For the last ten years our nation has been wracked by a titanic power struggle--nothing less than a fight for the future of this country.
Most Americans have only the sketchiest idea that anything's been going on. Of course. Most of you are busy raising your kids and trying to make your house payment. I understand. It's not your fault that you don't know about the huge fight that's been going on.
Most of you got a hint that something was wrong back when Hilliary was shown to have violated the law on handling classified material but the then-director of the damn FBI--supposedly the nation's tops
law-enforcement agency--airily decided not to charge her with *anything*--even though ordinary military people are in prison for far less serious violations of that same law.
A few of you got more uneasy if you heard about the meeting between Obama's attorney-general, Loretta Lynch, and former president Bill Clinton days before the director of the FBI was to announce whether Hilliary was to be prosecuted. The meeting took place in Lynch's government jet, parked in a remote location on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport.
The FBI took pains to ensure that the meeting wouldn't be observed by any ordinary American. But it was, so Obama's "Just Us" department--which Lynch headed--was ready with a cover story: According to Lynch and the FBI this meeting was
totally accidental.
Many of you were...skeptical. And with good reason.
Then when the emails between top FBI agents investigating alleged "collusion" between Trump and the Russians were released, showing how violently they hated Trump, and wanted an "insurance policy" to prevent him from being elected, some of you felt alarm bells going off.
You were right.
I've been posting about it for two years, as have other bloggers.
Now conservative analyst Andrew McCarthy at National Review has put most of the pieces of the puzzle together. I've edited his piece below, but certainly it's worth your time to read the original in case I misssed something.
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature knew the fix waa in to avoid charging Hilliary for routinely sending above-top-secret emails to her private email account, the physical server for which was in a closet in her mansion in New York. But since the people conspiring to keep her from being charged were the top powers in the nation, how could we uncover the truth?
And the truth turns out to be that the decision not to charge
Hillary Clinton with even the slightest crime for her violation of laws on handling classified information was made by...Barack Hussein Obama, president of the United States.
If you read history (or you're over 65 or so) you may recall that one of Richard Nixon's famous lines was "If the president does it, it's legal." This statement was widely (and understandably) ridiculed, and he was eventually forced to resign--the only president to do so. So you can imagine that if Barack Obama--the Democrats' golden god--were to take the same position, his legacy would be totally devastated.
Obama ordered that Hilliary not be charged for two huge reasons: First and most obvious was that he needed her to win. But the second is that because of the release of emails--including Wikileaks--we know with total certainty that Obama himself sent classified email to Hilliary, then later--in a television interview--lied that he didn't even know that she had a private email account until he "learned about it the same time everyone else did, through news reports."
Obama knew that if Hilliary was charged, his equal violation--sending classified to her unsecured email account--would also be discovered. As would his brazen lie that he didn't know about her email account until he read about it in the newspaper.
While he could probably have avoided prosecution by claiming--as Hilliary did--that he simply didn't know that sending classified email to a private account was against the law, that would have made him look stupid and incompetent--something unthinkable to an egotistic narcissist like Obama. And of course once he chose to lie and claim he didn't know about her email account before, the "I didn't know it was wrong" excuse was no longer believable. Why lie about something if you didn't think you'd done anything the least bit wrong?
Both revelations would have been devastating, and Obama wouldn't have chosen either one. The only solution was to ensure that Hilliary wasn't charged. If Hillary were charged and found guilty, Obama would have been equally guilty of the same offense.
On April 5th, 2016, the FBI interviewed Huma Abedin. They showed her an email, sent to her boss, Hilliary, from a sender with a nondescript email address, and asked her if she knew who sent it. She said she didn't recognize the sender's address.
The FBI interviewers then did something unprecedented--something agents would never do if the fix wasn't in, because it tells the witness something extremely valuable: They told Abedin that the sender was Barack Obama, using a
pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system --
something anyone with a high-level security clearance (which Abedin had) would instantly realize was a major breach.
"How is this not classified?" she demanded. She recovered quickly, though, as the very next
thing she did was to ask if she could have a copy of the email. She knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If Obama himself
had sent email over a non-government, non-secure system, then
everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Thus any possibility of
prosecuting Hillary Clinton was tanked by President Obama’s conflict of
interest.
