By Kyle Smith
Amy Chozick probably knows, but she isn’t telling.
When the author of a book on the Hillary Clinton campaigns admits to breaking down in tears as Clinton’s defeat registered, you have to read between the lines to guess just how flawed Clinton is. Unflattering details come up, but because they’re being delivered by a friendly source, they’re not dwelt upon at great length.
One intriguing aspect of Amy Chozick’s reporting in Chasing Hillary is that Chozick wrote a story for the New York Times that never ran that celebrated Clinton’s convivial spirit (or, if you like, her boozing). After Clinton’s certain victory, the Times was prepared to run a full slate of stories exploring various aspects of its darling. In contrast, reports Chozick, as Donald Trump’s victory became increasingly probable on Election Night, an editor in the newsroom was heard to shout, “We got nothing,” meaning no stories prepared for the eventuality of Trump’s victory.
Scrambling, the Times repurposed a story that was intended to describe “white patrons at a dive bar in a Pennsylvania steel town ‘crying in their beers’ after Trump lost,” in Chozick’s words. The paper churned it into a tale of Trump’s unexpected triumph. It was pulled together so hastily that it was sent out into the world with the wrong bylines: Michael Barbaro and Matt Flegenheimer wrote it, but it was credited to Patrick Healy and Jonathan Martin, according to Chozick.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com …
It was a veritable spa of special treatment.
The FBI did everything but drive Hillary’s getaway car.
Former secretary of state Clinton is a free woman largely thanks to the tender loving care that the FBI provided her and her conspirators during its probe of her illegal, unsecure email server and related abuse of government secrets. GOP lawmakers concluded this after grilling FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe on December 21, behind closed doors, according to John Solomon’s molar-grinding exposé in Tuesday’s The Hill.
“For the first time, investigators say they have secured written evidence that the FBI believed there was evidence that some laws were broken,” Solomon reported. This proof includes what Solomon calls revelations of “irregularities and contradictions” in the FBI’s inquiry.
The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, law enforcement officials and a witness tells The Hill.
FBI agents from Little Rock, Ark., where the Foundation was started, have taken the lead in the investigation and have interviewed at least one witness in the last month, and law enforcement officials said additional activities are expected in coming weeks.
The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government outcomes.
The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or political use and whether the Foundation complied with applicable tax laws, the officials said.
One witness recently interviewed by the FBI described the session to The Hill as “extremely professional and unquestionably thorough” and focused on questions about whether donors to Clinton charitable efforts received any favorable treatment from the Obama administration on a policy decision previously highlighted in media reports.
The witness discussed his interview solely on the grounds of anonymity. He said the agents were from Little Rock and their questions focused on government decisions and discussions of donations to Clinton entities during the time Hillary Clinton led President Obama’s State Department.
The FBI office in Little Rock referred a reporter Thursday to Washington headquarters, where officials declined any official comment.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray late Monday afternoon demanding to know why early versions of former FBI Director James Comey’s statement exonerating Hillary Clinton strongly indicated she had violated federal law by hosting and sharing top secret information on a personal email server. In Comey’s final statement, which he delivered in July 2016, that language was changed.
“Although Director Comey’s original version of his statement acknowledged that Secretary Clinton had violated the statute prohibiting gross negligence in the handling of classified information, he nonetheless exonerated her in that early, May 2nd draft statement anyway, arguing that this part of the statute should not be enforced,” Grassley said.
From the letter, which details how the statement changed:
On November 3, 2017, the FBI provided documents in response to the Committee’s August 30, 2017, letter requesting records relating to then-Director Comey’s statement exonerating Secretary Clinton from criminal wrongdoing. Among those documents, the FBI provided what appears to be a May 2, 2016, draft of the exoneration statement, two months before Director Comey’s July 5, 2016 press conference. In that draft, the original language is shown to have included the following sentence:
There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the private email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified material.
That same draft also included the following sentence:
Similarly, the sheer volume of information that was properly classified as Secret at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the “up classified” emails) supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information.
To some, any comparison between the Clintons and the Rosenbergs is a bridge too far, yet both gave aid and comfort to a strategic enemy, Russia, aid that enhanced the capability of America’s enemies to wage nuclear war on the United States. The Rosenbergs trafficked in the design of nuclear weapons while the Clintons trafficked in the raw material for nuclear weapons — uranium. It is a distinction without a difference not lost on former deputy assistant to President Trump, Sebastian Gorka:
Gorka spoke during an interview with Fox commentator Sean Hannity on his show Hannity. The two discussed Secretary of State Clinton’s involvement in the 2009 U.S. decision to allow the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian mining firm with licenses to mine American uranium deposits in Kazakhstan.
“If this had happened in the 1950s there would be people up on treason charges right now,” Gorka told Hannity of the decision to allow the sale of Uranium One…
“This is equivalent to what the Rosenbergs did and those people got the chair,” Gorka said. “Think about it. Giving away nuclear capabilities to our enemies. That’s what we’re talking about.”
Gorka was referring to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed by electric chair in June 1953 after they were accused of giving top-secret nuclear weapon designs to the Soviet Union.
Hillary Clinton was signing copies of her new book “What Happened” in New York City today when journalist Laura Loomer stopped by to ask some serious questions.
“Hi, it’s so great to see you. Thanks for having me,” said Loomer. “So the American people would really like to know what happened to your 33,000 emails?”
“Hahahah,” Clinton responded, cackling like a witch.
“What happened in Benghazi?” asked Loomer.
“Go read the book,” answered Clinton.
“What happened to the millions of dollars that was supposed to go to the people in Haiti?” Loomer asked, referring to the millions of dollars in earthquake relief donations the Clintons were reportedly in charge of. “What happened to Seth Rich? What happened to your health Hillary?”
“You know what, I’m so sorry you believe things that are untrue,” Hillary replied. “Read the book.”
After getting only a cold reception from Clinton, Loomer then spotted embattled aide Huma Abedin in the bookstore.
“Huma its so great to see you. When are you going to divorce your husband for texting underage girls?” Loomer asked, referring to Anthony Weiner’s infamous criminal affair.
Loomer was detained by Secret Service for 20 minutes after asking these questions, but not because the Secret Service took issue with the questions’s content. Rather, the Secret Service was primarily concerned with someone trying to grab a strand of Hillary’s hair in response to Martin Shkreli’s satirical $5,000 “bounty.”
The Secret Service also wanted to look at Loomer’s phone, but she declined and the agents did not press the issue.