Tony Newbill Observations on Comey/Clinton


Hillary-Lynch-Comey-BHO White House Corruption

Tony Newbill (pseudonym) has some interesting insight on FBI Director Comey’s announcement that his FBI Office IS NOT recommending an indictment against Crooked Hillary Clinton. The insight came as two comments made to the NCCR cross post of “Analysis of FBI Directors Hearing with Congress”.

 

Newbill sees a leftist ruling class held to a different standard of laws than the regular Joe American thus this ruling class is fracturing American society inculcating distrust as a norm in society. Ergo this distrust leads to divisiveness in society.

 

JRH 7/10/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Tony Newbill Observations on Comey/Clinton

Posted from NCCR Comment Section: 7/10/16

 

n3angus [aka Tony Newbill]

July 8, 2016 at 10:58 AM

 

Man what a Mess this country is getting in, and it could be said it stems from corruption within the Judicial system where it looks like there are 2 sets of laws that the ruling class use for themselves and then the civilian laws, like this reads: http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/comey-has-long-history-of-clinton-related-cases/!

 

FBI Director James Comey

FBI Director James Comey

 

NEW YORK – FBI Director James Comey has a long history of involvement in Department of Justice actions that arguably ended up favorable to the Clintons.

 

In 2004, Comey, then serving as a deputy attorney general in the Justice Department, apparently limited the scope of the criminal investigation of Sandy Berger, which left out former Clinton administration officials who may have coordinated with Berger in his removal and destruction of classified records from the National Archives. The documents were relevant to accusations that the Clinton administration was negligent in the build-up to the 9/11 terrorist attack.

 

On Tuesday, Comey announced that despite evidence of “extreme negligence by Hillary Clinton and her top aides regarding the handling of classified information through a private email server, the FBI would not refer criminal charges to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Justice Department.

 

Curiously, Berger, Lynch and Cheryl Mills all worked as partners in the Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson, which prepared tax returns for the Clintons and did patent work for a software firm that played a role in the private email server Hillary Clinton used when she was secretary of state.

 

With Hillary making another run for president, don’t get caught up in the lies and spin! In “Hillary Unhinged: In Her Own Words,” find out who the true Hillary is with this raw and humorous collection of quotes that pitilessly underscores her hypocrisy

 

Lynch and Comey both served as U.S. attorney in New York, Lynch for the Eastern District of New York, and Comey for the Southern District of New York. They crossed paths in the investigation of HSBC bank, which avoided criminal charges in a massive money-laundering scandal for which the bank paid a $1.9 billion fine.

 

After Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself in the Valerie Plame affair in 2004, Comey appointed as special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who ended up convicting “Scooter” Libby, a top aide to then Vice President Dick Cheney, of perjury and obstruction of justice. The charge was based on the accusations of Plame and her former ambassador husband, Joe Wilson – both partisan supporters of Bill and Hillary Clinton – that Libby outed her as a CIA agent.

 

New York Times reporter Judith Miller’s 2015 memoir strongly suggests Fitzgerald improperly manipulated testimony and withheld crucial evidence in obtaining a conviction against Libby in his 2007 trial.

 

Prosecutor in Berger case

 

As deputy attorney general, Comey was involved in the investigation of Berger, as Fox News reported in 2004

 
Berger at that time was under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for removing from the National Archives various classified documents that should have been turned over to the independent commission investigating the 9/11 terror attacks and for removing handwritten notes he made while reviewing the documents.

 

The New York Times reported in 2005 that Republican leaders speculated Berger removed the documents from the National Archives because he was trying to conceal material that could be damaging to the Clinton administration.

 
There is no evidence Comey’s investigation for the Justice Department made any attempt to determine if anyone affiliated with the Clinton White House prompted Berger or coordinated with him in the decision to remove the classified documents.

 
Various statements Comey made about Berger’s mishandling of classified documents bear comparison to his comments regarding Hillary Clinton’s email server.

