Dem paper reports FBI found email from a Dem saying Obama's A-G assured him she wouldn't let investigation of Hillary "go too far"
Recently a purveyor of sketchy, unreliable "information" reported that the FBI had found an email from a Democrat operative stating that the operative had gotten assurances from Obama's former Attorney-general Loretta Lynch that she would not allow any investigation of Hillary
Clinton's private email server--or the thousands of classified emails sent to that server--to proceed "too far."
Of course in weighing whether this information is accurate you have to consider the source. In this case the source is...the NY Times. Which loves Hillary and hates Republicans. So this is a HUGE "admission against interest"--which vastly increases the chances that it's accurate, since no one likes to admit things that hurt their side--obviously.
If Lynch did indeed give such assurances, this would be a bombshell--a total perversion of the law, and thus totally consistent with the tactics of emperor Obozo and the entire Democrat party. So a few congresswhores wanted to know a) if the FBI indeed found such an email; b) if so, who sent it and who received it; and finally, c) if the email existed, did the horribly politicized FBI investigate the reported "assurance" from Lynch.
You should keep in mind that the attorney-general is the nominal head of the ludicrously-misnamed "justice department," and that the FBI is a division of that department. If you think the head of the FBI would allow his agents to investigate the charge that their own boss was corrupt, I've got some ocean-front property in Nebraska I'd like to sell you.
Anyway, a few days ago FBI director--and Hillary defender--James Comey testified before a senate committee, and was asked about the story reported by the Times.
His answer was..."I can't tell you because it's classified."
This is utter bullshit. I'm very familiar with how information gets classified, and Comey's answer is pure crap. He simply didn't want to say who sent the email, or who the recipient was, or what it contained.
But it gets even better: The senator who asked Comey that question followed up with "So did the FBI investigate the charge that the attorney-general had given that assurance?" Comey answered the same way: "I can't tell you in this forum because it's classified."
This is proof that Comey is lying, because even IF the means by which the FBI got the email was classified, the question of whether the agency investigated CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CLASSIFIED.
Comey is lying--just as he lied when he claimed--falsely--that the law penalizing mis-handling of classified information requires "intent"--the bullshit he spouted to rationalize why he didn't charge Hillary with breaking that law. The statute clearly, unequivocally does NOT say someone must have an intent to break that law to be charged.
Comey is a bad actor. A liar. But I have to admit he's VERY convincing. Watching him spout his lies to the senate committee he looks like a Boy Scout--very convincing. See for yourself in the vid:
But wait, it gets even better: At the end of the clip Comey tells the senator "By the way, I'm not confirming that there IS such an email." This after he's just made an excuse about why he was refusing to tell the panel what it said because he claimed the email was "classified."
If it doesn't exist, why the bullshit excuse that "it's classified"?
Comeys belated "I'm not confirming the email exists" is the kind of addendum thrown in by someone who just realized that merely lying about why he was refusing to answer on grounds of "classified" implicitly confirmed the NY Times story about the email! Ooops.
Now for the big question: Why would the Times make an admission that *should* have Americans shouting for the prosecution of both Lynch and Obozo for obstruction of justice?
Unless the editors of the Times have had brain transplants, they would never print this unless there was a really compelling reason to do so--one that overrode the possible damage to the party from disclosing the email's damning information.
The reason is that the Democrats and the Times have reason to believe that information is about to surface anyway. One likely source is one of a few honest FBI agents who have been sickened by the willingness of Comey and other agency bigwigs to cover up Hillary's corruption and try to fire up Dems to impeach Trump.
The other possible source is an NSA employee seeking to cut a deal to avoid prosecution for breaking the law.
Finally, anyone care to guess who sent the thing? I will: Andrew McCabe, assistant director of the FBI. A key Hillary ally arranged to donate $700,000 to his wife's congressional race. That kind of support buys friends. And turns out McCabe was the guy running the investigation of Hillary's emails.
How...conveeenient.
Watch for McCabe to retire in a few months, without ever being charged for anything.
Clinton's private email server--or the thousands of classified emails sent to that server--to proceed "too far."
Of course in weighing whether this information is accurate you have to consider the source. In this case the source is...the NY Times. Which loves Hillary and hates Republicans. So this is a HUGE "admission against interest"--which vastly increases the chances that it's accurate, since no one likes to admit things that hurt their side--obviously.
If Lynch did indeed give such assurances, this would be a bombshell--a total perversion of the law, and thus totally consistent with the tactics of emperor Obozo and the entire Democrat party. So a few congresswhores wanted to know a) if the FBI indeed found such an email; b) if so, who sent it and who received it; and finally, c) if the email existed, did the horribly politicized FBI investigate the reported "assurance" from Lynch.
You should keep in mind that the attorney-general is the nominal head of the ludicrously-misnamed "justice department," and that the FBI is a division of that department. If you think the head of the FBI would allow his agents to investigate the charge that their own boss was corrupt, I've got some ocean-front property in Nebraska I'd like to sell you.
Anyway, a few days ago FBI director--and Hillary defender--James Comey testified before a senate committee, and was asked about the story reported by the Times.
His answer was..."I can't tell you because it's classified."
This is utter bullshit. I'm very familiar with how information gets classified, and Comey's answer is pure crap. He simply didn't want to say who sent the email, or who the recipient was, or what it contained.
But it gets even better: The senator who asked Comey that question followed up with "So did the FBI investigate the charge that the attorney-general had given that assurance?" Comey answered the same way: "I can't tell you in this forum because it's classified."
This is proof that Comey is lying, because even IF the means by which the FBI got the email was classified, the question of whether the agency investigated CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CLASSIFIED.
Comey is lying--just as he lied when he claimed--falsely--that the law penalizing mis-handling of classified information requires "intent"--the bullshit he spouted to rationalize why he didn't charge Hillary with breaking that law. The statute clearly, unequivocally does NOT say someone must have an intent to break that law to be charged.
Comey is a bad actor. A liar. But I have to admit he's VERY convincing. Watching him spout his lies to the senate committee he looks like a Boy Scout--very convincing. See for yourself in the vid:
But wait, it gets even better: At the end of the clip Comey tells the senator "By the way, I'm not confirming that there IS such an email." This after he's just made an excuse about why he was refusing to tell the panel what it said because he claimed the email was "classified."
If it doesn't exist, why the bullshit excuse that "it's classified"?
Comeys belated "I'm not confirming the email exists" is the kind of addendum thrown in by someone who just realized that merely lying about why he was refusing to answer on grounds of "classified" implicitly confirmed the NY Times story about the email! Ooops.
Now for the big question: Why would the Times make an admission that *should* have Americans shouting for the prosecution of both Lynch and Obozo for obstruction of justice?
Unless the editors of the Times have had brain transplants, they would never print this unless there was a really compelling reason to do so--one that overrode the possible damage to the party from disclosing the email's damning information.
The reason is that the Democrats and the Times have reason to believe that information is about to surface anyway. One likely source is one of a few honest FBI agents who have been sickened by the willingness of Comey and other agency bigwigs to cover up Hillary's corruption and try to fire up Dems to impeach Trump.
The other possible source is an NSA employee seeking to cut a deal to avoid prosecution for breaking the law.
Finally, anyone care to guess who sent the thing? I will: Andrew McCabe, assistant director of the FBI. A key Hillary ally arranged to donate $700,000 to his wife's congressional race. That kind of support buys friends. And turns out McCabe was the guy running the investigation of Hillary's emails.
How...conveeenient.
Watch for McCabe to retire in a few months, without ever being charged for anything.
posted by SF at
12:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home