Posts Tagged ‘indictment’

Indictment Monday: Who Will Be the First to Be Indicted Because Trump Won the Election?

October 30, 2017

IcFv8qqB.jpg

“This seems more like an effort to prosecute Donald Trump.”
“What the hell are we investigating?” “Why are we going through with this charade?” –  U.S. Representative Sean Duffy (R-Wis.)

FoxNews.com reports that

Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy, the leader of the House’s top investigative committee, slammed special counsel Robert Mueller on Sunday for allowing the news media to learn that he and his legal team now have charges in their Russia investigation.

“In the only conversation I’ve had with Robert Mueller, I stressed to him the importance of cutting out the leaks,” Gowdy, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, told “Fox News Sunday.” “It’s kind of ironic that the people charged with investigating the law and the violations of the law would violate the law.”

Mueller and his team have for roughly the past five months been leading a Justice Department investigation into whether anybody associated with the President Trump’s 2016 White House campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election outcome. On Friday night, CNN reported that Mueller’s team has filed the first charges in the case with a federal grand jury.

“Make no mistake, disclosing grand jury material is a violation of the law. Somebody violated their oath of secrecy,” Gowdy, a South Carolina lawmaker and former federal prosecutor, also told Fox News on Sunday.

The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday that anyone charged will be taken into custody Monday. However, the charges have been sealed by a federal judge. So whoever is charged and whether the charges are criminal remains unclear.

The possible charges come as Mueller’s tactics have been called into question.

During a raid by the FBI in July of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s Virginia home,  a source close to the investigation told Fox News at the time the scope of the search was “heavy-handed, designed to intimidate.”

Andrew Weissmann, the prosecutor tapped by Mueller to help lead the investigation, has also received criticism. Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor recently wrote about Weissman in a piece titled, “Judging by Mueller’s staffing choices, he may not be very interested in justice.”

Powell accused Weissmann, once the director of the Enron Task Force, of “prosecutorial overreach” in past cases and said it could signal what’s to come for President Trump and his associates in the Russia probe.

“What was supposed to have been a search for Russia’s cyberspace intrusions into our electoral politics has morphed into a malevolent mission targeting friends, family and colleagues of the president,” Powell wrote in The Hill. “The Mueller investigation has become an all-out assault to find crimes to pin on them — and it won’t matter if there are no crimes to be found. This team can make some.”

Powell cited several cases where Weissmann won convictions that were later overturned.

During a Saturday appearance on Fox News, former Department of Justice official Robert Driscoll told anchor Leland Vittert it’s possible the indictment might not even be directly tied to Russian collusion.

“Think back to the Clinton years,” Driscoll said. “The Whitewater investigation was about an Arkansas land deal. And it ended up being about something else completely.”

Driscoll added, “Robert Mueller is free to look at taxes, is free to look at lobbying filings, foreign agent filings. Things like that could all be involved that wouldn’t necessarily touch on the issue of Russia collusion that everyone seems focused on politically.”

Speculation has focused on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn as likely targets.

Manafort has been the subject of a longstanding investigation into his dealings in the Ukraine several years ago — for which he did not file as a foreign agent until June 2017. 

Federal agents, reportedly in search of evidence related to the Russia investigation, this summer raided his northern Virginia home. He also was reportedly wiretapped by investigators before and after the 2016 presidential election.

Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, was a Trump surrogate during the campaign and briefly served as national security adviser before being fired for failing to fully disclose his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, then-Russian ambassador to the United States.

The FBI also secured approval from a federal court to monitor the communications of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

On Saturday, Page released a statement to Fox News in response to questions about whether he or his lawyers have been notified about any charges.

Page said in the statement that he has worked with the executive branch and Congress since being contacted in March. But he also suggested that revelations about the Democratic Party having helped finance a dossier to smear Trump has tainted any Russia probe.  

“In terms of ‘charges’, I can’t even imagine what might even be considered now that the false evidence from the politically-motivated, big-money-financed Dodgy Dossier that started this extrajudicial disaster has instead been so thoroughly exposed as a complete sham,” Carter wrote in the statement. 

Richard Hibey, an attorney for Manafort, told Fox News on Friday that neither he nor any of his colleagues representing Manafort had been informed of any indictment of their client.

