When Lying To The FBI Wasn’t A Crime

Here is a large excerpt of the article by Daniel Greenfield at FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE:

“There’s always conflicting recollections of facts,” FBI Director Comey said.

It was a year ago and Comey was explaining why Hillary’s close aide, Cheryl Mills, not only received an immunity agreement in exchange for turning over her laptop, but a pass on lying to the FBI.

The FBI Director claimed that Mills had to receive immunity because the laptop might be protected by attorney-client privilege. Mills, like Hillary Clinton, had worked as a lawyer. But they were both government officials working for the State Department. Hillary wasn’t Mills’ client. The government was.

Comey and his people knew the law. They chose to ignore it to protect a key Hillary aide from rolling over. Mills was the woman Hillary would send in to clean up her dirty laundry. Mills had taken point on the email server cover-up. If anyone knew where the bodies were buried, she did. Instead not only did she get an immunity agreement, but the FBI also agreed to destroy the computers after the search.

Mills had told the FBI that she didn’t know about Hillary’s email server. But the FBI had notes and emails proving that Mills was lying. And when Comey was asked about it, he came out with, “There’s always conflicting recollections of facts.”

No doubt.

That is what the lawyer of the woman who had been caught lying to the FBI might have been expected to argue. But there were no charges, instead the FBI Director was presenting her defense.

George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were charged with lying to investigators. But lying to investigators isn’t a crime when you’re Hillary Clinton.

Or one of her associates.

Hillary Clinton had told the FBI that she had no idea that the “C” stood for confidential. Instead of laughing in her face or arresting her, the FBI boss testified personally to her truthfulness.

Hillary Clinton, Mills and Huma Abedin made what appear to be false statements to the FBI.

Had Mills been working for Trump, the same number would have been run on Mills as on Flynn and Papadopoulos. But the men interviewing Mills didn’t want her to sing. They wanted her to keep quiet.

Mills and Abedin were interviewed by the FBI’s Peter Strzok and the DOJ’s David Laufman. Strzok was exchanging pro-Hillary and anti-Trump messages in an extramarital affair with a woman working for FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. McCabe’s wife had received a sizable amount of money from a Clinton ally. Laufman, whose counterintelligence section was heading the investigation, is an Obama donor.

Mills’ lie made it more urgent to hand her an immunity agreement on any pretext. The immunity agreement wasn’t leverage for her testimony. It was leverage to keep her from testifying. The obstruction of justice was coming from the inside.

Strzok received input on the Comey letter exonerating Clinton. The Mills interview killed two birds with one stone. A key Hillary aide got immunity and the evidence would be destroyed.

This wasn’t an interview. It was a cover-up.

It’s why Comey sounded like Mills’ lawyer. And why so many Clinton associates got immunity agreements. Why the FBI agreed to destroy evidence. Why there were no recordings of Hillary’s testimony. And why lying to the FBI wasn’t a crime when it came to Hillary and her aides.

But the double standard kicked in when the Clinton cover-up crew went after Trump.

While Mills received an immunity agreement based on an imaginary attorney-client privilege that didn’t exist, Manafort was denied attorney-client privilege with his actual attorney.

The double standard isn’t surprising when you look at who was doing the interviewing.

Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it’s a “crime to lie to us”.

Not for the Clintons and their associates.

Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn’t received training on handling classified information, but she signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn’t carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper, who made the server possible, testified that indeed she did.

Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills told the same lie.

These are the kinds of misstep that Team Mueller would have used to hang a Trump associate. But Comey testified that Hillary Clinton did not lie.

And that meant he was lying.

Not only did Clinton’s people lie to the FBI. But the head of the FBI had lied for them.

The fix had been in all along……..

(READ IT ALL)

Hillary and Obama Embolden Modern Slavery In Libya

John and Ken discuss Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s actions in Libya creating modern day slave bazaars. Obviously what happened in the vacuum was Islam was just given space to apply the Quran. Take note that the five nations in this article are Muslim: “Top 5 African Countries Where Slavery Is Still Uncontrolled.”

CNN – video: Migrants being sold as slaves in Libya
African migrants seeking Europe sold as ‘slaves’ for $200

The Donna Brazile Bombshell!