 

In 2004, Fox News noted Comey told reporters he could not comment on the Berger investigation but did address the general issue of mishandling classified documents.

 

“As a general matter, we take issues of classified information very seriously,” Comey said in response to a reporter’s question.

 

 

On April 1, 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of intentionally removing documents from the National Archives and destroying some of them. He was fined $50,000, sentenced to 100 hours of community service and two years of probation. Also, his national security license was stripped for two years.

 

Messages found stored on Clinton’s private email server show that Berger – a convicted thief of classified documents – had been advising Clinton while she served as secretary of state and had access to emails containing classified information.

 

For example, READ ENTIRETY (COMEY HAS LONG HISTORY OF CASES ENDING FAVORABLE TO CLINTONS: In Berger probe said ‘we take issues of classified information very seriously; By JEROME R. CORSI; WND; 7/7/16)

 

n3angus

July 8, 2016 at 12:23 PM

 

When our Society sees a Ruling class that is not held to the same standards as We the People are, just like how the ruling class gets healthcare that’s not the same as what the Society is now mandated to buy, and when the same standards like what we have been seeing regarding the Clinton Network with nothing being done about it, it creates a Culture of Disrespect to evolve within the Society. Then Society starts to breakdown and divide on itself!!!!

 
And it could be that we are seeing this going on behind the scenes. Remember this: “Top Down, Bottom Up, Inside-out”??????

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13smJ9IVjlM

 

VIDEO: Progressive Chaos: Top-Down Bottom-Up, Inside-Out!

 

Posted by GusDeSoto

Uploaded on Feb 18, 2011

 

2/18/2011 – After the chaos and unrest in Europe, then in the Middle East, just as Glenn Beck predicted, the TOP-DOWN, BOTTOM UP and INSIDE OUT strategy talked about by Van Jones is coming to pass. Along with Jones’ incit[e]ment to get liberal progressive[s] to act on his model, there have been stories published and written by Frances Fox Piven, again, inciting people to get mad at the government, in a sense, inciting unrest and riots, due in part to the economic conditions of our nation. This is what one would consider a well-orchestrated “insurrection” by the mainstream media, unions and even the government. How will it end?

 

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Brackets indicate Editor insertions

 

© Tony Newbill

Analysis of FBI Directors Hearing with Congress


FBI says Hillary not crook toon

FBI Director James Comey says Hillary was careless but did not rise to the level of criminality … Say what?

 

JRH 7/7/16

Please Support NCCR

********************

“Analysis of FBI Directors Hearing with Congress”

 

Sent by Tony Newbill

Sent: 7/7/2016 12:11 PM

 

The FBI Director said [the FBI would] have to prove Criminal Intent along with the Misdemeanor Statute so the Intent would be when Hilary Installed the Unauthorized Private Server to divert Information that she would “CLEARLY KNOW” some would be Classified Information due to the Signing of the Oath of Office.   And Congressman Cummings made a Comparison of General Petraeus first Lying to the FBI then later admitting to the charge regarding divulging Classified Information, and we have the Testimony to Congressman Jordan under oath by Hilary saying she did not send or receive Classified Information on her Private server, but then said to the FBI she did [use her private server]. And the FBI Director did not Ask Congress for this Information from Congress to review the Hearing. Hold the Line Congressman and Good Job standing up for We the People –  a Nation of Laws, we cannot allow a Clinton Monarchy to Form within the USA!!!!!     http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/07/perjury-hillary-clinton-chaffetz-comey/

 

Chaffetz: We Will Refer Hillary Clinton to the FBI for Perjury

Jason Chaffetz 

By JOEL B. POLLAK

July 7, 2016

Breitbart

 

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), chair of the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, told FBI director James Comey during his testimony on Thursday morning that the committee would refer former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for investigation for perjury, given that she lied under oath before the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October.

 

“You’ll have one,” Chaffetz said, within “a few hours,” after Comey testified that the FBI would need a referral for Congress before investigating.