Manafort has been the subject of a longstanding investigation into his dealings in the Ukraine several years ago – for which he did not file as a foreign agent until June 2017. In addition to his home being raided, Manafort was reportedly wiretapped by investigators before and after the 2016 presidential election.

Flynn served as a Trump surrogate during the campaign and briefly served as national security adviser before being fired over his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, who was Russia’s ambassador to the United States.

Mueller has reportedly probed whether Flynn was involved in a private effort to get former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s emails from Russian hackers.

The Justice Department’s special counsel’s office declined to comment on the reports of filed charges.

Trump has denied allegations that his campaign colluded with Russians and condemned investigations into the matter as “a witch hunt”.

As I have told you before, boys and girls, make no mistake. Mueller is a part of the Washington Establishment.

While it is true that he served under both a Democratic and Republican President, he is still quite partisan. His loyalties are to the Washingtonian Status Quo.

That is why he expanded his investigation into the business dealings of a then-private citizen.

What boggles the mind is the fact that they have spent so much of OUR money investigating the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, and his son, Donald Trump, Jr., who have committed no crime.

Even a well-respected Liberal Professor Emeritus from Harvard, a renown Legal Scholar,  has written in op eds that no crime has been committed.

On July 11th, Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law and Electile Dysfunction”, wrote the following op ed for foxnews.com

Special Counsel Robert Mueller will surely be looking into the meeting between Donald Trump, Jr., and a Russian lawyer named Natalia Veselnitskaya.  Part of the meeting was also attended by Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, and Paul Manafort, who at the time was running Trump’s campaign.  It now seems clear from the emails that the Trump people went to the meeting expecting to be given dirt on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government.  The question remains, if this is all true, is it criminal?

The first issue that must be addressed by Mueller is whether any existing criminal statutes would be violated by collusion between a campaign and a foreign government, if such collusion were to be proved? Unless there is a clear violation of an existing criminal statute, there would be no crime.

Obviously if anyone conspired in advance with another to commit a crime – such as hacking the DNC – that would be criminal. But merely seeking to obtain the work product of a prior hack would be no more criminal than a newspaper publishing the work product of thefts such as the Pentagon Papers and the material stolen by Snowden and Manning.   Moreover, the emails sent to Trump Jr. say that the dirt peddled by Veselnitskaya came from “official documents.”  No mention is made of hacking or other illegal activities. So it is unlikely that attendance at the meeting violated any criminal statute.

Perhaps mere collusion by a campaign with a foreign government should be made a crime, so as to prevent future contamination of our elections. But it is not currently a crime.

Whether or not such collusion, if it occurred, is a crime, it is clear that the American people have the right to know whether any sort of collusion –legal or illegal – took place.  And, if so, what was its nature.

The Mueller investigation is limited to possible criminal activity.  Probing the moral, political or other non-criminal implications of collusion with, or interference by, Russia is beyond the jurisdiction of the special counsel.  It is the role of Congress, not the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, to make changes in existing laws.  Perhaps mere collusion by a campaign with a foreign government should be made a crime, so as to prevent future contamination of our elections.  But it is not currently a crime. 

Nor will it be easy to draft a criminal statute prohibiting a campaign from using material provided by a foreign power, without trenching on the constitutional rights of candidates.  But this is all up to Congress and the courts, not the special counsel, with his limited jurisdiction.

That is why the entire issue of alleged collusion with, and interference by, the Russians should be investigated openly by an independent nonpartisan commission, rather than by a prosecutor behind the closed doors of a grand jury. 

The end result of a secret grand jury investigation will be an up or down determination whether to indict or not to indict.  If there are no indictments, that will end the matter. The special counsel may issue a report summarizing the results of his investigation, but many experts believe that such reports are improper, since the subjects of the investigation do not have the right to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, which typically hears only one side of the case. Beyond any report, there will also be selective leaks, such as the many that have already occurred.  Leaks, too, tend to be one-sided and agenda driven.

A public non-partisan commission investigation, or even one conducted by partisans in Congress, would be open for the most part.  They would hear all sides of the story, and the public would be able to judge for itself whether there was improper collusion.  A commission or Congressional committee could also recommend changes in the law for the future.

The American people need to know precisely what the Russians tried to do and did – and what, if anything, the Trump campaign knew and did.  These issues go beyond a cops-and-robber whodunit. They involve the very essence of our democracy.

It is quite refreshing to read the writings of a level-headed Liberal for a change.