Watch Hillary Lie! You can tell from her body language she is in deep shit:

For months prior she said she had no idea or connection to the dossier. No wshe admits she is connected and paid for it…. straight faced:

  • “I mean, he has to know. We’ll find out what he knew and how involved he was, but he had to know that people were making outreach to Russians to the highest levels of the Kremlin, in order to help him, to hurt me, but more importantly to sow this divisiveness,” Hillary said.
  • (Side Note) Interestingly Hillary says Russia is a huge threat, yet her State Department signed off on handing over 20% of America’s Uranium reserves to a Russian nuclear firm (as $145 million flowed to the Clinton Foundation).

What the Hell!! She admitted two seconds earlier that SHE paid for the dossier! So let me rewrite her statement:

  • “I mean, Trump had to know that I was reaching out to the Russians, to the highest levels of the Kremlin, in order to hurt him, to help me, but more importantly to sow this divisiveness,” Hillary should have said.

According to a BOMBSHELL book (see POLITICO MAG) by interim DNC Chair, Donna Brazile, she says that the Hillary Campaign took over completely the finances of the DNC.

So when you hear that both the Hillary Campaign AND the DNC paid for the dossier… it really means Hillary paid for the dossier. Here is the part via the “Other Republican Client

Former acting head of the Democratic National Committee Donna Brazile alleges in an upcoming book that the DNC conspired with Hillary Clinton to effectively hand her control of the national party during the 2016 primaries.

Politico Magazine published an excerpt of Brazile’s book on Thursday with the headline, “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC.”

Brazile writes that when she took over the DNC following the Democratic National Convention last year, she promised Clinton’s primary challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), that she would “get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process.”

“By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart,” she writes.

Brazile claims that when she took over, she discovered that the DNC was badly in debt. As a result, her predecessor, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D., Fla.), had struck a deal with the Clinton campaign allowing them to oversee DNC spending in return for Clinton fundraising for the DNC.

“The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house,” Brazile says.

[….]

Brazile writes that she finally discovered a copy of the agreement between the DNC and Clinton’s team, which specified:

In exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

The agreement was signed by Amy Dacey, former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, in August 2015, a full six months before the first primary and a year before Clinton was formally the party’s nominee….

Here is the complete first hour (30-minutes without ads) of Rush Limbaugh’s show from November 2nd — must listen!

Don’t believe Rush! How bout the opposite on the political spectrum?

The Young Turks: “Donna Brazile is airing out some dirty DNC laundry. Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, discuss.” (I can’t believe I am posting TYTs on my site. But truth is truth.)

“Everyone Is Colluding With Russia Except Trump” | Mark Steyn

GAY PATRIOT comments on this video:

See more at THE DAILY CALLER

BREITBART compiles “lamemainstream medias” supporting of the facts:

1. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: The former head of Russia’s uranium company (Ian Telfer) made four hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million.
2. CONFIRMED by the New Yorker magazine: Bill Clinton bagged a $500,000 speech in Moscow paid for by a Kremlin-backed bank.
3. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: Despite claims to the contrary, Uranium One has, in fact, exported “yellowcake” out of America and is “routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.”
4. CONFIRMED by The Hill: The FBI has uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.”
5. CONFIRMED by CNBC: Clinton Foundation mega-donor Frank Holmes claimed he sold Uranium One before Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the Russian transfer—but his company’s own SEC filings prove otherwise.
6. CONFIRMED by the New York Times: While eight other agencies had to sign off on approving the transfer of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium to Russia, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was the only government agency headed by an official (Hillary Clinton) whose family foundation received $145 million from foreign investors involved in the uranium deal.
7. CONFIRMED by The Hill: FBI agents already have an eyewitness and documents to support the most explosive parts of the Uranium One story.

Here is just one example of the accumulating crimes for the Democrats (The DNC) and the Hillary campaign from the 2016 election cycle — LAW NEWZ:

….According to reports, the Hillary for America campaign paid for the research but routed the payments through Elias’ law firm Perkins Coie and described the purpose of the money as “legal services” on their FEC disclosures. The DNC and the Clinton campaign reported dozens of payments totaling more that $12 million dollars to Perkins Coie over the course of the campaign.

“By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public information role of campaign disclosures,” said Adav Noti, with the Campaign Legal Center in a statement obtained by LawNewz. Noti previously served as the FEC’s Associate General Counsel for Policy. “Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable for how they raise and spend money. The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take appropriate action.”

