For the Record: Yes, Hillary Clinton Should Have Been Prosecuted for Willful Gross Negligence

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0d2bc74410568a147a7b85da4408a7979df06dea4739ed6366a5f287bd99dd75.jpg

Image via texasmonthly.com

 

Townhall

Guy Benson

Late last week, as the furor over the Inspector General report was raging, I devoted a fair amount of my radio show to arguing that Hillary Clinton should have been charged and prosecuted over her email scandal — the DOJ’s handling of which was the subject of the IG’s findings. I’ve already written extensively about Mrs. Clinton’s egregious misconduct, highlighting the reasons why it wasn’t just a series of stupid mistakes, and pushing back against unpersuasive arguments about the nature of her actions. It seems as though this same sticking point has also been bothering Harvard-trained attorney, former JAG officer, and former Cornell Law School lecturer David French, who made his case for prosecution at National Review Online on Friday. His indictment, rooted in personal experience and deep understanding of the relevant statutes, is compelling:

After reading the analysis, I just flat-out don’t buy that Hillary’s conduct — and her senior team’s conduct — didn’t meet that standard. The key reason for my skepticism is the nature of the classified information sent and received. Remember, as Comey outlined in his infamous July 5, 2016 statement, Hillary sent and received information that was classified at extraordinarily high levels…If you’ve ever handled classified information, you understand that there are often judgment calls at the margins. When I was in Iraq, I often made the first call about classification. In other words, I determined whether to send information up the chain via the unclassified system (NIPRNet) or the classified system (SIPRNet). Entire categories of information were deemed classified by default. Other categories were commonly unclassified. But sometimes, I had to make a choice. And sometimes, the choice wasn’t clear.

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com

The Deep State and Tyranny

Frontpage mag

by Bruce Thornton

The Department of Justice Inspector General’s Report released last week didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know, but merely added more damning evidence for the corruption of the FBI and its investigations over the last few years. More worthy of comment, as Andy McCarthy writes, is its refusal to use common sense and note the obvious interconnections among the various bad actors, and the bond of political bias, seasoned with careerism and arrogance, that united them.

But the problems we are confronting reflect deeper dangers than the professional corruption of some functionaries of corrupt executive agencies armed with the coercive power of the state. The true moral of the story is the dangers to freedom of centralized and concentrated power––the very dangers consensual governments, including our own, were created to minimize.

 

The issue of political bias, which the IG report scanted, has to be understood in the larger nature of the large-scale bureaucratic public institutions that comprise the Deep State. In other words, the structure and functioning of the institution itself creates a bias that selects progressive employees. The bias insidiously becomes a second nature of which they often are no more conscious than a fish is that it’s wet.

Leftist ideology from Marxism to Progressivism is particularly useful for creating such self-serving agencies. American progressivism was founded on the conceit that “technopolitics,” the notion that modernity requires specialists and experts in the “human sciences” who can most efficiently manage the state. Progressives rejected the old democratic and republican notion that virtue, practical experience, and common sense, none of which is dependent on university credentials, are adequate for citizens to govern no matter their wealth, lineage, or education.

This debate about whether men in general are capable of self-government runs throughout the whole history of political philosophy. The antidemocrats denied that the masses are capable of acquiring the knowledge required for participating in government. The champions of democracy, like the Greek philosopher Protagoras, countered that for social life itself to exist, all men must be capable of acquiring the skills of managing relationships with other people. That task always necessarily involves hierarchies of power, common sense borne of experience, and notions of fairness and justice that form the heart of politics.

Two thousand years later, James Madison in 1792 defined the nascent political parties, the Federalists and the Democrat-Republicans, in the same terms. The former, Madison argues, hide their aggrandizement of power to an elite behind the ancient charge “that mankind are incapable of governing themselves,” even as the elites use government to further their own interests. The latter believe people “are capable of governing themselves” and can recognize that the opposite view is “an insult to the reason and an outrage to the rights of man.” Thus they oppose any measure “that does not appeal to the understanding of the general interest of the community” or “is not strictly conformable to the principles, and conducive to the preservation of republican government.” All men are capable of thought, and recognize the principles of political equality and freedom, the “rights of man” that government is created to protect and preserve.

Progressives, of course, for all their talk of “equal rights” and “equality” and “democracy,” in fact have more in common with the antidemocratic tradition. Rejecting the permanence of human nature and its vulnerability to the temptations of power and its corrupting influence, they argued that the new technologies and economic institutions had created problems beyond the understanding of the average man, but also created new understandings of how to improve human nature. Now power must be centralized and concentrated, and the federal government expanded with new agencies and offices staffed with credentialed technocrats who understand the “new sciences” of human nature and society, and so can create policies and rules that better serve the citizens now shrunk into wards of government agencies.

Having pursued these aims for over a century, progressives have midwifed the bloated Leviathan that now encroaches into our lives, communities, and businesses. The costs to our freedom and autonomy, as well as the weakening of the Constitutional order, are obvious. But the bureaucratic structure of government agencies leaves them vulnerable to the long-documented pathologies of bureaucracies equally malign to the common good.