On, the night of the 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary and her henchman, Podesta came up with this cockamamie Russian Collusion Fairy Tale, which the Libs have been harping on, repeating lies as being facts, as if they graduated from the Dan Rather School of Broadcast Journalism.

As I have written before, the frenzy which they have built themselves into as a group resembles the mentality of an old West Lynch Mob.

They want a hanging, and by gum, there WILL be a “hanging”, even though, as Professor Dershowitz has written, there is no proof whatsoever that the President did anything wrong.

Being the minority Political Ideology in America has never stopped Modern American Liberals from trying to enforce their will upon the American people.

On November 8th, the Electoral College, put in place by our Founding Fathers, stopped them.

And, the Russia-Trump Collusion Fairy Tale and the staffing of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team with Democratic Donors is their attempt to circumvent our Constitution.

It is apparent that Mueller is a part of “The Resistance”.

It appears to this average American that Mueller, being well-connected in the Washington Establishment, is cut from the same cloth as Former FBI Director James Comey.

Mueller has turned out to be a political weasel, a professional bureaucrat who views himself to be more important than he actually is, just like Comey.

Remember, boys and girls…you can indict a ham sandwich.

Whether you have a case for conviction is another thing entirely.

President Trump needs to go ahead and fire Mueller.

…before he and the rest of “The Resistance” totally usurp the will of the American People.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Advertisements

Clinton Vs. the FBI: Comey Defies the DOJ. Clinton Defies the Law.

November 3, 2016

tarmac-nrd-600

I’ll tell you from my heart, looking at their party further and further to the left, to paraphrase the director of the FBI: I think it would be extremely careless to elect Hillary Clinton.  – Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate Mike Pence

The Washington Post is running the following story on Page One this morning…

Deep divisions inside the FBI and the Justice Department over how to handle investigations dealing with Hillary Clinton will probably fester even after Tuesday’s presidential election and pose a significant test for James B. Comey’s leadership of the nation’s chief law enforcement agency.

The internal dissension has exploded into public view recently with leaks to reporters about a feud over the Clinton Foundation, an extraordinary airing of the agency’s infighting that comes as the bureau deals with an ongoing threat of terror at home and a newly aggressive posture from Russia.

Comey, meanwhile, has come under direct fire for his decision to tell Congress that agents were resuming their investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server — a revelation that put him at odds with his Justice Department bosses and influenced the presidential campaign.

“He’s got to get control of the ship again,” said Robert Anderson, a former senior official in the FBI who considers Comey a friend. “There’s a lot of tension in the organization, and there’s a lot of tension in Congress and the Senate right now, and all that counts toward how much people trust the FBI.”

Comey has been under fire since Friday from lawmakers in both parties and even President Obama for his decision to inform Congress of the new developments in the email probe just 11 days before Election Day. On Thursday, people familiar with the matter told The Washington Post that Comey had learned three weeks earlier of the discovery of new emails potentially relevant to the case, but did not take action to resume the email probe until he was formally briefed last week on what investigators had found.

Clinton, who seemed to have momentum in battleground state polls before Comey’s Friday bombshell, notably declined on Thursday to say whether, if elected, she would ask the FBI director to resign.

“I’m not going to, you know, either get ahead of myself by assuming I’ll be fortunate enough to be elected,” Clinton said, responding to a question from SiriusXM’s Joe Madison. “That’s really up to you and your listeners. People have to turn out, or nothing that I’m going to be proposing will come into reality, but I also would never comment on any kind of, you know, personnel issue.”

Comey was confirmed to a 10-year term in September 2013. While the law allows a president to remove an FBI director, the step is rarely taken out of respect for the independence of the position. President Bill Clinton removed Director William S. Sessions in 1993 amid allegations of ethical improprieties.

The pent-up frustration inside the FBI seemed to burst when Comey revealed in a brief letter to legislators that agents in an unrelated case had found emails potentially relevant to the Clinton email investigation.

The details, then and now, were scant. Officials familiar with the matter said the messages came from a computer seized in the investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Agents said the messages were associated with Abedin and Clinton. Abedin has told people she has no idea how the messages got on the device.

Although investigators had discovered the emails in early October, software glitches prevented them from separating Abedin-related emails from the hundreds of thousands of messages recovered until Oct. 19 or 20, according to people familiar with the case.

