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 ###

Trump Liquefaction

liquefaction
noun. [lik-wuh-fak-shuh n]

  1. the act or process of liquefying or making liquid.
  2. the state of being liquefied.

Geology: The process by which sediment that is very wet starts to behave like a liquid. Liquefaction occurs because of the increased pore pressure and reduced effective stress between solid particles generated by the presence of liquid. It is often caused by severe shaking, especially that associated with earthquakes.


I first learned of liquefaction by having an example of it quite literally shaken into me. Though I was “safely” on the bedrock of North Beach when the Great Quake of 1989 struck, the bruised cloud of the fires that burned in the Marina District of San Francisco were visible from my window. Why did the Marina burn? Well, turns out the Marina District of San Francisco, like the Back Bay of Boston, are landfill. Just… sand. Lots of it. Manufactured land that is there not by the Grace of God but by the hand of man. We built it. To make extra room. Which is all fine and good until there’s an earthquake. Then all that cemented over sand acts like, well, sand. And gives way.

The cement roads in North Beach looks just like the cement roads in the Marina. You can’t tell just by looking at them that beneath the former is bedrock and the latter is sand.

Until something destructive happens.

In the political arena, that’s Trump. We’ve found out the hard way who’s bedrock and who’s sand. I opined on this the other day, but Did They Ever Believe? says it better.

Enjoy.


Townhall.com 4/21/2016
Did They Ever Believe? by Derek Hunter

To hear TV personalities and pundits who’ve espoused conservative values and policies for years abandon them for an egomaniac incapable of the most basic discussion of policy makes you wonder if they ever meant it.

Is the desire for relevance so strong that principle can be cast aside? Or did they ever hold those principles in the first place?

Are they so beholden to ratings and money they’re willing to betray all they’ve presented themselves as for access?

Either they’ve been lying all along, they’re lying now, or they never had any idea what conservatism is about.

Trade wars, government intervention in the economy, ordering businesses around about how to operate, health care mandates, whining about rules, etc., etc., … Republicans have espoused all of them in the past. But that doesn’t make them conservative.

Truth can’t be situational. Principle is not dependent upon circumstance. Yet these “leaders” swept aside reality in Colorado, which held a caucus on May 1, and embraced the “voterless victory” lie. To do anything else would risk their access to Trump, who won’t return to interviewers who ask real questions and call him out on his non-answers.

Did they fall for a bumper sticker? Is it all that simple? Are they that open to suggestions written on hats? Do they follow people home to ask them about their grandchildren because they read it on the back of a minivan?

“Make America Great Again” reads well, as long as you don’t ask the only follow-up question that matters: How? Does citing poll numbers wipe the section of the brain containing the fact Social Security and Medicare have 100+ trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities and Donald Trump said straight out he doesn’t want to reform them at all?

These pundits and hosts have become unwatchable. They’ve betrayed all they’ve done to this point. So much so, you have to wonder if they were this awful all along. Did they pull the greatest hoax in history?

Like the “GOP establishment” they decry, they’ve been selling one thing but became something else when the chips were down. After years of demanding accountability from squishy Republicans in Congress, they’ve become John Boehner.

They plead neutrality, but they embarrassingly badger other candidates to justify playing by the rules because Daddy Trumpbucks whines about a “rigged system.” If the system is so corrupt, and he’s winning, what’s that say about him?

The throne-sniffing media “conservatives” know not to bother with difficult questions on complex issues. Substantive discussions with Trump are like throwing a newborn into the deep end of a pool. So they don’t happen, no matter how many times they interview him.

When not kissing Donald’s ring, these establishment media types can be heard sucking up to his children. It is embarrassing.

No, they couldn’t have switched on everything overnight. They must’ve been playing a role. Conservatism sells, especially on radio and in cable news. So you just have to say a few buzzwords, go “rah-rah” for this or that cause, feign outrage at all the right times, and boom – job security.

When that security is threatened by the most powerfully addictive drug America has seen since Heisenberg’s blue meth – a celebrity – a course adjustment becomes easier if your highest principle always has been yourself.

We’ve been duped by a marketing gimmick akin to “Batman vs. Superman,” which left us thirsty, holding cases of “New Coke.” These weathervanes of the right are the father who went out for a pack of smokes and never came back.

If Donald Trump doesn’t reach 1,237 delegates before Cleveland, count on these mic’d up megaphones to maintain their silence as Donald’s goon squads make good on their promise to threaten and harass delegates to get their way.

Be it by stalking them in their rooms or preventing them from even getting to the convention, this subject will remain a blow-off topic in their sessions with The Donald. They’ll mention it, and he’ll say those people have no connection with the campaign. Since Trump’s company is private, and he won’t release his tax returns despite not actually being under IRS audit (another no-go topic for interviews), we’ll never know if they’re getting money from him or how much.

We’ll be left to wonder why these people are so devoted to a man they’re willing to work tirelessly for him for free.

Then again, that’s what these “titans” of conservative media have been doing, so maybe it’s not so farfetched.

In the end it doesn’t much matter if they ever believed. It’s clear they don’t now, and now is all there is. Well, now and tomorrow. After November, the tomorrows for these soothsayers of victory will run as dry. Their audiences will wonder how “the man who was going beat Hillary” lost. To paraphrase the mythical Pauline Kael quote, they won’t know how Trump lost … everyone they listened to said he was the only one who could win.

###

Megyn Kelly: Little Sister of the Poor

Huh?  Megyn Kelly’s a NUN?  Dang!  They don’t make nuns like they used to, huh? Wowza!

