FBI to NSA “Got HRC’s Rx?”

This is a STUNNING article. It is the backstory on what led to FBI Director Comey’s surreafbi_badge__gunl news conference non-indicting-indicting Hillary Clinton. The day before, the 4th of July (poetically), the FBI asked the NSA “Hey, you guys got Felony Grandma’s medical records? Can we have a look-see? Girlfriend says ‘I can’t recall due to my head injury’ so we want proof she’s full of it.” Comey intervened, said “Don’t you dare,” then 24 hours later, the surreal news conference. Enjoy.


What Happened to the FBI? It’s Been Corrupted by Obama and his Team
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published October 27, 2016

Napolitano: What’s happened to the FBI?

When FBI Director James Comey announced on July 5 that the Department of Justice would not seek the indictment of Hillary Clinton for failure to safeguard state secrets related to her email use while she was secretary of state, he both jumped the gun and set in motion a series of events that surely he did not intend. Was his hand forced by the behavior of FBI agents who wouldn’t take no for an answer? Did he let the FBI become a political tool?

Here is the back story.

The FBI began investigating the Clinton email scandal in the spring of 2015, when The New York Times revealed Clinton’s use of a private email address for her official governmental work and the fact that she did not preserve the emails on State Department servers, contrary to federal law. After an initial collection of evidence and a round of interviews, agents and senior managers gathered in the summer of 2015 to discuss how to proceed. It was obvious to all that a prima-facie case could be made for espionage, theft of government property and obstruction of justice charges. The consensus was to proceed with a formal criminal investigation.

Six months later, the senior FBI agent in charge of that investigation resigned from the case and retired from the FBI because he felt the case was going “sideways”; that’s law enforcement jargon for “nowhere by design.” John Giacalone had been the chief of the New York City, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., field offices of the FBI and, at the time of his “sideways” comment, was the chief of the FBI National Security Branch.

The reason for the “sideways” comment must have been Giacalone’s realization that DOJ and FBI senior management had decided that the investigation would not work in tandem with a federal grand jury. That is nearly fatal to any government criminal case. In criminal cases, the FBI and the DOJ cannot issue subpoenas for testimony or for tangible things; only grand juries can.

Giacalone knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would be toothless, as it would have no subpoena power. He also knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would have a hard time persuading any federal judge to issue search warrants. A judge would perceive the need for search warrants to be not acute in such a case because to a judge, the absence of a grand jury can only mean a case is “sideways” and not a serious investigation.

As the investigation dragged on in secret and Donald Trump simultaneously began to rise in the Republican presidential primaries, it became more apparent to Giacalone’s successors that the goal of the FBI was to exonerate Clinton, not determine whether there was enough evidence to indict her. In late spring of this year, agents began interviewing the Clinton inner circle.

When Clinton herself was interviewed on July 2 — for only four hours, during which the interviewers seemed to some in the bureau to lack aggression, passion and determination — some FBI agents privately came to the same conclusion as their former boss: The case was going sideways.

A few determined agents were frustrated by Clinton’s professed lack of memory during her interview and her oblique reference to a recent head injury she had suffered as the probable cause of that. They sought to obtain her medical records to verify the gravity of her injury and to determine whether she had been truthful with them. They prepared the paperwork to obtain the records, only to have their request denied by Director Comey himself on July 4.

Then some agents did the unthinkable; they reached out to colleagues in the intelligence community and asked them to obtain Clinton’s medical records so they could show them to Comey. We know that the National Security Agency can access anything that is stored digitally, including medical records. These communications took place late on July 4.

When Comey learned of these efforts, he headed them off the next morning with his now infamous news conference, in which he announced that Clinton would not be indicted because the FBI had determined that her behavior, though extremely careless, was not reckless, which is the legal standard in espionage cases. He then proceeded to recount the evidence against her. He did this, no doubt, to head off the agents who had sought the Clinton medical records, whom he suspected would leak evidence against her.