Continue reading

FBI IG Report: A Slap On The Wrist

 

Frontpage Mag

Joseph Klein

 

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz has released his 500 plus-page report, which purports to shine a light on the mishandling at top levels of the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation of the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she served as Secretary of State under former President Obama. Such mishandling included violations of Department of Justice standards and FBI protocols. The report from the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) criticized certain actions and decisions of former FBI Director James Comey, together with those of other senior FBI officials who were involved in the probe, including former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Mr. McCabe is already the subject of an earlier criminal referral from the OIG for his alleged unauthorized leaks to the media and lying to federal investigators about his media contacts. Special FBI agent Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page, an attorney who has since left the FBI, were targeted in this report for their blatantly anti-Trump text messages. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was also criticized for exercising bad judgment in connection with her infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton.

Mr. Horowitz’s report focused on process and procedures. The inspector general made clear when he launched his investigation in January 2017 that “his review will not substitute the OIG’s judgment for the judgments made by the FBI or the Department regarding the substantive merits of investigative or prosecutive decisions.” Moreover, this report did not address whether the Department of Justice or FBI abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to obtain a surveillance order against former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, or the government’s reliance on former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele’s salacious and unverified “dossier” in its FISA court application, which the OIG is investigating separately.

In analyzing the highly anticipated OIG report’s conclusions, it is clear that either Mr. Horowitz himself decided to pull his punches or that the final version, which had been reviewed by upper echelons in both the FBI and Justice Department before its public release, emerged in a disappointingly watered-down form. To be sure, the report faulted Comey for deviating from FBI and Justice Department procedures in handling the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she served as Secretary of State, thereby negatively impacting “the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice.” Comey, according to the OIG report, “engaged in ad hoc decision making based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding Department policy or practice.”

Continue reading

The Democrats’ IT Scandal Cover-Up

American Thinker

By Daniel John Sobieski

Former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz subverted our democracy and interfered in the 2016 election in ways Moscow could only dream of, yet while Special Counsel Robert Mueller continues to chase Russian phantoms, the case against Wasserman Schultz and Imran Awan, the IT director she and other Congressional Democrats employed, continues to drag on despite overwhelming evidence of criminality and clear national security implications.

Schultz was forced to step down after hacked emails revealed that she and the DNC had their finger on the scales and actively worked to defeat Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton.

She has been forced to step aside after a leak of internal DNC emails showed officials actively favoring Hillary Clinton during the presidential primary and plotting against Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders…

The Sanders campaign has long claimed that the party establishment had its “finger on the scales” during the bitter and surprisingly long primary, but the embarrassing new revelations proved to be the final straw for a figure who had been a lightning rod for tension within the party.

What the Democrats accused the Russians of doing, Debbie Wasserman Shultz’s DNC was actively doing. And considering what we have found out about the Pakistanis, not the Russians, that were brought in to run their IT operation, it makes sense as to why the DNC refused to turn over their servers to FBI forensic investigators. What else where they trying to hide?

Continue reading

TOM FITTON: FBI Delays Release of 16 Pages of Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Meeting Docs AGAIN

via Free Republic

The FBI once again delayed the release of 16 pages of Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting docs which were supposed to be given to government watchdog groups Thursday.

As previously reported, after twice-denying their existence, the Deep State admitted to Jay Sekulow and Tom Fitton it magically found more Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting docs and will be forced to turn them over to the ACLJ and Judicial Watch by the end of May.

These Clinton-Lynch tarmac documents were located after a THIRD ‘search’. The new documents consist of 16 pages and 2 Strzok-Page text messages.

The text messages were already released to the public; we are still waiting for the FBI to release the other 16 pages of documents.

It is now June 1st and the FBI is stonewalling and slow-walking documents AGAIN.

(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com

Hit Gas, Not Brakes, On Spygate

https://reclaimourrepublic.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/trump-spygate.jpg?w=637&h=636

Image via reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com

 

The American Spectator

George Neumayr

“I’d be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping,” Jon Favreau, one of Obama’s speechwriters, tweeted out in 2017. Members of the media, loath to let anything complicate their anti-Trump propaganda, chided him for this unhelpful slip and he quickly withdrew it, saying that he deferred to James Clapper’s denial of any wiretaps. But Favreau had already given himself away. In retrospect, the tweet is even more telling and confirms that knowledge of the spying was widespread at Obama’s White House. If a White House speechwriter far from the action knew about warrants on Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn, who didn’t?

From the beginning of this farce, the Obama administration has shifted back and forth between taking pride in the spying and denying its existence. We are back in the denial phase. But at the height of the hysteria after Trump’s election and inauguration, members of the Obama administration wanted everyone to know they had been spying on Trump and feared that he would destroy their “intelligence.” They leaked to the New York Times in March 2017 that they had “scrambled” to preserve the supposed damning results of their spying, in order to leave a “clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.”