 

As Breitbart News detailed earlier this week, Clinton lied under oath to Congress in at least three ways: first, by stating that she had turned over “all my work related emails” from her private email server to the government; second, by insisting there was “nothing marked classified on my e-mails”; and third, by telling the committee that her attorneys “went through every single e-mail.” FBI director James Comey’s statement Tuesday suggested that none of those sworn statements were true.

 

Chaffetz asked Comey whether he had reviewed Clinton’s testimony before the Benghazi committee as part of his inquiry. He said that he had not, but that he was aware of it. Chaffetz also asked Comey whether Clinton had lied to the FBI, and he said he did not have reason to believe she had done so.

 

In addition to misleading Congress in October, Clinton may have committed perjury when she signed a sworn declaration in 2015 stating that she had turned over all work-related emails: “While I do not know what information may be ‘responsive’ for purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done”

 

Earlier, there were suspicions that Clinton might have committed perjury if and when she had signed the standard exit form, OF-109, which all State Department employees must sign, indicating they have turned over all materials, classified and otherwise, to the government. Later, the State Department admitted that it had no record of her signed OF-109 form.

 

_____________________

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, will be published by Regnery on July 25 and is available for pre-order through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

 

Copyright © 2016 Breitbart

 

FBI: Yes, Queen Hillary Broke The Law. No, She Won’t Be Prosecuted.


Hillary Short Scandal List

Hillary lies – people died. The Federal Bureau of Investigation says, Don’t worry about it, we cleared the crook to run for POTUS.

 

Here’s an interesting note I heard on Fox News. Did you realize there were two investigations underway? Director Comey gives Crooked Hillary a pass on her illegal email at her private home, but she and other Clintons are still under investigation for receiving suspicious donations from foreign entities as compensation for nefarious political favors.

Clinton Foundation Foreign Donors

JRH 7/5/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

FBI: Yes, Queen Hillary Broke The Law. No, She Won’t Be Prosecuted.

 

By BEN SHAPIRO

JULY 5, 2016

Daily Wire

Hillary gets away with lying

On July 4, 1776, the United States announced its independence from Great Britain based on the key principle of rule of law.

 

On July 5, 2016, the United States said, “F*** it. I’m With Hillary!”

 

Just days after the Attorney General of the United States Loretta Lynch held a secret meeting aboard a plane with former President Bill Clinton – whose wife was under FBI investigation; just the day after Hillary leaked that she’d want Lynch for her own administration; just hours after the President of the United States Barack Obama flew Hillary – still under FBI investigation – down to North Carolina on Air Force One; just two hours before Obama was to open his campaign on behalf of Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey announced that while Hillary Clinton had clearly engaged in criminal activity worthy of prosecution, he had recommended that she not be prosecuted.

 

Because of course he did.

 

Here are Comey’s findings, which demonstrate full violation of multiple provisions of federal law:

 

  • Hillary Clinton utilized multiple “different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain.” So she was lying when she said that she only set up the system so that she could use one handheld device.

 

  • Hillary transmitted classified information. Here’s Comey: “From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were ‘up-classified’ to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.” So she lied that no classified information was received or sent.

 

  • Hillary did not hand over all her work emails to the State Department. At least three of those emails were classified “at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.” Comey was kind here to Hillary – he said that there was no evidence that “any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Except, of course, that deleting such emails would be the entire purpose of having a private server.

 

  • Hillary’s lawyers didn’t read the emails they deleted – they just deleted stuff based on header information and search terms. “It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server,” Comey said. This would be destroying possibly classified material. And as Comey says, there may be a fair bit of data they never saw: “It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

 

  • Comey admitted openly that Hillary’s team was “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information….None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

 

  • Hillary knew that classified material was passing across her server; as Comey acknowledged, “even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

 

  • Hillary’s server could have been hacked, and some of her emails were likely hacked in other people’s inboxes: “With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. 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. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.” [Bold Text by Blog Editor}

 

So, Hillary lied. She lied that she never transmitted classified information. She lied that she only used a private server because she wanted one device. She lied that the State Department allowed her to jerry-rig this technological set-up. She lied that the emails were never breached.

