New FBI texts highlight a motive to conceal the president’s involvement. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455696/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-emails-key-decision-not-indict-hillary

From: National Review

by Andrew C. McCarthy January 23, 2018

From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton–emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call — not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.) The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account. 

 

These emails must have involved some classified information, given the nature of consultations between presidents and secretaries of state, the broad outlines of Obama’s own executive order defining classified intelligence (see EO 13526, section 1.4), and the fact that the Obama administration adamantly refused to disclose the Clinton–Obama emails. If classified information was mishandled, it was necessarily mishandled on both ends of these email exchanges.

If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton–Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges. 

 

That is why such an indictment of Hillary Clinton was never going to happen. The latest jaw-dropping disclosures of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, illustrate this point. 

 

For the moment, I want to put aside the latest controversy — the FBI’s failure to retain five months of text messages between Strzok and Page, those chattiest of star-crossed lovers. Yes, this “glitch” closes our window on a critical time in the Trump-Russia investigation: mid December 2016 through mid May 2017. That is when the bureau and Justice Department were reportedly conducting and renewing (in 90-day intervals) court-approved FISA surveillance that may well have focused on the newly sworn-in president of the United States. (Remember: The bureau’s then-director, James Comey, testified at a March 20 House Intelligence Committee hearing that the investigation was probing possible coordination between Trump’s campaign and Kremlin interference in the election.)

The retention default has been chalked up to a technological mishap. Assuming that this truly was an indiscriminate, bureau-wide problem — that lost texts are not limited to phones involved in the Trump-Russia investigation — it is hard to imagine its going undetected for five months in an agency whose business is information retention. But it is not inconceivable. Attorney General Jeff Sessions maintains that an aggressive inquiry is underway, so let’s assume (for argument’s sake, at least) that either the texts will be recovered or a satisfactory explanation for their non-retention will be forthcoming. 

 

For now, let’s stick with the Clinton–Obama emails.

On July 5, 2016, Comey held the press conference at which he delivered a statement describing Mrs. Clinton’s criminal conduct 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 the director and his advisers. 

 

This past weekend, in a letter to the FBI regarding the missing texts, Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) addressed some of these revisions. According to Senator Johnson, a draft dated June 30, 2016 (i.e., five days before Comey delivered the final version), contained a passage expressly referring to a troublesome email exchange between Clinton and Obama. (I note that the FBI’s report of its eventual interview of Clinton contains a cryptic reference to a July 1, 2012, email that Clinton sent from Russia to Obama’s email address. See report, page 2.) 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. [Emphasis added.] Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account. 

 

On the same day, according to a Strzok–Page text, a revised draft of Comey’s remarks was circulated by his chief of staff, Jim Rybicki. It replaced “the President” with “another senior government official.” This effort to obscure Obama’s involvement had an obvious flaw: It would practically have begged congressional investigators and enterprising journalists to press for the identification of the “senior government official” with whom Clinton had exchanged emails. That was not going to work. 

 

Consequently, by the time Comey delivered his remarks on July 5, the decision had been made to avoid even a veiled allusion to Obama. Instead, all the stress was placed on Clinton (who was not going to be charged anyway) for irresponsibly sending and receiving sensitive emails that were likely to have been penetrated by hostile intelligence services. Comey made no reference to Clinton’s correspondent: 

 

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. [Emphasis added.] Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. 

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. I detailed this reaction in a series of 2016 columns (see, e.g., here and here). What most alarmed Obama and Clinton advisers (those groups overlap) was not only that there were several Clinton–Obama email exchanges, but also that Obama dissembled about his knowledge of Clinton’s private email use in a nationally televised interview. 

 

On March 4, just after the New York Times broke the news about Clinton’s email practices at the State Department, John Podesta (a top Obama adviser and Clinton’s campaign chairman) emailed Cheryl Mills (Clinton’s confidant and top aide in the Obama State Department) to suggest that Clinton’s “emails to and from potus” should be “held” — i.e., not disclosed — because “that’s the heart of his exec privilege.” At the time, the House committee investigating the Benghazi jihadist attack was pressing for production of Clinton’s emails. 

 

As his counselors grappled with how to address his own involvement in Clinton’s misconduct, Obama deceptively told CBS News in a March 7 interview that he had found out about Clinton’s use of personal email to conduct State Department business “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.” Perhaps he was confident that, because he had used an alias in communicating with Clinton, his emails to and from her — estimated to number around 20 — would remain undiscovered. 

 

His and Clinton’s advisers were not so confident. Right after the interview aired, Clinton campaign secretary Josh Scherwin emailed Jennifer Palmieri and other senior campaign staffers, stating: “Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it on the news.” 

 

Scherwin’s alert was forwarded to Mills. Shortly afterwards, an agitated Mills emailed Podesta: “We need to clean this up — he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov.” (That is, 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”? 

