience. This helped Mr. Comey avoid concluding that her purpose was to evade statutes like the Federal Records Act. Mr. Comey also told Congress that indicting her without criminal intent would pose a constitutional problem. But Congress has written many laws that don’t require criminal intent, and negligent homicide (for example) has never been unconstitutional.

The article also notes that Clinton advisors may have participated in a cover-up to stonewall any investigation.

There is contradictory testimony by Mrs. Clinton’s aides:

Consider page 10 of the FBI report: “Clinton’s immediate aides, to include [Huma] Abedin, [Cheryl] Mills, Jacob Sullivan, and [redacted] told the FBI they were unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton’s tenure at State or when it became public knowledge.”

That’s amazing given that Ms. Abedin had her own email account on the private server. It is also contradicted by page 3: “At the recommendation of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s long-time aide and later Deputy Chief of Staff at State, in or around fall 2008, [ Bill Clinton aide Justin] Cooper contacted Bryan Pagliano . . . to build the new server system and to assist Cooper with the administration of the new server system.”

The FBI must also have ignored two emails referred to by the State Inspector General showing Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin discussing the server while they worked at State: “hrc email coming back—is server okay?” Ms. Mills asked Ms. Abedin and Mr. Cooper in a Feb. 27, 2010 email.

The article concludes:

The FBI’s kid-glove treatment of Mrs. Clinton raises serious doubts about the seriousness of Mr. Comey’s probe. His July 5 public rebuke of her “extremely careless” handling of secrets has masked that Mrs. Clinton and her aides were given a pass on much of their behavior and dubious answers. The entire episode is another Jim Comey scar on the FBI’s reputation.

So why the kid-glove treatment? Breitbart posted an article on Saturday that might provide a few clues.

A few nuggets from the Breitbart article:

When President Obama nominated Comey to become FBI director in 2013, Comey promised the United States Senate that he would recuse himself on all cases involving former employers.

But Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin became a Clinton Foundation donor that very year.

…In 2013, Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings.

“Mr. Comey’s appointment will be for an initial three-year term which, subject to re-election by shareholders, will expire at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual General Meeting,” according to HSBC company records.

HSBC Holdings and its various philanthropic branches routinely partner with the Clinton Foundation. For instance, HSBC Holdings has partnered with Deutsche Bank through the Clinton Foundation to “retrofit 1,500 to 2,500 housing units, primarily in the low- to moderate-income sector” in “New York City.”

“Retrofitting” refers to a Green initiative to conserve energy in commercial housing units. Clinton Foundation records show that the Foundation projected “$1 billion in financing” for this Green initiative to conserve people’s energy in low-income housing units.

The article at Breitbart then goes on to list some of the connections with Peter Comey, the brother of James Comey, and the Clintons.

The obvious conclusion is that the number of honest people in Washington who actually care about the interests of the American people rather than their own wealth could probably be counted on one hand with fingers left over. The only way to clean up this mess is to bring in an outsider who will thoroughly shake up this mess. Hillary Clinton is obviously not that person as she seems to be at the heart of at least half of the scandals and undercover deals going on.

A Solution That Will Make Things Worse

This week there has been some rumbling about the integrity of American elections. Voter fraud is a problem, particularly in our large cities (for example–Chicago in the 1960 Presidential election). True the Vote in Houston found thousands of voters registered to one fictitious address in that city. In many states there is no proof of citizenship required to register to vote, and in California, a law has been passed allowing non-citizens to vote. I am not sure how the California law will play out, but I believe there is a constitutional problem there.

So where are we? There have been rumors of hacking into voting machines and voting machines that change votes. There have been accusations aimed at the Russians. There has been talk of Department of Homeland Security observers or even United Nations observers. Both of these are really bad ideas for one reason–either solution tens to federalize the election rather than letting local cities and communities police their elections.

One of the foundations of our representative republic is the integrity of our elections. If the Russians or other foreign entities wanted to undermine that, they wouldn’t have to do anything except cast doubt on the integrity of the election.That is something to keep in mind.

Meanwhile, the local control of elections helps protect their integrity. Local observers, judges, etc., are much more aware of the people in their communities. Not all local elections are computerized–making them impossible to hack.