Three months later — and just weeks before Clinton will probably be elected president — we have learned that President Barack Obama regularly communicated with Clinton via her personal email servers about matters that the White House considered classified. That means that he lied when he told CBS News that he learned of the Clinton servers when the rest of us did.

We also learned this week that Andrew McCabe, Giacalone’s successor as head of the FBI Washington field office and presently the No. 3 person in the FBI, is married to a woman to whom the Clinton money machine in Virginia funneled about $675,000 in lawful campaign funds for a failed 2015 run for the Virginia Senate. Comey apparently saw no conflict or appearance of impropriety in having the person in charge of the Clinton investigation in such an ethically challenged space.

Why did this case go sideways?

Did President Obama fear being a defense witness at Hillary Clinton’s criminal trial? Did he so fear being succeeded in office by Donald Trump that he ordered the FBI to exonerate Clinton, the rule of law be damned? Did the FBI lose its reputation for fidelity to law, bravery under stress and integrity at all times?

This is not your grandfather’s FBI — or your father’s. It is the Obama FBI.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.

### end ###

G.W.B. Was Never THIS “Incurious”

“Even if you have only limply functioning neurons and no press-credentials, a human-organism of blob-shape can ascertain, without even jiggling your blob, that two presidents don’t accidentally “run into” each other anywhere.  Ever.”

Remember how 99% of the political class at ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc. sniffed at how “incurious” President Bush was?  When, in fact, it turns out his G.P.A was a point higher (not much but it matters!) than John Kerry’s?  And it has later emerged that President Bush is an avid, voracious reader (It’s been reported a book a week, typically, favoring non-fiction, and these are books well over 300 pages & without pictures, for any snot-nosed progressive who might be reading this.)

Well, we’ve reached peak “incurious.”  

And, once again, sadly, it is as it relates to those who cover presidents, and not, predictably, as it relates to the intellectual capacity of a president himself  – with or without a “D” after his name.

The most white-hot story in politics right now is Hillary Clinton’s rogue email server. There’s nothing more important or interesting in political circles right now – off-the-air, that is.  

Oh, there’s been some coverage of this profoundly criminal and dangerous breach of national security on the alphabet networks, and even MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” has had some honest coverage of it (but that’s only because they want another Democrat to win, not Hillary, who is insufficiently radical, to them, which is kind of horrifying all by itself.)

And, to be sure, The New York Times has done extensive reporting on the issue, even “breaking” the story back in March (but that’s only because they were fed all the details by that no-necked-short-furry-Machiavellian-troll Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s handler-consigliare, who also hates Hillary, also because she is insufficiently radical – and other reasons.)  

The New York Times has subsequently done some other reporting, from other reporters there, trying to white-wash the whole mess, and it’s a safe bet the white-wash reporters got expletive-laced, screaming, threatening phone-calls, just like the original March story reporter got, who dutifully changed the text without attribution (You’re supposed to tell your readers when you change the meaning of the text of an original story.  The New York Times didn’t. That’s bad.  It’s “Journalistic Ethics 101.”).  The Washington Post appears to have had the same trajectory.  So while hat-tips are owed to MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, for covering at all, their motives are suspect; cleary, deeply, cynically, suspect.

So here we are.  It’s the dog-days of summer, Obama’s on the Vineyard, and a Clinton is in legal trouble.  All is normal.

Except it’s not.

It’s really, really not.

The two men who have treated Hillary to her two biggest public humiliations, Bill, who serially cheated on her, and Barack, who beat her from her “inevitable” crown in 2008, “ran into each other” on the golf course.  “Accidentally” says the press.

WHAT?

Even if you have only limply functioning neurons and no press-credentials, a human-organism of blob-shape can ascertain, without even jiggling your blob, that two presidents don’t meet “accidentally” anywhere. Ever. Their Secret Service details know.  Are we to believe nobody on the Obama detail called their buddy on the Clinton detail or vice-versa?  Seriously?  That’s silly, childish even.  That’s unicorn territory. No.  This was a purposeful meeting.  And the fact that there are pictures is also no accident.  Obama has proven capable of keeping the overwhelming majority of his time on all his golf outings private – if he wants to. There’s no way a picture of the two presidents would happens unless Obama wanted it to.  No way.  