No… That’s not what I’m saying.  I’m saying that everyone is missing the argument about Megyn’s question at the Republican debate:  it’s not that Megyn ‘had an agenda’ to ‘take out Trump’ (which, even if it’s true, and it may well be true, still doesn’t harm what I am about to say in any way.  They can both be true, so if you’re a Trump supporter or a conservative just unhappy with Fox, don’t click away!) What everyone is missing is that by asking the question at all, she’s implicitly endorsed the ‘War on Women’ liberal meme as valid and worthy, in the same way Obamacare, by making Little Sisters of the Poor, sign a piece of paper pushing off the responsibility to pay for abortion to someone else, makes the nuns endorse abortion as valid and worthy of their notice and their facilitation of its continuance

Even if you ascribe the most benign reason for the question, “Well, they’re going to be asked this stuff on every other network debate, so might as well get it out of the way early,” you assume 1.) It’s a valid meme now and it will still be a valid meme then, thus ascribing to us all a unique ability to see into the future, most especially, the ability to see into presididential-campaign-season future, which would be a pretty nifty trick, 2.) That the purpose of Republicans debating is to defend themselves morally and politically from Democrats at all, ever, thus conferring upon this defensive posture legitimacy and validity, 3.) That a Republican debate should be about politics not substanceever, 4.) That a single solitary second of precious air-time should be devoted to this nonsense over _________ (Pick any one of dozens of colossal Obama administration failures, felonies, or fires burning in any corner of the the world.) And finally, 5.) Properly crafted, a “woman-question” might elicit such outrage, such horror – at the Democrats’ in general and Hillary’s in particular – actual “extremism” on women-related matters, that the “War on Women” meme, as implicitly offered by Megyn, could be rendered moot, utterly turned on its head, by merely articulating facts, that the Democrats would be on the defensive by morning! With 24 million viewers, it might have been the first articulation of these facts millions of them may have ever seen, and, thus, caused a catastrophic political earthquake.

That’s what everyone is missing in their pile on of one, Miss Megyn Kelly.

That’s the missed opportunity we all lament.

DEMOCRAT on IRS: If truth comes out “Obama’s finished”

Fast forward to about 11:20 on this video of Fox News’ Special Report On-Line from last night. It’s the web-only show after the show that Bret Baier does every Wednesday. They were having a discussion about the virtual media black-out of all things IRS. It was an excellent discussion I recommend you take-in in-full, but the money-quote on why it’s happening is from Democrat Kirsten Powers; I’m paraphrasing but she says ‘If this goes where we think it goes, OBAMA’S FINISHED.’

I can’t remember if anyone hinted at this or not; they may have, but I’ve long been of the opinion that nobody will pursue this because nobody wants to be the one who brought down America’s first black president. Quite apart from all the threats and abuse inquisitive reporters have endured, which have by now been well documented, I really think it’s the race thing. These people are so thoroughly indoctrinated and corrupt they can simultaneously admire Woodward & Bernstein, want to be invited to the same cocktail parties they are invited to, but are utterly lacking in the courage it took them to do the work that makes them A-list cocktail party guests all because the president is… black.

BTW: BIG props to Kirsten for HER courage. It can’t be very pleasant in the circles she runs in right now.  She’s one of the last, few, SANE Democrats left. Still VERY liberal, but willing to give a hairy eye-ball to her own party when it needs it.  Sometimes she can’t see through the growth (!) but I give her a LOT of credit for not being one of the herd.

“Pro-Slavery” Bundy Even MORE Deserving of Support

If you’ve been under a rock this past week or so, you missed the dust-up in Bunkerville, NV.  One Cliven Bundy, elderly, rambling, deeply misguided on many issues, and lawfully, technically, wrong, without a legal leg to stand on, said some stupid things after a bunch of Tea Party literally ran to his support, on horseback, w/rifles, colors blazing.

We’ll tackle why BLM showed up w/armored tanks and snipers in moment, but let’s tackle the 1st amendment first:  What Cliven Bundy imagined about the idyllic, gardening, family-unit lives of slaves is… inexplicable. I can only ascribe it to the same category Obama supporters put Reverend Wright’s racism: ‘Well… You have to understand the times he grew up in. His generation. That’s what those people were taught by their fathers and grandfathers…’

So let’s all agree what he said, in the same way we all (well, non-Obama supporters) agreed that what Reverend Wright preaches, is deeply offensive, racist, and wrong, okay?

ALL THE MORE REASON TO DEFEND HIM.

THE 1ST AMENDMENT ISN’T THERE FOR SPEECH YOU AGREE WITH. IT’S THERE FOR SPEECH YOU DON’T AGREE WITH. 

HELLO?

You love liberty?

STAND WITH BUNDY – or more specifically, AGAINST ARMED BILL COLLECTING.

WHY?

Here’s why:

BECAUSE IT HAS ****NOTHING**** to do with Cliven Bundy!  Just like Dana Loesch said!

This is about ARMED BILL COLLECTING!

Al Sharpton owes more than $2M.  Are there SWAT teams showing up in Harlem?

Warren Buffet owes ONE BILLION in back taxes. ARE THERE SWAT TEAMS SHOWING UP IN OMAHA??????

Of course not.

This isn’t even about back taxes (or grazing fees) lawfully owed.

THIS WAS A MESSAGE.  This was a MESSAGE being sent to ALL of us.  Same message sent to Gibson Guitar and the poor raw milk farmers who were treated to pre-dawn armed raids.

F*CK WITH OBAMA AT YOUR PERIL.

What the HELL are our agencies doing armed to the f*cking teeth anyway?

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO PUTTING A LIEN ON THE RANCH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD?

No.

I stand with those who stand AGAINST ARMED BILL COLLECTING.  And if the name at the center of it happens to be Cliven Bundy, Reverend Wright, Timmy ‘Turbo Tax’ Geithner or anyone ELSE I find reprehensible – or ENDORSE – I DON’T CARE.  So be it.  What happened in Bunkerville was WRONG.