 

But according to Comey, no biggie.

 

Now, Comey essentially admitted that Hillary violated federal law. As he said, “Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.” And Comey stated that the FBI had “investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.”

 

But no matter. The law doesn’t apply to Hillary Clinton. As Comey said, “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

 

No, we’re dealing with the Clintons. There’s a different set of rules for high-profile Democrats.

 

And no, Comey’s excuse-making that similar cases aren’t prosecuted doesn’t cut it. Here’s what Comey said:

 

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

 

Nonsense.

 

Past cases have focused on willful transmission of classified information to outside actors. But that’s not what the rule of law is. The rule of law says that laws must be applied as they are written, and they must be applied equally. Here are just a few of the statutes Hillary clearly violated, according to Comey’s own statement:

 

18 USC §793. This statute explicitly states that whoever, “entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document…through gross negligence permits the same to removed from its proper place of custody…or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody….shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Comey called her “extremely careless.” That was highly charitable. But even by that standard, Hillary was grossly negligent with classified material. Comey says Hillary had no intent to transmit information to foreign powers. But that’s not what the statute requires.

 

18 USC §1924. This statute states that any employee of the United States who “knowingly removes [classified] documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” Hillary set up a private server explicitly to do this.

 

18 USC §798. This statute states that anyone who “uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States…any classified information…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Hillary transmitted classified information in a manner that harmed the United States; Comey says she may have been hacked.

 

18 USC §2071. This statute says that anyone who has custody of classified material and “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.” Clearly, Hillary meant to remove classified materials from government control.

 

Yes, Hillary broke the law.

 

But the law no longer matters. The woman for whom the executive branch just manipulated the law will likely end up running that executive branch. God help us all.

 

John Adams wrote in the Massachusetts Constitution that the purpose of separation of powers was to ensure that we establish “a government of laws, and not of men.” So much for that idea. We now have a government by the Obamas, the Clintons, the elites. And thanks to the Divine Right of Kings, they are not subject to the laws of the merely mortal whom they govern.

___________________

© COPYRIGHT 2016, THE DAILY WIRE

 

Hillary Indictment Trouble?


Bill laughs at jailed Hillary

John R. Houk

© April 5, 2016

 

It appears that FBI Director James Comey is the first lynchpin hurdle on whether or not Hillary Clinton is indicted for using a private home server to receive and send classified information. (The second lynchpin would be Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the third lynchpin President Barack Hussein Obama.)

 

Director Comey is providing at least the appearance of a vigorous FBI investigation into Hillary with unverified reports that over a hundred FBI Agents are involved in combing server data.

 

Also apparently Director Comey seems to have earned the respect of both Dems and Republicans as a non-political civil servant serving in both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration. Based on that journalist evaluation I have read about I thought it might be interesting to provide an excerpt from one of today’s Salon.com articles. Salon should be evaluated as a committed Leftwing Internet rag:

 

This is how the FBI destroys Hillary: The 10 questions that could end her White House dreams

These questions, if answered honestly, would most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders

 

The FBI’s upcoming interview of Hillary Clinton will be a turning point in the race for Democratic nominee, especially since Clinton won’t be able to speak to James Comey and his FBI agents in the same manner her campaign has communicated with the public. Unlike loyal Hillary supporters who view the marathon Benghazi hearings to be a badge of courage and countless prior scandals to be examples of exoneration, the FBI didn’t spend one year (investigating this email controversy) to give Clinton or her top aides parking tickets. …

 

Imagine if you had 22 Top Secret emails on your computer?

 

Would you be able to claim negligence?

 

Also, the issue of negligence is a canard. Clinton and her top aides were smart enough to understand protocol. For every legal scholar saying that indictment isn’t likely (because it’s difficult to prove Clinton “knowingly” sent or received classified intelligence), there’s a former attorney general and former intelligence officials saying that indictment is justified.