While Comey had been quickly alerted by his deputy to the original find, he took no further action, allowing agents in the field to get a better idea of the scope of the material. Agents could use digital clues to decipher where emails had originated and been sent but were legally barred from reading the emails without a search warrant because they had been obtained in a separate investigation.

When agents formally recommended on Oct. 27 that the warrant be sought, Comey agreed and then felt obligated to inform Congress — which he did with his letter the following day. Comey’s only reference in the letter to the timing of his involvement was that he had been briefed the previous day.

FBI spokesmen declined to comment on the timeline of Comey’s knowledge or on internal tensions.

The FBI obtained a warrant Sunday to analyze the messages for the Clinton investigation. It remains unclear if any of the newly discovered emails contain classified or other relevant information.

Comey had previously said he recommended that the Clinton email case be closed without charges.

Not long after Comey’s new letter to Congress was made public last week, multiple media outlets reported that he had sent the missive against the advice of top Justice Department officials, who felt that commenting publicly on the inquiry would violate a long-standing policy not to take overt steps in investigations that could have an impact so close to an election. Before the weekend was over, the Wall Street Journal revealed there was a different, ongoing feud between FBI agents in New York and career public integrity prosecutors at the Justice Department over whether there was cause to investigate the Clinton Foundation.

Addressing the controversy in an interview posted Wednesday by NowThis News, Obama hinted that he was unhappy about the amount of information being revealed.

“I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations we don’t operate on innuendo, and we don’t operate on incomplete information, and we don’t operate on leaks,” he said.

Tensions had been thick between New York and Washington for months, dating to disagreements over how to handle the case of Eric Garner, the 43-year-old black man who died after being put in an apparent chokehold by a police officer. Officials in the Justice Department’s civil rights division wanted to move forward with a case against the police officer, but New York-based agents and prosecutors vehemently disagreed, according to people familiar with the case. The attorney general has yet to resolve the dispute.

In the case of the Clinton Foundation inquiry, it was the FBI agents pushing for stronger action.

In February, people familiar with the case said, agents made their case to public integrity prosecutors about why they should proceed with a probe looking broadly at whether donors to the Clinton family charity were given improper benefits by the Hillary Clinton-led State Department.

Justice Department attorneys and FBI officials in Washington viewed the agents’ presentation as lacking substantive evidence. The attorneys felt it relied too heavily on public reports and the book “Clinton Cash,” and denied the agents authority to move forward, according to people familiar with the discussions. The 2015 book, by conservative author Peter Schweizer, relied heavily on public records and presented a largely circumstantial case that State Department actions were driven by donations to the Clinton Foundation and payments to Bill Clinton.

The move frustrated some agents in New York. They felt they were being stymied by Justice Department higher-ups in Washington and pressed forward in ways they felt were permissible, according to people familiar with the case. In August, a Justice Department official got wind of those efforts and called a counterpart in the FBI to inquire about it, one of the people said. The agents thought they had reason to believe they should press forward, although their leaders were warned that they should not take any steps close to the election, the person said.

The people familiar with the matters declined to discuss the precise evidence that agents had obtained. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that their work involved informants and recordings from unrelated corruption investigations.

Officials speaking with reporters on the condition of anonymity is common, and several did so for this report. But the level of specificity that has emerged in recent days about a politically sensitive investigation on the eve of an election is unusual — a sign of the deep tensions inside the Justice Department.

A spokeswoman for the FBI’s New York field office and spokesmen for the Justice Department and FBI headquarters declined to comment for this report. FBI Agents Association President Thomas F. O’Connor said in a statement: “Agents undertake all investigations with an unwavering focus on complying with the law and the Constitution, and perform their mission with integrity and professionalism. Any implication that Agents are unwilling or incapable of performing effective investigations — or implications that Agents do not respect the confidentiality of those investigations — is simply false.”

If Clinton is elected, Comey might have to contend with one or more investigations involving a sitting president. If she is not, he might face criticism for upending her bid.

Anderson, the former FBI official, said Comey will have to work quickly to finish the restarted email review, then talk to leaders and visit field offices to ease the tensions in the bureau and help mend public perceptions of the FBI. Comey has repeatedly said in the past that is important to him.