According to FEC reports, Clinton’s campaign reported 37 payments to the law firm and reported each disbursement as “Legal Services.” The DNC reported 345 payments to Perkins Coie during the election cycle and marked the payments as “legal and compliance consulting,” “administrative fees,” “data services subscription” and others.

“The purpose of at least some portion of the payments to Perkins Coie was not for legal services; instead, those payments were intended to fund opposition research,” the FEC complaint reads. “This false reporting clearly failed the Commission’s requirements for disclosing the purpose of a disbursement.”

It is legal under current campaign finance law for the Hillary Clinton campaign to commission an opposition research company to dig up dirt on Donald Trump. What is not legal, according to campaign legal experts, is for the campaign to pay a law firm who then hires other to perform campaign related activities without reporting the purpose of the expenditures….

.

Democrat and Hollywood Hypocrisy – Harvey Weinstein

Larry Elder takes us on a Democrat infested mine-field courtesy of Harvey Weinstein. For more on the mentioned “Nuts or Sluts defense,” see Larry’s detailed explanation HERE. And more anti-woman positions by Hillary, see HERE.

Gay Patriot grabs this excerpt to point to how good of a progressive Weinstein was….

In 2015, [Weinstein’s] company distributed “The Hunting Ground,” a documentary about campus sexual assault. A longtime Democratic donor, he hosted a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton in his Manhattan home last year. He employed Malia Obama, the oldest daughter of former President Barack Obama, as an intern this year, and recently helped endow a faculty chair at Rutgers University in Gloria Steinem’s name. During the Sundance Film Festival in January, when Park City, Utah, held its version of nationwide women’s marches, Mr. Weinstein joined the parade.

ALSO…

Manafort May Be Jail-Bound?

THE HILL notes this about Paul Manfort’s possible involvement…

…Investigators were reportedly concerned that the intelligence included communications that Manafort may have encouraged the Russians to help influence the 2016 election, though two unnamed sources familiar with the matter cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.

Manafort has emerged as a key figure in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

Mueller’s team has taken a series of aggressive actions against Manafort in recent months. In July, for example, the FBI conducted an early-morning raid of Manafort’s Alexandria, Va., home. Mueller has also subpoenaed the former campaign chairman’s personal spokesman and former attorney…

Manafort is tied to Clinton comrades (APRIL 13th!!!)…. and CLINTON CASH makes it clear the connections of Russia and Hillary are damning. Manafort may be in trouble! Mark Levin said he may go to jail as well. If you are friends with Clinton friends… trouble soon follows.

It Looks Like Trump Won New Hampshire – Voter Fraud

Click To Enlarge

It is looking like New Hampshire may need to be in the Trump column for the 2016 Presidential election.

….Donald Trump lost to Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire by 2,736 votes out of 745,000 cast. Republican incumbent Sen. Kelly Ayotte lost her seat to Democrat Maggie Hassan by a mere 1,017 votes out of 739,140 cast.

[…..]

Wonder how Mr. Bissonnette will spin the news about those 5,526 out-of-state voters who never bothered to get New Hampshire driver’s licenses?….

(WASHINGTON TIMES)

So instead of Trump being at 306 in the electoral college, he may be at 310. And Hillary should be lowered to 221.

Oh, and don’t think CNN would miss an opportunity to “racialize” this.

 

California Sen. Kevin de Leon “The Rise of White Supremacy”

I have an addition to the HOT AIR story, but first the main idea:

…The most recent example of this is California Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de Leon, who grandstanded to colleagues on Monday he wanted to have a series to public hearings to make sure “California is adequately prepared for Nazi rallies.”

“We’ve already seen this repugnant ideology rear its ugly head on our own college campuses … even right here at our great state Capitol,” De Leon dramatically intoned while reading from pink pages. “In fact, after last year’s fiasco, where a melee occurred on these Capitol Grounds, CHP, the California Highway Patrol, at my request, has fully reviewed what transpired and has made a number of arrests and completed an assessment.”

What’s interesting, yet completely unsurprising, is de Leon’s decision to not reveal exactly how many were arrested and whether they were actual Nazis. The truth is only four people, out of the 106 CHP wanted charged are actually facing prosecution: one a Nazi, while the other three were counter-protesters, aka Antifa. De Leon also failed to mention whom the fine folks in law enforcement believe are to blame for said melee. For that, we have to turn to comments made by CHP in June 2016. Via the Los Angeles Times:

“If I had to say who started it and who didn’t, I’d say the permitted group didn’t start it,” said California Highway Patrol officer George Granada, a spokesman for its Protective Services division. “They came onto the grounds and were met almost instantly with a group of protesters there not to talk.”