By “intelligence,” they meant their own feverishly partisan sifting through negligible, half-cocked leads. Had there been any substance to their “intelligence,” they would have leaked it out. Having failed, they still thought they deserved an A for effort. They also saw the future political benefits of sliming Trump with innuendo, striking a posture that can be summed up as: Trust us, you guys, what we have found is really bad, but we can’t tell you yet. They couldn’t tell us because they had nothing to tell, but they needed to leave the impression of yet-to-be-disclosed dirt in order to trigger the Mueller investigation, and thanks to the recusal of Jeff Sessions they pulled it off.

Continue reading

Deep Throat, Deep State And #SpyGate Is Old News

Founders Code

by

C’mon… remember the Watergate break-in? Former CIA operatives were part of that. But wait, Nixon himself was being surveilled by the FBI. Anna Chennault, a GOP operative had interesting connections all throughout Asia. Those relationships were of big concern to the FBI and the Bureau was tracking those connections. That was all related to the Paris Peace talks on North and South Vietnam. Due to FBI eavesdropping and collections of diplomatic cables, Lyndon Johnson knew all about Nixon’s subterfuge. Have we forgotten the secret Nixon tapes? Too bad we can’t ask Mark Felt questions, dead men tell no tales.

Using intelligence agencies is an old habit, yet Obama appears to have made an art of that exploitation. Obama spied on journalists including James Rosen of Fox News. Obama likely approved of John Brennan’s operation to spy on the Senate staffers working on the enhanced interrogation techniques report headed by Senator Dianne Feinstein. Heck, Obama spied on Angela Merkel of Germany. Enter the NSA, they have everything. Edward Snowden proved that, right? Not too sure FISA warrants were ever really needed in the first place, think about that.

Spies, informants and operatives come in many forms. They can be staffers, hired ladies, lawyers, lobbyists, policy wonks, people having cocktails at conventions, summits or conferences where business cards are exchanged for later email/phone call follow-up.

It is all old news. Old news and old tactics that get refined due electronic communications, apps and encryption.

So, how do we know about these activities? Follow the money for starters. Remember the DNC and Hillary law firm, Perkins Coie?

The Obama for America committee paid Perkins Coie around $3 million during the 2012 election cycle, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission, A vast majority of the payments were earmarked for “Legal Services.”

Was Fusion GPS hired by Obama to surveil on Romney for opposition research? Was the media involved? Oh yeah, remember that debate and the advanced questions?  Then of course we have Fusion GPS and Trump.

Okay, this brings us to the current #Spygate and the names bubbling to the surface.

One such name is Stefan Halper. During the presidential transition, Donald Trump’s top trade advisor Peter Navarro, recommended Halper for an ambassadorship. Heck Halper was in the White House Executive Office wing last summer to discuss Asia with particular emphasis on China.

Stefan Halper goes all the way back to the Reagan/Carter days. Oh, wait… even Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush were included in Halper’s political history. Is there a difference between spying, intelligence collection and being a political operative? You decide.

There is more, How about Paul Corbin? He was a communist. And yes, he was a campaign operative too. He worked on the John F. Kennedy campaign. There was also ‘Debategate’.

Moving on and do NOT hang your hat on Carter Page. Remember the Washington Post editorial board doing an early interview with Trump and a question arose about his foreign policy team? Well, Trump threw out 2 names from the hip, Carter Page and George Stephanopoulos. In fact, neither had any quality role in the Trump operation. Another was Zalmay Khalilzad, former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations. Heck, Trump never met Khalilzad. He remains a back channel fella with concerns still with Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Khalilzad was part of a money laundering investigation in 2014. Could he be an operative too?

Now take a moment and see the issue of Russian operatives and spies in the United States to understand how the FBI tails these people. In 2010, there was a spy swap (10 operatives) that included 2 key people. One such person was Anna Chapman who was assigned to get inside the Hillary State Department operation(s) and she did. The other is Sergei Skripal. He is the former Russian military officer and double agent that Russia just attempted to kill with Novichok, a nerve agent. Then there was this other double agent in New York that was captured in a counter-intelligence operation as a result of spy operations that work out of the Russian Mission to the United Nations.

Are you beginning to understand the other work of the FBI? President Bush expelled 50 Russians, Reagan expelled 55 Soviets and both Obama and Trump have expelled 35 and 60 respectively.

With those facts, does it stand to reason that the FBI rank and file agents are very concerned about foreign operatives in politics and campaigns? There is for sure an argument to be made that informants and plants are not only used, but required.

Will we ever know all the puzzle parts to these cases? NO.

Is #Spygate a one off with regard to President Trump? NO.

Perhaps there is something yet to be discovered in Hillary’s missing emails or Peter and Lisa’s text messages. Hello IG report by Michael Horowitz.

The tactics are tried and true… however, when will the media much less the Republicans, call out the abuse of power the Obama administration on all of this? In summary, the Trump administration should fight back and impeach those Obama operatives, what say you?