 

Obama had his email communications with Clinton sealed. He did this by invoking a dubious presidential-records privilege. The White House insisted that the matter had nothing to do with the contents of the emails, of course; rather, it was intended to vindicate the principle of confidentiality in presidential communications with close advisers. With the media content to play along, this had a twofold benefit: Obama was able (1) to sidestep disclosure without acknowledging that the emails contained classified information, and (2) to avoid using the term “executive privilege” — with all its dark Watergate connotations — even though that was precisely what he was invoking. 

 

Note that claims of executive privilege must yield to demands for disclosure of relevant evidence in criminal prosecutions. But of course, that’s not a problem if there will be no prosecution. 

 

The White House purported to repair the president’s disingenuous statement in the CBS interview by rationalizing that he had meant that he learned of Clinton’s homebrew server system through news reports — he hadn’t meant to claim unawareness that she occasionally used private email. 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 Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, on an out-of-the-way Arizona tarmac, where their security details arranged for both their planes to be parked. 

 

Over the next few days, the FBI took pains to strike any reference to Obama’s emails with Mrs. Clinton from the statement in which Comey would effectively end the “matter” with no prosecution. 

 

On July 1, amid intense public criticism of 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. As Page told Strzok in a text that day, “This is a purposeful leak following the airplane snafu.” It was also playacting. Page elaborated that the attorney general already “knows no charges will be brought.” Of course she did: It was understood by all involved that there would be no prosecution. 

 

Knowing that, Lynch had given the FBI notice on June 30 that she’d be announcing her intention to accept Comey’s recommendation. 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 they did not need to participate in drafting the statement, and they did not need to know the precise words he was going to use. It was not Comey’s decision anyway. All they needed to know was that there would be no prosecution.

 

God bless,

JohnnyD

Close Call

From: Charlie Daniels Soapbox

by Charlie Daniels - 01.22.2018


We almost lost our country last fall. America was unwittingly on the precipice of becoming a nation whose government was willing to go to illegal and devious lengths to maintain the status quo.

I believe that the information that will be forthcoming in the next few weeks will be both astonishing and frightening to the American public, information that was never meant to see the light of day, much less the scrutiny of the American people.

I believe there will be irrefutable evidence of collusion among the upper echelons of the Democratic Party actually denying any candidate except Hillary Clinton a chance to be their presidential candidate.

I believe there will be evidence of the same people and their Democrat puppets in Congress to foist a false dossier, undocumented, totally unsubstantiated and paid for by the Democrats, on the American public aided by their serfs in the media that would falsely tie Donald Trump, his associates and members of his inner circle with the Russian government.

I believe there will be proof of the weaponizing of federal agencies and personnel and collusion between the Obama justice department and the FBI.

We already know that the Internal Revenue Service was used to deprive citizens groups of their rights and we know the guilty parties are still walking the street.

None of this was ever supposed to come to light, they were so arrogant and confident that Hillary Clinton was going to be president and all the garbage would be buried, the guilty parties would still be in power and that the socialist-globalist agenda of Barack Obama would go forth, that they didn't even take the time to properly cover their footprints.

And now, due to some diligent digging and dogged persistence by the few journalists who don't live in the Democrat puppy pound, the sordid and dangerous truth is starting to come out.

At this juncture, we don't know how deep the corruption goes or how high up the ramifications will reach, but it starts at the director level and could go all the way to the top.

These are the same people who perceived the American public to be gullible enough to believe that the murder of a United States Ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi was caused by an anti-Muslim video, created by some faceless, nameless character, who, to this day, nobody seems to know the whereabouts of.

And that in the course of thirteen hours the greatest military on the planet couldn't have executed a rescue plan. (And by the way, there is new evidence in the air on that Obama-Clinton debacle also).

It was all planned out, Hillary would be elected by a landslide, all the dirt would have been covered up, the guilty parties would go free and ultraliberal immigration policies would have been instituted, a quick path to citizenship established and an unbeatable voter base created to guarantee a Democrat government ad infinitum.

The entitlement rolls would have grown exponentially, the economy would have continued its downward spiral, as the Clinton government would have adopted the anti-business, pro-taxes policies of the Obama administration, the national debt, which Obama doubled while he was in office, would have expanded, and America would have continued to be viewed around the world as a wimpy, out of control former superpower, not worthy of either prestige or respect.

Our military would have continued to be neglected and downsized and the velvet glove treatment of Islamic terrorists would be maintained.

Religious freedom would have continued to be stifled and government bureaucracies and power would have grown until its tentacles would have reached into every facet of life.

Washington, even at its best, is a fetid swamp crawling with those who have sold their respectability, honor and constituents, and the nation for that matter, for a few more years of power.