So!  What are we to believe about this?  Here are some ideas, as curated by Twitchy, that seem right to me, and gave birth to this blog post of mine. How is it POSSIBLE we have such an incurious press?  I can think of a dozen questions, (without jiggling my blob!) I would love to ask, if only to see the looks on their faces, which might be all the answer we need.  Good grief!    

 

   


BOOM! (That’s what I think.)

Stubbornly, Positively Ineducable

Regarding the last time a Democrat President (Clinton/North Korea) played nuclear footsie with genocidal maniacs…

If you don’t learn from the past, you will repeat it. Guess it helps to be a Democrat. Because then you can just ignore it, with the help of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, etc, quite literally papering it over for you.  Past, shmast. This time it’ll work.  No. Really. It will. See, the right people weren’t in charge then. We’re wicked super-smart. We got this…

Uh, huh.

CCPmGPoUMAANFLE

 

h/t to the following tweep for bringing this awesome list to my attention:

 

Cotton Swabs & Lying-Ass Democrats

Not every politician out of Arkansas is a skirt-chasing sociopath. (I refer to one William Jefferson Clinton for you youngsters joining us today.)

Republican Representative Tom Cotton of Arkansas’ 4th district absolutely SCORCHES the parade of lying-ass Democrats taking to the House floor, one after the other, in advance of voting on the formation of the Benghazi Select Committee.  It’s just 2 minutes, but BOOM.  Think puppies curling their tails to cover their genitals and whimpering. That’s the only appropriate reaction for any Democrat with a conscience (I know, I know…) after hearing this honorable young man speak truth to power.

We salute you, sir! And THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!  On both battlefields; foreign, with lethal bullets, and domestic, with sewage-packed rhetorical ones.

Full text & video of his remarks are below.  Italics & bold are mine.

===========================================================

“Mr. Speaker, couple lessons I learned in the Army were you moved to the sound of gunfire and the most important step in the troop leading procedures is to supervise the execution of you orders.

When Americans were fighting for their lives in Benghazi, Barack Obama did neither. He sent no quick reaction force and didn’t even stay in the situation room to supervise the execution of his orders. We expect more from the lieutenants in the army than our president gave us that night.

For two years he’s covered up this failure of leadership by stonewalling. Not anymore. We will now get to the truth.

But what do our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say to this? They express great outrage at politicizing this matter.

When I was leading troops in Iraq in 2006, men and women who were being shot at and blown up by al Qaeda, where was the outrage as they fundraised endlessly off the Iraq war?

Where was the outrage as they viciously attacked our commanders?

Where was the outrage when they said soldiers were war criminals?

Where was the outrage when they said the war was lost?

Where was the outrage when they said only high school dropouts join the Army?

Forgive me if I don’t join my democratic colleagues in their fake outrage. Four Americans lost their lives that night in Benghazi. They deserve justice and the American people deserve the truth.

One other lesson I learned in the Army is that we leave no man behind. And we will not leave these four men behind.”

Benghazi’s TRUE Meaning & DANGER

In a May 3, 2014, American Thinker piece entitled Dangerous Times: Still Missing the Strategic Meaning of Benghazi”  by one James Lewis, we see, plainly, in a way few – very few – have done before, how uniquely treasonous the occupant of the Oval truly is. And I mean every single syllable of that: uniquely treasonous the occupant of the Oval is. Notice I did not say how wrong the President is. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

We don’t know who this man is, and we have never – never – seen anything like this before.

Read excerpts below, but please, take the time to read the entire thing when you have a quiet few minutes to truly digest it.

==========================

From Dangerous Times: Still Missing the Strategic Meaning of Benghazi“: 

…Obama’s secret policies have… been exposed to public view with the Benghazi fiasco. It is now clear that since Obama came to power, the U.S. government has overturned all the fundamental values that have characterized American policy from Thomas Jefferson onward. Under Obama we have secretly joined the terrorist side in the Jihad War.