“I don’t know what your parents taught you, but mine always taught me you can’t care what people think about you. I do,” he said at a recent conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the Justice’s Department’s National Security Division. “I do because the institution I’m lucky enough to lead depends upon the American people believing that we are honest, competent and independent.”

Comey’s right.

As an average American, living in the Northwest Corner of the Magnolia State, I believe the FBI to be trustworthy.

The overwhelming majority of their agents have devoted their lives to the service of our nation.

These are the individuals that the Liberal Writer of this article in the Liberal Newspaper that is The Washington Post, referred to as the “Rank and File”…Law Enforcement Professionals performing a thankless job, encumbered by the political machinations of a Federal Government top-heavy with endless bureaucracy, originating from an Executive Branch being led  by a Community Organizer who is more concerned with righting perceived “historical wrongs” than he is about keeping our nation safe and upholding our nation’s laws.

On June 29th of this year, Former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in her private jet sitting on the tarmac on an airport tunway.

The next morning I wrote,

“Now, why would someone as smart as Bill Clinton, the former president of United States of America comma and attorney general Loretta Lynch, have a meeting that has such an appearance of impropriety?

There are several possibilities.

The first possibility it’s obvious. But I met with the attorney general in order to plead with her to let Hillary off the hook and to not invite her for her treasonous behavior in her email scandal.

The Clintons have always thought they were above the law. Hillary has left a trail of bodies between Arkansas and Washington DC, and nothing has ever happened to her. But comma even for the Clintons, such a blatant move would be inherently stupid. And, it would not help her presidential campaign one bit.

Or, perhaps it was Loretta Lynch’s camp that leaked the information of the clandestine meeting to the local news station in order to recuse herself from the matter. This could be possible because it is well-known that the FBI Director is a very honest man and a straight-up guy who will indict Hillary Clinton if the evidence is there to do so.

And, it is.

The last possible Theory as to why Bubba and Miss Loretta had the clandestine meeting on that jet is that he was trying to leverage her by offering her a possible position on the Supreme Court if Hillary gets elected President the United States of America. Again, the clintons have always considered themselves to be above the law and they’re not beyond political chicanery such as that.

The bottom line is, whatever the purpose of that meeting on the tarmac was, nothing will happen. Simply because, boys and girls, Democrat Politicians are above the rules that apply to you and me. It does not matter if there is an appearance of impropriety comma nor does it matter if actual political chicanery, including bribery, happened onboard that plane.

Up on Capitol Hill, nothing will happen.

However, out here in Flyover Country, things are already happening as Rasmussen Reports posted a national poll yesterday showing that Donald J. Trump has taken a four-point lead and popularity over Hillary Clinton.

In my opinion, this is a lead that will continue to grow as low-information voters wake up to the fact that Hillary Clinton is in this race for herself, and not for them.

Between the information that Donald Trump and his Campaign Staff are sharing about her and the revelations being made about her reprehensible Behavior as First Lady and the information being shared by a Former Secret Service Agent who witnessed it firsthand, the American people are watching Hillary Clinton’s mask drop.

And, it is not a very pretty sight to behold.

Because, as the old saying goes,

Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes to the Bone.”

Now, four days before the biggest election in decades, the only question remains, when will Hillary Clinton be indicted?

…I hate it when I’m right.

Because, despite what the Liberal Reporter writing for the Washington Post might believe, the fault for Hillary Clinton’s outing as a sleaze ball criminal, which has been the cause of her demise as a viable Presidential Candidate, does not lie with FBI Director Comey, nor the “rank and File” agents who pressured Comey into finally doing the right thing and re-opening the investigation.

The fault, boys and girls, hangs squarely on the shoulders of Hillary Clinton. herself and it is she who must face the consequences for selling her Public Office to the highest bidder.

As Sammy Davis, Jr. (look him up, children) used to sing in the song, “Keep Your Eye on the Sparrow (the theme from “Baretta”)”,

Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time.

Until He Comes,

KJ

 

Hillary Clinton’s Foundationgate: The Selling Out of America for Fun and Profit…Is an Indictment Forthcoming?

November 2, 2016

untitled-113“Hillary Clinton is the defender of the corrupt and rigged status quo. The Clintons have spent decades as insiders lining their own pockets and taking care of donors instead of the American people. It is now clear that the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt enterprise in political history. What they were doing during Crooked Hillary’s time as Secretary of State was wrong then, and it is wrong now. It must be shut down immediately.” – Donald J. Trump, August 22, 2016

The Republican Candidate for President, Donald J. Trump, was exactly right.