At its worst, it's a concerted effort by politicians, who, even though they know they are proliferating a lie, are you listening, Congressman Schiff? they smugly push any scheme, no matter how underhanded, that will give their accursed political party an edge, even to the point of trying to decertify the election of a duly-elected president.

Does anybody actually think that Schumer, Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats and a couple of RINOs actually care about the dreamers?

Well, they have claimed that they care about the minorities for fifty years, but what have they done for them?

All the dreamers or the minorities mean to these burnt charlatans are votes, pure and simple. Just give us your vote and go back to the ghetto and wait for another fifty years.

America walked on thin ice and almost fell through, only the grace of God kept us from it.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, our police and the peace of Jerusalem.


God bless,
JohnnyD

You Can’t Be Both a Liberal AND an American at the Same Time

From: Constitution

By Warner Todd Huston - January 22, 2018



Liberals live in America, but they don’t love America. So, it’s not a surprise that they have an affinity for law breaking illegal aliens. After all, liberals don’t care about our laws or our sovereignty any more than transient illegals who come to the U.S. only to use it for its freebies and welfare, or to get a job to make a quick dollar to send back to their home country.

These transient illegals don’t have any more interest in being an American than liberals do.

So, when liberals fight for illegals, understand that they are doing so not out of love, but hate. Indeed, the modern Democrat Party is the biggest hate group in American history.

Today’s liberals are all about hate. They hate democracy, they hate the Constitution, they hate white people, they hate capitalism, they hate democracy, they hate republican government, they hate religion, they hate the family structure, they hate guns, they hate history, they hate freedom of speech and liberty… in short they hate everything about the U.S.A. and you can’t love a place that you hate so thoroughly.

In fact, the only thing they love about America is their assumption that they can “do whatever they want,” a concept they treat with licentiousness and wanton instead of the virtue and probity the founders hoped Americans would observe.

It might seem a natural progression, this party now having drifted to its logical extremes. Born of a hate for the equality of negroes, the Democrat Party morphed into a party that hates America itself as the nation struggled with the post Civil War reconstruction era.

As the 1890s dawned, liberals (who then called themselves progressives, a name they have picked up again recently) decided that the America of our founders was evil. In their view it was created so that rich, white guys could keep minorities and the middle class out of affecting the government. All the airy proclamations of freedom and liberty espoused by the founding generation was a knowing ruse mouthed only to hide the fact that they were secretly scheming against we, the people. Yes, “progressives” — who are today’s modern liberals — were the original whacked out American conspiracy nuts.

With that premise in mind, destructive activists like historian Charles Beard, education “reformer” John Dewey, and racebaiters like W.E.B. Du Bois set about to undermine and destroy the American ethos and smear the founders as false prophets.

This didn’t all happen in a vacuum, granted. These American left-wingers were all signing onto the basic precepts of socialism as espoused by European thinkers such as Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, and the other high profile bringers of the destruction of the old order. Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, and Communism (they are all essentially the same with no meaningful differences) were all the rage at the turn of the 1900s. Intellectuals imagined that they could “perfect” humanity through their greater intelligence applied with science.

The latter, most especially, is why the U.S. had to change as far as these people were concerned. For one, the industrial age brought new problems to bear on society that they felt the old American way could not address, but more to the point, the founders viewed human nature as a fixed quotient. Individual humans could change, certainly, but humanity as such was immutable. The founders agreed that people were mean, self-centered, stubborn, and prone to violence on the whole. They were naughty by nature not “basically good at heart,” as liberals then and now imagine.

The founders built their whole philosophy on the fact that we must build a government with the knowledge that the angels of our better mercies were often shackled by a venal human nature.

But, liberals rejected this utterly. Not only do they imagine that man is perfectible, they have also come to feel that killing anyone who disagrees with that premise will bring us closer to that perfection — and in the end rather proving the founders’ point, wouldn’t you say?

In the end, liberals may live in America, but they cannot BE American and stay liberal at the same time. They reject the American ethos of equal rights based on an immutable human nature, they oppose the idea of people deciding for themselves how to lead their lives, they stand against any system grounded in the sanctity of the rule of law, they despise constitutional originalism, and they reject a republican form of self-government.

So, when you hear Democrats today argue their positions, realize that it is all based on hate. They don’t want you to have the freedom to control your own life. They consider themselves “experts” who are smarter than you and should tell you how to conduct your life. They think you are just clay for them to mold and you should shut up and let your betters control your life.

But, I plead with you, America. Don’t sit back and take this crap from these communists who have been proven wrong over and over again by the blood of more murdered human beings than from any other ideal (yes, even more than religion). Fight back. Take a hand at dismantling, discrediting, and destroying liberals. They aren’t just “another party.” They are an enemy to this country almost as much as ISIS would be.

Fake news is their tool. Your enslavement is their goal.


God bless,
JohnnyD