The same year Hillary stepped down, President Obama appointed James Comey to replace Robert Mueller as FBI director. There is plenty of reason to believe the relationship between Obama and Clinton never really improved after their bitter fight for the 2008 Democratic nomination. But even when the players don’t like each other, they close ranks when it comes to protecting their fellow Swamp creatures. Comey, a convenient Republican at that time, was one of them. He could be counted on to defend the status quo and the Deep State against any external threats.
Just as Hoover would spy for Democratic or Republican presidents when it suited his personal agenda, “J. Edgar” Comey’s abuse of power crossed party lines. And, like Hoover, Comey seems to have an insatiable appetite for public acclaim, whether deserved or not. His press conference on Hillary’s emails wasn’t the first time he elbowed his way into the spotlight.
Way back in 2007, when Attorney General John Ashcroft was on his back in the hospital, Comey made a spectacle of himself by rushing to the hospital, sirens blaring, to “save America.” White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush’s chief of staff, Andrew H. Card, Jr., were in the intensive care unit trying to get Ashcroft to reauthorize President Bush’s domestic spying program. Comey wanted to prevent this because the power of the attorney general had been transferred to him while Ashcroft was ill.
Once appointed FBI director by President Obama, Comey was the good little Deep State soldier any sitting president would hope for.3 When the Uranium One story broke in 2015, did Comey let anyone know about the FBI’s informant and the evidence of money flowing directly from the Russian government to the Clinton Foundation? No.
When Attorney General Eric Holder ordered an investigation into the IRS’s targeting conservative groups to unfairly revoke their tax-exempt status, the results of the investigation sounded eerily like those of the Clinton email investigation. There was nothing that rose to the level of criminal behavior, as far as the FBI was concerned.4 Could the FBI have put together a case against a member of the Obama administration for any one of several illegalities? Their answer was apparently no, even if they had caught one crook red-handed.
The intent was to defend the machine, the apparatus, made up of millions of federal government employees who retain their jobs, regardless of who is elected by the people. After residing in the Swamp for so many decades, their goal is to guard the Swamp and protect each other.
God forbid Lois Lerner from the IRS is prosecuted, especially since Lois is the one who approved the 2009 Clinton Global Initiative for tax exempt status. The same goes for state department employees. That just might lead the great, unwashed masses to doubt whether the Washington Establishment selflessly serves the public as it claims. As much as they might have disliked the Obama administration, letting Toto expose the man behind the curtain was a much bigger threat than enduring a president with a few policies they didn’t like.
From that perspective, what Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Peter Strzok did during the 2016 election year makes much more sense. No, they didn’t like Hillary. Strzok said he was worried about her becoming president. He thought everything Bernie Sanders had said about her during the fixed primaries was true.5 But he preferred her to Donald Trump.
Comey’s intent was recently made clear when he announced during his book tour that he also preferred Hillary to Trump for president.
The Bogus Clinton Email Investigation
They didn’t love Hillary Clinton, but they liked Donald Trump even less. Clinton might have been a LIAR, a crook, and a Democrat, but she was also one thing Donald Trump wasn’t: a member of the Establishment. They disliked Clinton, but they feared Trump and what a Trump victory might mean for the parasite class that had fed so long and so voraciously on the American body politic. Trump was talking about busting up their racket, as more honest federal agents had done to Al Capone’s mob. Trump was an existential threat to the Establishment, and had to be stopped. But if that’s true, why did Comey make so many damaging statements against Hillary Clinton? Why not just quietly conclude the investigation with a recommendation that no criminal charges be brought, or at least follow the rules and say nothing.
The first answer is arrogance. Comey and his co-conspirators were so arrogant they didn’t even think Trump would win. Has there ever been a guy from real estate and then television to become president of the United States? They all thought it was a joke. They believed they could inflict some damage on Clinton without seriously jeopardizing her chances of winning.
Why would they want to damage her at all?
I believe they needed to maintain their own credibility. A recurring feature of Donald Trump’s campaign rallies was the thunderous sound of thousands of Trump supporters chanting “Lock her up!” It even broke out at the Republican National Convention, if you remember. President Trump graciously responded instead, “Let’s defeat her in November.” The animosity toward Crooked Hillary was not limited to the Republican Party. A good many Democrats believed she and the Democrat Party had colluded to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders. Now, we know they were right.
The FBI couldn’t just blow off the email controversy. They were going to have to come up with a way to appease the many millions of people who thought Clinton should be prosecuted for something, without exposing her to the justice system. So, they came up with the story that she had been “extremely careless” with classified information, but not grossly negligent. There was a reason for that.
We now know that the first draft of Comey’s statement clearing Clinton said she had been “grossly negligent” with classified information. It was none other than our Trump-hating suspect Peter Strzok who changed those words to “extremely careless.”6 Why? Because the statute criminalizing mishandling of classified information stipulates that a crime has been committed if the suspect is grossly negligent in handling the information, even if there was no intent to commit a crime. Mishandling classified information is one of the few crimes on the books that doesn’t require intent, as Comey himself acknowledged in the aforementioned statement.