In any other administration that would be unbelievable, but consider the facts.

1) 500 million dollars in arms to al-Qaeda in Syria.

Intelligence analyst Clare Lopez and a group of distinguished retired military and intelligence experts released a statement …. ‘(after) a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack (in Benghazi that) has determined that it could have been prevented — if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.’…

Now stay with that for a minute. The United States government gave half a billion dollar in armaments to murderous al-Qaeda butchers who kill Christian children in Syria and Kenya in the name of Allah…

But this undoubted crime against humanity is not the first policy perversion this administration has committed…

2) Active collusion with the fanatical Islamofascist Muslim Brotherhood sect in overthrowing… Hosni Mubarak, who was literally told by Obama to resign, in public… No informed Egyptian doubts …Obama (i)s a ruthless enabler of an Islamofascist sect… [Mubarak] followed Anwar Sadat, the first heroic Arab leader to make peace with Israel, a peace that has now lasted for forty years. It is still the only formal peace agreement that has brought stability to the chronically unstable Middle East. Obama deliberately undermined Hosni Mubarak, and Bill Ayers was even reported to be agitating against Mubarak in collusion with the Hamas gang in Gaza…

3) …Hillary’s closest sidekick Huma Abedin comes from an MB family — everything comes down to family and tribe in the Arab world — and edited a Muslim Sisterhood magazine before her present role in the Hillary campaign. Huma was Hillary’s closest aide as Secretary of State, and therefore privy to numerous secrets. You can bet that Mohammed Morsi in Egypt knew all about the inner workings of Hillary’s State Department. Hillary was in charge during the Benghazi debacle. Just connect the dots…

4) …And now we can plainly see that Obama has actually enabled the mullahs’ rush to nuclear weapons. The fact that Valerie Jarrett was born in Khomeinist Iran and grew up in that kind of family is just another sign of radical Islamists penetration of this administration, at the very highest level.

5) …Today, contrary to Obama’s election time lies about Benghazi, al-Qaeda is expanding explosively in Africa and the Middle East. The Malaysian Airlines plane that somehow disappeared recently may well have carried a terrorist bomb…

In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood actually won power with Obama’s active collusion… Today, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt are seeing huge civil conflict, precisely because of Obama’s idea of community organizing in the Middle East. This administration has made things worse, and at least 100,000 people have died as a result. Does the phrase “crime against humanity” ring any bells?

6) Obama’s closest “friend” in the Middle East is said to be Turkey’s increasingly dictatorial Recip Erdogan, who peddles another throwback ideology to the horrific past, called “neo-Ottomanism.” …Today the most famous crime of the late Ottomans is the Armenian Genocide, which Obama has failed to even call by its proper name: A planned mass murder of vast numbers of Armenian Christians by Djemal Pasha, solely because of their faith and ethnicity…

7) The NATO invasion of Libya was a clear violation of international law. When Mr. Obama was asked on TV about the need for Congressional approval of the Libyan invasion, he simply laughed. As the ACORN Manual puts it, in politics “only might is right.” (That was of course a Nazi slogan.)

NATO bombing in collusion with Libya’s al-Qaeda gangs destabilized the relatively sane regime of Muammar Gaddafi, who had actually surrendered his nuclear arms program to the Bush Administration. Bush and Cheney were desperate to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons and ICBMs to suicidal groups like the Iranians. Obama reversed that policy. He has actually enabled Iran’s nuclear program, and lately he openly surrendered to Iran in Geneva. The mullahs couldn’t stop laughing. Now the Saudis are now reported to be buying their own nukes and missiles, because they are fifty miles across the Gulf from Iran’s missiles. Obama has therefore actively enabled a nuclear arms race in the Gulf. The facts are clear…

==========================

There’s more. It MUST be read in it’s ENTIRETY.  SEVERAL TIMES and CONTEMPLATED if you are to be TRULY awake and informed. PLEASE.