 

 

I explain three possible scenarios in my latest YouTube segment regarding how the Clinton campaign would react to the reality of indictment. No doubt, certain supporters would still vote for Clinton, even with the possibility of criminal behavior.

 

 

Therefore, below are ten questions the FBI should ask Clinton and her top aides. These questions, if answered honestly, will most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders. Remember, the issue of convenience or negligence won’t be enough to circumvent repercussions from owning a private server as Secretary of State. FBI director James Comey and his agents aren’t Democratic superdelegates or beholden in any way to a political machine. They’ll demand answers to tough questions and below could be some of the topics discussed in Clinton’s FBI interview.

1. What was the political utility in owning a private server and never using a State.gov email address?

 

 

An editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel titled “Clinton’s abysmal record on open government” explains the possible political motive …

 

In addition, regardless of Clinton’s excuses, the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws. No president, no secretary of state, no public official at any level is above the law. She chose to ignore it, and must face the consequences…

And donations to the foundation from foreign governments have raised conflict of interest questions for Clinton as secretary of state, an office with power over foreign affairs and favors second only to the president’s.

 

2. Were all 31,830 deleted private emails about yoga?

 

ABC News

 

…  “This review did not involve opening and reading each email. Instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache — 31,830 emails — did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be ‘private, personal records.’” 

 

There was no government oversight, therefore the FBI has every right to ask why Clinton’s staff was allowed to pick and choose (through keyword searches) private emails from others that could have contained classified intelligence.

3. Why didn’t you know that intelligence could be retroactively classified?

 

This leads to the issue of negligence; a zero-sum proposition. Either Clinton wasn’t smart enough to know protocol, or breached protocol. Both scenarios aren’t good for a future presidency. Both scenarios won’t prevent legal repercussions, given the 22 Top Secret emails.

4. Why did you use a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA?

 

An article in Madison.com titled “Emails: Clinton sought secure smartphone, rebuffed by NSA” explains the issue of Clinton’s Blackberry:

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency.

A month later, she began using private email accounts accessed through her BlackBerry to exchange messages with her top aides.

 

Clinton used a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA. Along with the issue of political motive, and why she deleted tens of thousands of emails, the unsecured Blackberry use could easily lead to an indictment.

5. What did you say to Bryan Pagliano? 

 

Mr. Pagliano recently received immunity. He’s told the FBI, most likely, about his conversations with Hillary Clinton. Any discrepancy in stories could lead to a felony charge for Hillary Clinton or Pagliano’s immunity to be revoked. Both have every incentive to tell the truth.

6. Why were 22 Top Secret emails on a private server?

 

This is a simple question with no logical answer circumventing political repercussions. If Clinton and her staff are able to evade this issue, future government officials will also be able to have Top Secret intelligence on unguarded private servers.

7. Was any information about the Clinton Foundation mingled with State Department documents? 

 

The answer to this question could lead to hundreds of other questions.

8. Did President Obama or his staff express any reservations about your private server?

 

President Obama’s White House communicated with Clinton via her private server. If anyone in the White House said anything about Clinton’s server, this could lead to new controversy.

9. Did Bill Clinton send or receive any emails on your private network?

 

The server was located in their home, so it’s a valid question.

10. How was your private server guarded against hacking attempts?

 

Foreign nations and hackers already tried to compromise Clinton’s server.

 

These questions could easily give Bernie Sanders the nomination. I explain that Clinton faces possible DOJ indictment in the following appearance on CNN International. Although Bernie can win without Clinton’s indictment, the email controversy will most likely become a giant story very soon. With READ ENTIRETY (This is how the FBI destroys Hillary: The 10 questions that could end her White House dreams; By H. A. GOODMAN; Salon.com; 4/5/16 10:12 AM CDT)

 

Did I mention that Salon was a Leftist rag? AND Salon is throwing Hillary under the bus in favor of Bernie Sanders. Did you notice the author Goodman mentioned “22 Top Secret emails” – as in classified – more than a few times?