The permitted group, for those wondering, is The Traditionalist Worker Party, which openly admits to supporting National Socialism aka Nazism. Their philosophy is completely execrable, but at least the loathsome Neanderthals ask for permits.

The Antifas, who are as execrable and Neanderthalic as the Ratzis, did not have a permit, and showed up to stop the rally from happening.

Now, I personally don’t believe organizations need to implore on bended knee “if it pleases the Crown, pretty please give us a piece of paper” in hopes of promoting some sort of cause. The First Amendment does protect the freedom of speech and assembly, as long as the group doesn’t trample on private property.

However, the Antifas showed just how fascist they are by deciding the best way to protest is with a fist to the face instead of fist in the air, proclaiming, “Down with Nazis! Down with hate!” After all, Antifa did cause $100K in damage to UC Berkeley, something de Leon conveniently forgets, then decided to cause more damage downtown.

So why doesn’t de Leon acknowledge the facts of what happened and admit the so-called Antifas started the violence? Why should that interfere with a good story for voters? After all, de Leon is yearning for a promotion to lieutenant governor and it behooves him to pretend to be “doing something, anything!” to cajole Democrats to cast their vote for him. Besides … everyone hates Nazis, except those who share their beliefs, so might as well make them out to be the problem instead of admitting something is rotten in the state of California.

This is why this entire “left wing vs. right wing” classification is as ridiculous as dress shoes in an ice hockey game. The true battle is between ideologues who believe in freedom versus those who believe in totalitarianism…..

My only addition to De Leon’s LACK of understanding is that these racist groups are primarily Left leaning… as I noted in this Larry Elder [short] clip “California’s KKK Grand Dragon Endorsed Hillary”

OH!!! And don’t furget about de Leon’s GHOST GUN bit:

Larry Elder Ruminates On Trump, Comey, and Watergate

Here is the WASHINGTON POST article by Bill Clinton’s former Attorney General:

….It is true, as I pointed out in a Post op-ed in October, that Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, after her tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, had left a vacuum by neither formally recusing herself nor exercising supervision over the case. But the remedy for that was for Comey to present his factual findings to the deputy attorney general, not to exercise the prosecutorial power himself on a matter of such grave importance.

Until Comey’s testimony last week, I had assumed that Lynch had authorized Comey to act unilaterally. It is now clear that the department’s leadership was sandbagged. I know of no former senior Justice Department official — Democrat or Republican — who does not view Comey’s conduct in July to have been a grave usurpation of authority.

Comey’s basic misjudgment boxed him in, compelling him to take increasingly controversial actions giving the impression that the FBI was enmeshed in politics. Once Comey staked out a position in July, he had no choice on the near-eve of the election but to reopen the investigation when new evidence materialized. Regrettably, however, this performance made Comey himself the issue, placing him on center stage in public political discourse and causing him to lose credibility on both sides of the aisle. It was widely recognized that Comey’s job was in jeopardy regardless of who won the election.

It is not surprising that Trump would be inclined to make a fresh start at the bureau and would consult with the leadership of the Justice Department about whether Comey should remain. Those deliberations could not begin in earnest until the new deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, to whom Comey would report, was confirmed and in a position to assess Comey and his performance. No matter how far along the president was in his own thinking, Rosenstein’s assessment is cogent and vindicates the president’s decision.

Rosenstein made clear in his memorandum that he was concerned not so much with Comey’s past arrogation of power, as astonishing as it was, but rather with his ongoing refusal to acknowledge his errors. I do not dispute that Comey sincerely believes he acted properly in the best interests of the country. But at the same time, I think it is quite understandable that the administration would not want an FBI director who did not recognize established limits on his powers.

It is telling that none of the president’s critics are challenging the decision on the merits. None argue that Comey’s performance warranted keeping him on as director. Instead, they are attacking the president’s motives, claiming the president acted to neuter the investigation into Russia’s role in the election.

The notion that the integrity of this investigation depends on Comey’s presence just does not hold water. Contrary to the critics’ talking points, Comey was not “in charge” of the investigation….

(Read It All)