The following transcript Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier comes courtesy of  RealClearPolitics.com

BRET BAIER: Breaking news tonight — two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations into the Clinton emails and the Clinton Foundation tell Fox the following: 

The investigation looking into possible pay-for-play interaction between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Foundation has been going on for more than a year. Led by the white collar crime division, public corruption branch of the criminal investigative division of the FBI. 

The Clinton Foundation investigation is a, quote, “very high priority.” Agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people about the Foundation case, and even before the WikiLeaks dumps, agents say they have collected a great deal of evidence. Pressed on that, one sources said, quote, “a lot of it,” and “there is an avalanche of new information coming every day.”

Some of it from WikiLeaks, some of it from new emails. The agents are actively and aggressively pursuing this case. They will be going back to interview the same people again, some for the third time. 

As a result of the limited immunity deals to top aides, including Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, the Justice Department had tentatively agreed that the FBI would destroy those laptops after a narrow review. We are told definitively that has not happened. Those devices are currently in the FBI field office here in Washington, D.C. and are being exploited. 

The source points out that any immunity deal is null and void if any subject lied at any point in the investigation. 

Meantime, the classified e-mail investigation is being run by the National Security division of the FBI. They are currently combing through former Democratic Congressman Anthony Wiener’s laptop and have found e-mails that they believe came from Hillary Clinton’s server that appear to be new, as in not duplicates. 

Whether they contain classified material or not is not yet known. It will likely be known soon. All of this just as we move inside one week until election day.

Baier gives more details to Fox News Channel’s Brit Hume.

Transcript: 

BRET BAIER: Here’s the deal: We talked to two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations. One: The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far… Several offices separately have been doing their own investigations.

Two: The immunity deal that Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, two top aides to Hillary Clinton, got from the Justice Department in which it was believed that the laptops they had, after a narrow review for classified materials, were going to be destroyed. We have been told that those have not been destroyed — they are at the FBI field office here on Washington and are being exploited. . 

Three: The Clinton Foundation investigation is so expansive, they have interviewed and re-interviewed many people. They described the evidence they have as ‘a lot of it’ and said there is an ‘avalanche coming in every day.’ WikiLeaks and the new emails.

They are “actively and aggressively pursuing this case.” Remember the Foundation case is about accusations of pay-for-play… They are taking the new information and some of them are going back to interview people for the third time. As opposed to what has been written about the Clinton Foundation investigation, it is expansive. 

The classified e-mail investigation is being run by the National Security division of the FBI. They are currently combing through Anthony Weiner’s laptop. They are having some success — finding what they believe to be new emails, not duplicates, that have been transported through Hillary Clinton’s server. 

Finally, we learned there is a confidence from these sources that her server had been hacked. And that it was a 99% accuracy that it had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that things had been taken from that…

There has been some angst about Attorney General Loretta Lynch — what she has done or not done. She obviously did not impanel, or go to a grand jury at the beginning. They also have a problem, these sources do, with what President Obama said today and back in October of 2015… 

I pressed again and again on this very issue… The investigations will continue, there is a lot of evidence. And barring some obstruction in some way, they believe they will continue to likely an indictment.

Just how corrupt was the pipeline between the Clinton Foundation and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

Per discoverthenetworks.org,

By the time Clinton left office in February 2013, the charity had received millions of dollars in new or increased payments from at least seven foreign governments. Five of the governments came on board during her tenure as secretary of state while two doubled or tripled their support in that time, according to data provided by CHAI spokeswoman Daley…CHAI should have told the State Department before accepting donations totaling $340,000 from Switzerland’s Agency for Development and Cooperation in 2011 and 2012. However, it did not believe U.S. authorities needed to review the other six governments, including Britain and Australia, she said, citing various reasons.” [Reuters, 3/19/15]

However, it was not just governments who sent money to the Clintons through their Foundation. Again, according to discoverthenetworks.org…

* “The Clinton Foundation swore off donations from foreign governments when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That didn’t stop the foundation from raising millions of dollars from foreigners with connections to their home governments, a review of foundation disclosures shows. Some donors have direct ties to foreign governments. One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities. Their professed policy interests range from human rights to U.S.-Cuba relations.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]

* During Secretary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, “More than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation… collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million…. Some donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/19/15]

Whether the revelation of “the gift” of massive quantities of Uranium to the Russians or the formation of an Iranian Connection, as a result of money given to the Clinton Foundation,  as was previously  reported in 2015, or this new revelation involving “dual-staffer” Cheryl Mills, this is not just a scandal involving money and unscrupulous political ladder-climbing through the peddling of “favors”, the actions of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State crossed the line into the abhorrent abyss of a Conflict of Interest involving possible Treason.