 

Regardless of this refreshing bluster from Salon.com, I have noticed that pundits on the Left and the Right do not think Hillary will ever be indicted although not really for agreeing reasons. Most Leftist pundits toe the line that this is all a Right Wing conspiracy of the usual smoke and mirrors with no proof of a fire. Right Wing pundits tend to believe that neither Loretta Lynch nor President Barack Hussein Obama will allow Hillary to be indicted on their watch.

 

Lloyd Billingsley of FrontPageMag.com offers a scenario that doesn’t really fit the usual Left-Right talking points about Hillary Clinton. Billingsley throws the ball in Director Comey’s court and some interesting facts connected to history between Comey and Hillary in the view Hillary received some interesting passes in some questionable legal issues. Below is the article in entirety.

 

JRH 4/5/16

Please Support NCCR

*******************

COMEY, CLINTONS AND CLEMENCY

 

By Lloyd Billingsley

April 5, 2016

FrontPageMag.com

 

Hillary Clinton’s email problems, going back to her time as Secretary of State, have not drawn heavy coverage from the old-line establishment media. As the investigation nears its final stages, FBI director James Comey’s past dealings with the Clintons may prove of interest.

 

Detail on those dealings emerged in American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Path to Power, a 2004 book by Christopher Andersen, a former contributing editor to Time magazine who has written for Life, the New York Times, and Vanity Fair. None could be described as conservative but Andersen is candid about Hillary’s political past.

 

Hillary’s friends Robert Treuhaft and wife Jessica Mitford were “avowed Stalinists” who opposed the Hungarian uprising of 1956 and remained committed to the Communist cause. American Evita charts Hillary’s admiration for Marxist theoretician Carl Oglesby and Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky, from whom Hillary learned that “the only way to make a real difference is to acquire power.”

 

After Bill Clinton left the White House, one staffer told Andersen, the entire focus was on “getting Hillary back in.” The road led through New York, where Hillary took aim at the Senate seat vacated by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Hillary was not from New York and had never spent more than a few days there, so she needed creative ways to attract votes.

 

New Square, a Hasidic enclave 30 miles northwest of Manhattan, had voted as a bloc in previous elections and campaign workers urged Hillary urged to stop there. In New Square, four members of the Skver sect had been convicted in 1999 of bilking government aid programs for some $30 million. During her visit, Hillary denied that any pardon was discussed.

 

The day before the election, in a letter to New Square’s main synagogue, president Bill Clinton said he looked forward to visiting the village. As Andersen noted, New Square delivered Hillary’s biggest victory margin of any community in New York state, 1,359 votes to only 10 for her opponent Rick Lazio.

 

During the final days of his presidency, Bill Clinton opted to reduce the prison terms of the New Square offenders, and after 9/11 that sparked an investigation. As Anderson notes, “Hillary received an unexpected gift in late June when, without explanation, U.S. Attorney James B. Comey closed the New Square clemency case.

 

Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich also drew an investigation and Andersen finds it odd that the Bush administration would “help the Clinton’s out” by refusing to release documents related to the pardons. And “in accordance with his boss’s wishes, U.S Attorney James Comey gave Bill and Hillary a pass.”

 

On September 4, 2013, James Comey became director of the FBI. In that role, Comey oversees the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified material on her private email and server. Whether she gets a pass this time is uncertain, but Comey’s history with the Clintons is worth media attention. So is Hillary’s history on the subject of terrorism.

 

“At Hillary’s urging,” Andersen writes, “the President granted clemency to 16 Puerto Rican terrorists who have been sentenced to prison following a wave of bombings from 1974 to 1983 that took the lives of six Americans and wounded scores of others. Incredibly, the terrorists had not even asked for clemency.”  The worst attack was the January 24, 1975 bombing of Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan. The Puerto Rican FALN exploded a bomb during the lunch hour, “hurling body parts into the street and killing four people.”