“What is the difference between ‘grossly negligent’ and ‘extremely careless?’” Congressman Raúl Labrador asked the irreproachable Comey under oath. Comey slithered out of answering the question twice by splitting hairs over the way the question was asked.7
That exchange confirmed for me that Comey was dishonest. He went to law school, just as I did, and he knows full well that any legal definition of gross negligence contains the word careless or words to the effect of failure to exercise reasonable care. Strzok’s sly little line edit didn’t change a thing. Comey’s statement proclaimed Crooked Hillary guilty and then proceeded to say that the FBI wouldn’t recommend prosecution, when that wasn’t even his job.
He wasn’t just getting Hillary off the hook; he was sending a message. He was sending a message to millions of Americans who wanted the woman prosecuted that the rules don’t apply to her. Not only would she not be prosecuted, she would ascend to the highest office in the land.
I believe he was also sending a message to Hillary Clinton, just as his predecessor J. Edgar Hoover might have. He was telling her “We know what you did. We could finish you if we wanted to, but we’d rather have you in the White House. And once there, don’t you dare cross us, because we can take you down anytime.”
It was a classic Deep State move, and it would have worked if it hadn’t been for one little detail: she didn’t win.
CHAPTER NINE
The Liberal Insurance Policy
Peter Strzok, the FBI’s deputy assistant director of the Counterintelligence Division, who led both the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and the investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election, hated Donald Trump much more than Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. Yes, he texted his mistress Lisa Page that Bernie Sanders was such an idiot that seeing his bumper stickers made him want to key the owner’s car.1 But his loathing of Donald T
rump went far beyond even that.
Strzok seems to share Cardinal Comey’s affectation about being a selfless servant of the people (even though he seems to simultaneously hold them in contempt). One of Strzok’s anti-Trump text diatribes claimed the president “appears to have no ability to experience reverence which I [sic] the foundation for any capacity to admire or serve anything bigger than self to want to learn about anything beyond self, to want to know and deeply honor the people around you.”2
Can you believe the arrogance, hypocrisy, and self-delusion wrapped up in that one statement? And I love the Freudian slip of apparently mistyping is as I. Perhaps Mr. Selfless just couldn’t get I out of his mind while expounding about Trump’s personal shortcomings to the woman with whom he was cheating on his wife.
Despite the assurance he shared with everyone in that corrupted organization, Peter Strzok still feared what he ostensibly believed to be the impossible: a Donald Trump victory. And that’s when the idea of an “insurance policy” was born.
For the record, here is what Strzok texted:
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40 …”3
There are Strzok’s words, as clear as day, and no amount of Fake News Media spin can change them. What could an “insurance policy” mean other than a way to derail or incapacitate the Trump presidency in the unlikely event he won? Think about the insurance policies you yourself carry. Why do you have them? Not to prevent something bad from happening, but to be able to better deal with something bad if it does happen.
You have fire insurance on your house in case there is a fire. Do you expect to have one? No. There’s a very low chance your house will catch on fire. That’s why fire insurance is so affordable. But you carry it just in case, so you can replace your possessions or your home, if necessary, if the unthinkable happens. Buying fire insurance doesn’t do anything to prevent a fire. It only helps you deal with the consequences after you have one.
So, no, Strzok wasn’t trying to prevent Trump from winning. What he was doing was even worse. He was talking about having a plan to effectively disenfranchise the voters who elected Trump should he win. Forget democracy. Those voters whom Strzok doesn’t like are idiots, remember? He said so himself in one of the texts to his mistress. If his candidate of choice didn’t win, he was going to abuse the power entrusted to him to ensure that it didn’t matter. If the unthinkable happened, his insurance policy would help deal with it.
The insurance policy was the Russia collusion investigation.
Who Really Hacked John Podesta’s Email?
You may have trouble remembering how this all started. It began with the WikiLeaks release of a trove of emails from John Podesta’s account, which contained emails from Hillary Clinton or email chains containing emails from Hillary Clinton, which among other things showed what a phony, LIAR, and hypocrite she was. The important thing to remember is that everything WikiLeaks released was a primary document. It was Hillary Clinton in her own words, in context, firsthand. To date, there has been no proof WikiLeaks accounts were doctored.
Regarding WikiLeaks, at least one credible source says it wasn’t even the Russians who hacked Podesta’s emails. As reported by The Nation, a hard-left progressive publication, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) has independently analyzed the forensic data and concluded there was no hack at all.4 VIPS is made up of veterans of the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and other agencies. This isn’t a group of bozos on the Internet. They’re serious people, and they pointed out that the data in question had been copied at too high a rate of speed for it to have been done over the Internet. They said the speed with which the data had been copied was typical of copying data directly to a thumb drive. They also said that evidence showed the data had been copied on the East Coast.