When we learned that the White House was
refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with Hilliary via latter’s private e-mail account, we
knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was
the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified
information. So the Justice Department couldn't prosecute Clinton without explaining why Obama wasn't guilty of the same thing. Thus Obama had to ensure that Hillary wouldn't be charged with anything.
On July 5, 2016, Comey held the press conference at which he described Mrs. Clinton’s sending classified email as "extremely careless," but
nevertheless recommending against an indictment. We now know that
Comey’s remarks had been in the works for two months and were revised
several times by his advisers.
Last weekend the chair of the
Senate Homeland Security Committee noted a draft
of Comey's statement dated June 30, 2016--five days before Comey read the final statement in his press conference--contained a passage expressly referring to a troublesome email
exchange between Clinton and Obama.
The passage in the June 30 draft stated:
We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email
domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.
She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United
States, including from the territory of sophisticated adversaries. That
use included an email exchange with the President while Secretary
Clinton was on the territory of such an adversary.
According to one of the released Strzok–Page texts, a revised draft of
Comey’s remarks was circulated by his chief of staff, Jim Rybicki, the same day, in which the phrase “the President” was replaced with “another senior government official”
to avoid admitting that Obama knew about Hilliary's private email account.
But this clever evasion had an obvious flaw: congressional investigators--and clever
journalists--would likely have asked the bureau to identify the “senior government
official” with whom Clinton had exchanged emails.
The conspirators decided not to risk it, and the final draft of Comey's July 5th statement clearing Hilliary removed both "the president" and "a senior government official." It now read
We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail
domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.
She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United
States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the
territory of sophisticated adversaries.
Problem solved--or at least nearly solved.
The decision to purge any reference to Obama is consistent with the
panic that seized his administration from the moment Clinton’s use of a
private, non-secure server system was revealed in early March 2015. What most alarmed Obama and Clinton advisers was not only that there were several Clinton–Obama email
exchanges, but also that Obama lied about when he learned that his secretary of state had a private email account--and indeed, had been using it for her entire tenure as SecState. She never had an official dot.gov account.
As luck would have it, Obama denied earlier knowledge of Hilliary's email account in a nationally televised interview.
On March 4, as soon as the New York Times broke the news about Clinton’s
private email account, John Podesta (Clinton’s campaign chairman) emailed Cheryl Mills (Clinton’s main fixer and top aide in at State) to suggest that
Clinton’s emails to and from Obama should be “held” — i.e., not
disclosed — because “that’s the heart of his exec privilege.”
Three days later, on March 7th, as Obama's counselors argued about whether he should admit knowing about Clinton's private email account, Obama decided the issue by lying to CBS News, claiming he'd only learned about Clinton’s use of personal email to
conduct all official State Department business “the same time everybody else learned
it, through news reports.”
CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Obama when he learned about her private email system. “The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,” the
president said. “The policy of my administration is to encourage
transparency, which is why my emails...all those records are available and archived,” he said. “I’m glad that Hillary’s instructed that those emails about official business need to be disclosed.”
As you'll see later, this was a brazen lie--total theater to con the public. In fact Obama quickly ordered all his emails sealed, meaning they couldn't be revealed even through a Freedom of Information Act request. He would also have known Hilliary would delete any emails to or from his "alias" account, because incriminating him would remove her protection.
Scherwin’s alert was forwarded to Cheryl Mills. An agitated
Mills then emailed Podesta: “We need to clean this up — he has emails from
her — they do not say state.gov.” In other words, Obama had emails from
Clinton which he had to know were from a private account, since her
address did not end in “@state.gov” as State Department emails do.
So how did Obama and his helpers ‘clean this up’? Simple:
Obama had his emails to and from Hilliary sealed, by invoking a previously-nonexistent "presidential-records privilege."
The White House
insisted this had nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the
emails, but was done because of the principle of
confidentiality in presidential communications with close advisers.
With the mainstream media willing to play along, this had a double benefit: First, it enabled Obama
to avoid using the term
“executive privilege” — with all its dark Watergate connotations — even
though that was precisely what he was invoking.