 

The terrorists accepted President Clinton’s offer of clemency but expressed no regret for their actions. Former U.S. Attorney Joseph Di Genova went on record that “the Puerto Rican terrorists were pardoned because they were a political benefit to the president’s wife. Make no mistake about it.” As Anderson notes, FBI director Louis Freeh opposed the pardons, as did New York major Rudy Giuliani, senator Charles Schumer and former Puerto Rico governor Carlos Romero Barcelo who, says Andersen, “pleaded with the president not to release the bombers.”

 

Stories on the Clinton pardons have not been a staple of the current campaign, in which Republicans have been the targets of choice on the terrorism issue. Perhaps a bit more balance is in order. Reporters, meanwhile, will find American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Path to Power a worthy refresher course on the Democratic frontrunner.

 

_____________________

Hillary Indictment Trouble?

John R. Houk

© April 5, 2016

___________________

COMEY, CLINTONS AND CLEMENCY

 

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Bill of Writes: Dispatches from the Political Correctness Battlefield and Hollywood Party: Stalinist Adventures in the American Film Industry.

 

© COPYRIGHT 2016, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

ABOUT

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.

 

FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites.  The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.

 

DiscoverTheNetworks.com, launched in 2005, is the largest publicly accessible database defining the chief groups and individuals of the Left and their organizational interlocks.  It is a full service encyclopedia of the left providing an intellectual diagram of its institutional power in American culture and politics. DTN has had more than 8 million visitors so far this year and is a key resource for students, scholars and members of the media.

 

Since 2003, the Center has promoted an Academic Bill of Rights to support students’ academic freedom, and free the American university from political indoctrination and renew its commitment to true intellectual diversity. This campaign has had a permanent impact on American higher education.

 

In 2007, the Center undertook an READ THE REST

 

Damnable Sons and Daughters of Mohammed


Here are some insights from Justin Smith on the San Bernardino Massacre.

JRH 12/6/15

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

Damnable Sons and Daughters of Mohammed

More Dead Americans Are Offensive

By Justin O. Smith

12/5/2015 1:45 PM

They [Muslims] … act like normal citizens, until they unleash bloodbath upon bloodbath …” – Justin O Smith

One more horrific and heinous Islamic terror attack, in a long list of many others, was perpetrated against America by Chicago born Syed Farook and Pakistan born Tashfeen Malik, on December 2nd 2015 at approximately 11:00 am PT. They opened fire on a Christmas party inside the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, CA using modified variants of .223 AR-15s, and eighty-five rounds later, fourteen decent Americans — mothers, fathers, sons and daughters — lay murdered, with 21 more wounded, as many others placed desperate cellphone calls for help and thought these were their last moments of life.

The discovery of three bombs in the IRC, that failed to explode, slowed the search for the terrorists, who were initially thought to still be in the building. Five hours later, the terrorists were found and killed near their home in Redlands in a firefight, as they fired 76 rounds and the police responded with 380 rounds; in the aftermath, 2500 more rounds of ammunition and twelve more bombs wired for remote detonation, in a manner similar to the Boston bombs, were found in their home.

FBI reports reveal that Malik had passed Homeland Security screening, and she had returned with Farook from his second trip to Saudi Arabia on a K-1 “fiancée” visa and a Pakistan passport. Farook had also made a trip to Pakistan, and he had been in contact with Muslims abroad who are persons of interest to U.S. authorities; he was also in touch with islamofascists in the Los Angeles area.

Imagine the sinking feeling felt by authorities, when they discovered that Malik had pledged her allegiance to the Islamic State and Abu Bakr al Baghdadi on Facebook, as the attack was ongoing. This made many security analysts suggest since, that she was Farook’s trainer, and she had planned from the start to meet someone online, who was willing to bring her to America, for the sole purpose of harming America.

Any logical thinking person didn’t need to hear FBI Director James Comey call this “an act of Islamic-inspired terrorism”, once news reports indicated multiple shooters were in the facility. How many cases has anyone ever witnessed of a disgruntled employee recruiting another person to help them attack a business?