Now, I’m no computer expert, and I certainly don’t intend to imply Vladimir Putin and the Russian government weren’t up to no good regarding our elections. There is other evidence that they have been at it since 2014.5 But I will say this: The Nation offers the only evidence to back up any conclusion about what happened to John Podesta’s emails. All the anti-Trump intelligence community has said is “Trust us.” Sorry, boys. I’m going to need more than that.
Even if the Russians did indeed hack John Podesta’s email account and give the information to WikiLeaks, no Russian interference affected the outcome. That bring us to “the dossier.”
Fake Intelligence: The Dossier
We now know, thanks to the memo by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes6 (which wasn’t substantively refuted by the Democratic attempt to spin the same information a different way7) that the FBI requested and received a FISA Court warrant and three subsequent renewals to electronically surveil Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. This was based on a dossier compiled by a foreign agent, funded by the DNC, and the Hillary Clinton campaign that was so outlandish that even most of the Trump-hating Fake News outlets excoriated BuzzFeed for publishing it.8 Although the dossier was not credible enough even for the Washington Post9 it was somehow credible enough to obtain a warrant from a secret court to spy on a private US citizen, Carter Page.
Suffice it to say, it was an unsubstantiated narrative to imply the Kremlin might have leverage in the event Donald Trump was elected president. The basis for that implication? That Trump had been set up with prostitutes during a visit to Russia. Not content to leave it at that, the author(s) threw in that prostitutes peed on Donald Trump, a known germaphobe. Cardinal Comey said he didn’t know of the story’s accuracy, but he believed it was possible. As I’ve said before, it’s possible, and it’s possible Martians were in that room peeing on the prostitutes, too. Maybe we should start a new investigation: are Martians colluding with the prostitutes to make the president look bad?
No major media outlet published the dossier besides CNN and BuzzFeed, amid condemnation by all their anti-Trump media colleagues.
I’m not going to bore you with a lot of legalese but allow me to take you into the courtroom with me for a moment. There is a rule of evidence, “Rule 403” in federal court, which deals with this kind of information being admitted as evidence into a court of law.10 It says the court may exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by, among other things, its prejudicial value. What does that mean? It means that if the evidence would tend to prejudice the jury against the defendant much more than it would tend to prove he committed the crime, the evidence can be excluded. Whenever extremely salacious evidence is offered in court, the defense attorney will object. And for anything as outlandish-sounding as what was in that dossier, that objection would be sustained every time.
Now, it’s true that the burden for obtaining a warrant is much lighter than for getting a conviction in court. An investigator need only show probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. There is no need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But obtaining a warrant still puts a rigorous burden on the applicant. The judge starts from the fundamental position that a wiretap warrant is at the very least an assault on the fourth amendment which must be overcome.
The FBI must truthfully present evidence and not mislead the court. Here it failed to fulfill that responsibility. It withheld a most important piece of information in obtaining the FISA warrant: that the dossier, compiled by a former foreign spy was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC.11 That was important information the court needed in making its determination that the representations made in the dossier were credible. The FBI intentionally withheld that. All it told the court, in a footnote no less, was that the material was “politically motivated” and had been “paid for by a political entity.”12
No unbiased law enforcement agency would ever present such an application to a judge, especially the top echelon. The FBI didn’t have re
sponsible leadership in 2016 and 2017. FBI head James Comey, along with Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok, all had a political agenda.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
The whole house of cards should have collapsed the moment the FBI knew the Clinton campaign and the DNC had paid $12 million for their chief piece of evidence. To circumvent election laws, the campaign had paid a law firm, which had then paid a research firm, which had then paid a former British spy to get dirt on Donald Trump from Kremlin-connected Russians.
The FBI had previously worked with that former British spy Christopher Steele. But when it came to the dossier, it not only ignored the political motivation behind his research, it paid him an additional $50,000 to continue. Not only was this dossier used to smear the president politically, it was used to create the special counsel, as the basis of congressional hearings and the reason for wall-to-wall anti-Trump media coverage. But worst of all, this known piece of political fiction was used as the excuse for further investigation, wiretaps, unmasking, and the FISA warrants in question.
That makes whatever was developed because of the warrant classic “fruit of the poisonous tree,” meaning it is inadmissible in court. When police illegally conduct a search without a warrant, any evidenceis inadmissible in court.
According to news breaking at the time of this writing, misleading the FISA Court and getting a warrant to spy on Carter Page wasn’t the most egregious act in furtherance of this conspiracy. Although the details are not all confirmed, my FBI sources are telling me there was indeed an FBI informant working inside the Trump campaign. They also say attorney general approval is required for this type of operation in a national campaign.
Liars, Leakers, and Liberals_The Case Against the Anti-Trump Conspiracy Page 14