Second--and far more crucial: It enabled him to avoid admitting that the
emails contained classified information--since to admit that would have been admitting to violating the same law regarding mishandling classified information that was starting to plague Hilliary.
The White House then explained Obama's lie to CBS by saying that what he meant was that
he learned of Clinton’s private server system through news reports, and wasn’t claiming to have just learned that she had a private
email account.
This was sheer misdirection: From Obama’s standpoint, the problem
was that he discussed government intelligence matters with the
secretary of state through a private email account; the fact that, in
addition, Clinton’s private email account was connected to her own
private server system, rather than some other private email service, was
beside the point. But, again, the media was not interested in such
distinctions and contentedly accepted the White House’s non-explanation.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Loretta Lynch ordered Comey to use the word
“matter” rather than “investigation” to describe the FBI’s probe of
Clinton’s email practices. This ensured that the Democratic
administration’s law-enforcement agencies were aligning their story with
the Democratic candidate’s campaign rhetoric. If there was no
investigation, there would be no prosecution.
In April 2016, in another nationally televised interview, Obama made
clear that he did not want Clinton to be indicted. His rationale was a
legally frivolous straw man: Clinton had not intended to harm national
security.
This was not an element of the felony offenses she had
committed; nor was it in dispute. No matter: Obama’s analysis was the
stated view of the chief executive. If, as was sure to happen, his
subordinates in the executive law-enforcement agencies conformed their
decisions to his stated view, there would be no prosecution.
Within a few weeks, even though the investigation was ostensibly still
underway and over a dozen key witnesses — including Clinton herself —
had not yet been interviewed, the FBI began drafting Comey’s remarks
that would close the investigation. There would be no prosecution.
On June 27, Lynch met with former president Bill
Clinton on the parking ramp at Phoenix airport, where their security
details arranged for both their planes to be parked side-by-side.
(But the meeting was totally accidental, remember?)
Over the next few days the FBI carefully deleted any reference to
Obama’s emails with Mrs. Clinton from the statement Comey would make 8 days later, recommending no prosecution.
On July 1, amid growing public criticism about her meeting with Bill
Clinton, Attorney General Lynch piously announced that she would accept
whatever recommendation the FBI director and career prosecutors made
about charging Clinton.
This was simply theater--a farce to make the public believe the fix wasn't in.. Page elaborated that the attorney general already “knows no
charges will be brought.” Of course she knew: It was understood by all
involved that there would be no prosecution.
Knowing that, Lynch could go on television and with an earnest, sincere expression, announce that she and her agency would accept whatever FBI director Comey recommended.
Fearing this
just might look a bit choreographed, the FBI promptly amended Comey’s
planned remarks to include this assertion (which he in fact made on July
5): “I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with
the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do
not know what I am about to say.”
But of course there was no need for Comey to "coordinate" with DOJ--because everyone involved in the "investigation" already knew Comey would recommend that Hilliary not be charged.
All cleaned up: no indictment, meaning no prosecution, meaning no
disclosure of Clinton-Obama emails.
On July 2, with the decision that she would not be indicted long since
made, Mrs. Clinton sat for an interview with the FBI — something she’d
never have done if there were a chance she might be charged.
When the FBI finally got around to interviewing Hilliary--after Comey had already drafted the statement clearing her--the farce
was compounded when it allowed two of the subjects
of the investigation — Cheryl Mills and Clinton aide Heather Samuelson — to
sit in on the interview, ostensibly because they claimed to be lawyers representing Clinton. This isn't
something law enforcement abides when it is serious about making a case.
But in this case everyone already knew there would be no prosecution.
In that case no one was surprised to learn that Hilliary was not required to testify under oath, nor was the interview even recorded, whether electronically or by a court reporter. Nice.
All cleaned up: no indictment, no prosecution, no
disclosure of Obama's emails to and from Clinton.
It all worked like a charm... except for the million-to-one longshot that Hilliary lost the election. Otherwise all the evidence would have vanished forever.
As it is, Obama holdovers in the FBI and DOJ--like Rod Rosenstein and current director (and Comey protege) Christopher Wray are trying their best to sabotage both this investigation and Trump. And they may well succeed.