On December 4th, the FBI Director announced on C-SPAN that none of Farook’s contacts “were of such significance that it raised the level of alert at the FBI.” Really? This should keep people awake at night.

Although the FBI refused to name Muzzamil Siddiqi, as one of the islamofascist “jihadists” in contact with Farook, for the New York Times‘ December 3rd story, anyone following the terrorist networks knew Farook and Malik were Islamic terrorists immediately, when Hussam Ayloush, executive director for CAIR-Los Angeles, and Farhan Khan, Farook’s brother-in-law, made a disingenuous televised statement. They condemned the attack and offered “heartfelt condolences to the families and the loved ones of all those killed or injured.” Standing there beside both men and also offering empty words was Muzzamil Siddiqi [IPT], who is a known active supporter of Islamic terror in America and abroad.

Siddiqi is the director of the Islamic Society of Orange County [ISOC] and a former president of the Islamic Society of North America, a Muslim Brotherhood organization. He is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror financing plot, and he released the Muslim Brotherhood memo [CSP], ‘Civilization – Jihadist Process’, to followers in May 1991, that calls for the destruction of Western civilization from within and “sabotaging its miserable house.” [CSP] One of Siddiqi’s close associates was Sheik Omar Rahman, the Blind Sheik, who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; and, one should also note that Adam Gadahn [IPT], former spokesman for Al Qaeda and fellow terrorist, is a product of the ISOC.

Siddiqi wrote in the ‘Pakistan Link’ [Pakistan Link homepage] on October 18th 1996: “We must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.” [IPT Foot Note 19]

Adding insult to injury on December 3rd, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Reverend Welton Gaddy delivered a load of manure in their unbelievably insensitive, disgusting and despicable statements at the Muslim Advocates Annual Dinner, in the wake of the murders of fourteen Americans by Islamic terrorists. Their main concerns were focused on any possible “backlash” from the San Bernardino attack against Muslims and Muslims being “free in America”, when they should have been asking these Muslims what, if anything, they proposed to do in an effort to stop future terror attacks that emanate from the ranks of their damnable brethren — these Sons and Daughters of Mohammed.

Why was Loretta Lynch appeasing this group of Muslims, instead of demanding they take all measures to stop the ever increasing Islamic terror attacks in America?

Why did Rev. Gaddy exclaim, “If Muslims aren’t free in America, no one is”, when fourteen Americans just had their freedom __ their rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” — taken from them?

Muslims are free in America. They just aren’t free to wantonly murder their way across America. Their rights in America end, when they act against the U.S. Constitution and their actions violate the rights of others, endangering and ending the lives of U.S. citizens.

This administration and future administrations must target Muslim communities with deep surveillance, and don’t tell America how offensive and “islamophobic” this will seem to Muslims. The cold hard reality is that Baptists, Catholics and Jews aren’t gunning down people and blowing them up, and frankly, I find Americans killed at the hands of Islamic terrorists offensive.

Maybe it’s time U.S. Muslims felt the consequences — backlash — from their failure or unwillingness to cut out the violent heart of the Islamic ideology. Let’s advocate the deportation of all non-citizen Muslims and refuse to allow any Muslim into America: This will not stop all acts of terror, since Muslim citizens are acting against the nation too, but perhaps it is a start for now.

I am sick of seeing Our Beloved America attacked repeatedly by these islamofascists, with barely a cough coming from the Oval Office. Obama and Attorney General Lynch aren’t protecting us from “enemies foreign and domestic” effectively and forcefully, doing just the bare minimum. Their continued denial of an Islamic terrorism problem in America is only emboldening Muslims, who hate us, and laying the groundwork for a certain devastating and massive terrorist attack, especially in light of recent successes by the Islamic State. Consequently, whether or not our communities exhibit San Bernardino’s same level of training and professionalism, all Americans must help their community stay vigilant and prepare to defend themselves or die, in the face of the next deliberate terrorist attack on our home front, even if it entails carrying one’s personal weapon daily.

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Any text or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor

© Justin O. Smith