Time and time again, from Watergate to Travelgate to Benghazigate, and now to E-mailgate and the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton has proven to be a ruthless, untrustworthy, Machiavellian professional politician, who only cares about herself and her ascension to the Presidency of the United States of America.

As I have previously written, Clinton’s trail of corruption leads all the way back to when she was fired from the Watergate Investigative Committee for dishonesty.

However, to practice “Pay-For-Play” on a Global Scale, while holding the Office of Secretary of State of the United States of America,  issues downright treasonous.

Why did she do it?

Michael Goodwin, in a column for the New York Post, written last August, offered the following spot-on analysis:

The easy answers about why she did what she did are too obvious: She wanted to get rich and she didn’t want anyone to know her business.

Throw in her chronic paranoia and sense of entitlement, and she and Hubby Dearest had a rationale for thinking they were above the law. They’d escaped his impeachment trial, so they believed they had lifetime immunity.

All true, but too simple, and it’s impossible to believe that’s all there is. There has to be more, probably something so big and awful, it would destroy her if it’s discovered.

Remember, the Clintons were absolutely determined to get back to the White House, which would be the ultimate vindication of their public lives. Victory would make them unique in American history, so it doesn’t make sense that they would risk throwing it all away for the obvious — and ordinary — benefits already revealed.

The added riches they collected through what I believe are corrupt actions weren’t necessary. They were getting legitimately rich on his and her book contracts alone.

And what difference would another donation make to the foundation, which was already swimming in more money than it could spend?

Because none of this adds up to a coherent explanation, I believe we are still in the dark about a hidden bombshell. There must be a secret Unholy Grail that explains her self-destructive behavior of stonewalling and lying.

I won’t speculate on what the Clintons are hiding because my gifts of imagination are no match for theirs. They always had a knack for pioneering new ways of selling access. No president had ever thought of renting out the Lincoln Bedroom until they did it.

The sleazy act that so outraged the nation then seems positively quaint now, thanks to the creative ways they’ve monetized power since leaving the White House. Now they could afford to buy the furniture they tried to steal on their way out the door then!

Of course, I could be wrong. I could be giving them far too much credit.

Maybe the Clintons really are just ordinary grifters, con artists who enjoy the thrill of pulling off the scam. Maybe it’s not even about the money.

Then again, it’s always about the money, one way or another.

And so, as with Watergate, with Bernie Madoff and now with the Clintons, the advice to all gumshoes is the same: Follow the money. Whatever deep, dark secret they are hiding, the money will lead us to it.

The price of “paying tribute” in order to gain an audience with someone in power goes all the way back to Biblical Times, continuing to the American and French Revolutions.

Our government was never meant to be a Monarchy. America remains a Constitutional Republic.

American Politicians were never meant to be Lords, who would remain in power in perpetuity, amassing unlimited wealth by accepting “tribute” from those seeking “favors”.

Our Founding Fathers envisioned Citizen Statesman, who after serving their country and their communities for a short period of time, would return to their homes, to their families, and to their trades.

What Hillary Clinton tried to get away with is a prime example of why our Founders set up the System of Checks and Balances that they did when they were constructing our system of government.

Obama, the Department of Justice, and the Clintons circumvented that system with a series of maneuvers carried out between the White House, the campaign Trail, and a private jet idling on a Tarmac at an airport.

Come November, as Americans, we will have an opportunity to voice how we feel about this travesty of Justice in November of this year.

Unlike the French Revolution, we won’t have to entrust our future to Madame Guillotine.

Our country’s future will be entrusted to The Ballot Box.

Next Tuesday, remember that Hillary Clinton believes herself to be above the law.

And, vote accordingly.

Because, after all…

Fighting corruption is not just good governance. It’s self-defense. It’s patriotism. – Joe Biden

Until He Comes, 

KJ