Every year at midnight on election day, the voters of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire cast their ballots. In this years presidential primary, the nine votes were cast and counted quickly. It is almost impossible to interfere with a vote held on paper ballots.The fact that our elections are not federalized makes it more difficult to steal an election. Bringing in Homeland Security of the United Nations will federalize our elections and will make it easier–not harder–to compromise election integrity.

If We Had An Honest Media, This Video Would Be Unnecessary

The following video was posted on YouTube yesterday. The video is an interview of Julian Assange. Regardless of how you feel about this man, it is a very interesting interview.

PJ Media posted an article that included the video yesterday.

The article includes the following:

Assange claimed that Clinton knew full well what the (C) was for —  because she has used it thousands of times herself. He dropped the bombshell at the end of his interview with Sean Hannity.

“In the FBI report released Friday, I agree with your analysis, it is very strange that was released Friday afternoon on a Labor weekend,” Assange said. “I do think it draws questions to what sort of game the FBI is trying to play. … Hillary Clinton says that she can’t remember what a ‘C’ in brackets stands for. Everyone in positions of government and in WikiLeaks knows it stands for classified, confidential. And in fact, we have already released thousands of cables by Hillary Clinton…with a ‘C’ in brackets right there,” said Assange while producing one of the documents. “Thousands of examples, where she herself has used a ‘C’ in brackets, and signed it off, and more than 22,000 times that she has received cables from others with this ‘C’ in brackets. So, it’s absolutely incredible for Clinton to lie. She is lying about not knowing what that is, but it’s a bit disturbing that James Comey goes along with that game.”

Here is the video:

 

Draw your own conclusions.

If You Haven’t Been Paying Attention This Weekend…

Oddly enough, the FBI chose the holiday weekend to release the investigation notes of Hillary Clinton’s email practices. This is traditionally a time when no one is paying much attention to the news. Whether that is by design or not, we can’t be sure–but we sure can wonder.

So what was in the notes released? The American Thinker posted a summary yesterday.

Here are some excerpts from the article:

First and foremost: Hillary has blamed her head injuries for startling memory lapses.

Julia Edwards of Reuters reported that “Hillary Clinton told federal investigators she did not recall all the briefings she received on handling government records while U.S. secretary of state because of a concussion suffered in 2012.”

A moment’s reflection reveals that Hillary Clinton has admitted that she was unable to adequately perform job functions directly related to national security because of a brain injury.  Donald Trump is already pushing this issue, but it is also critically important that a major campaign against the NFL – which is opening its pre-season now – stressing the seriousness of concussions’ effects on mental functions has been underway.  The American public, especially males, is on notice to take concussions very seriously.

Hillary Clinton has admitted to a disability due to her brain injury.

We have no way of knowing how serious that brain injury was or if it is currently impacting her intellectual capacities.

The article continues:

Second, the documents reveal that Hillary, who justified her private server on the grounds that she wanted to carry only one handheld device, actually had 13 of them in a four-year period.  What on Earth is the story there?  Almost everyone who votes carries a cell phone, and I daresay the percentage who have needed to have 13 different devices in the space of four years is well below a tenth of one percent.

…Third, if we believe the story offered by Hillary, a laptop computer full of classified documents – her email archive disappeared when mailed with the USPS:

A laptop containing a copy, or “archive,” of the emails on Hillary Clinton’s private server was apparently lost—in the postal mail—according to an FBI report released Friday. Along with it, a thumb drive that also contained an archive of Clinton’s emails has been lost and is not in the FBI’s possession.

This is stunning negligence, and absolutely striking news: that some of the nation’s highest secrets were made available to any foreign power monitoring the secretary of state and willing to snatch mail from the capable hands of the Post Office.  Who on Earth would subject national security to the tender mercies of the USPS?

Where was the nationwide alert to recapture the missing archive?  Did the Clinton campaign notify security agencies?

This is disqualifying negligence.

The negligence and lack of regard for national security on the part of Secretary of State Clinton is obvious. Would she show the same negligence if (horrors) she were elected President? I don’t know. What I do suspect is that all of this information will not make a bit of difference to her supporters. I also wonder what Mrs. Clinton is going to look like at the debates. Make-up can hide a lot of things, but mental lapses would be very obvious in a debate setting. I don’t know if all the talk of health issues is out there to lower expectations of her debate performance. I have no doubt that the only way she wins a debate with Donald Trump is to push his buttons until he loses his cool. Hopefully his handlers have coached him thoroughly enough so that will not happen. We shall see.