Of course the FBI didn’t find Hillary guilty of anything. Hillary is above the rule of law.
The FBI is corrupt at the top if not all the way through and through. That’s one reason there is so much corruption in our government. The rule of law doesn’t apply equally to all. Those who are lucky enough to be above the rule of law take full advantage of that fact.
Clinton was like Lee: She should have been prosecuted for willful misconduct.
www.nationalreview.com
As I have recently explained, the misimpression that Clinton’s case is primarily about “extreme carelessness” rather than willful misconduct is the result of Obama administration sleight-of-hand. Mrs. Clinton should have been investigated (and charged) under section 793(e) since she, like Lee, willfully and unlawfully retained classified information in unauthorized places (and transmitted it to unauthorized people). The gross-negligence felony (793(f)) should have been the prosecutors’ fallback position — i.e., even if a jury somehow rejected the overwhelming evidence that she willfully mishandled the intelligence, she could still be convicted if the jury concluded she was grossly negligent.
In a deceptive two-step, the Obama Justice Department first claimed Clinton could not be prosecuted for willful mishandling because she did not have a motive to harm the United States (not an element of the offense, and thus not true). Then, it claimed that she could not be prosecuted for gross negligence, either. To do so, they insisted, would (a) be constitutionally problematic because negligence is usually a civil-law standard, not a basis for criminal guilt; and (b) unfairly single her out because the Justice Department rarely brings such cases. This was nonsense on stilts: There is plenty of constitutional support for using negligence as a basis for criminal liability (for example, negligent homicide); the standard here was gross negligence, and it was applied only to a special category of government officials who were given security clearances after extensive training in the proper handling of classified materials; military officials have been prosecuted for gross negligence for misconduct far less serious than Clinton’s; and section 793(f) is a presumptively valid congressional statute that has never been held unconstitutional in its century on the books, so if there was any question, the Justice Department should have defended the law, not undermined it.
The Justice Department and FBI arguments about negligence were specious. Yet, by drawing us into this morass, the Obama administration ingeniously set the framework for public discussion of Clinton’s case: just carelessness, not real crime. In reality, Clinton was like Lee: She should have been prosecuted for willful misconduct.
The falsified documents and the many errors all disadvantaged one side. That’s not bias?
www.nationalreview.com
Imagine an investigation of racial bias in a bank, with investigators discovering a long series of serious errors and departures from ordinary standards and practices, violations of business norms, etc., not by a single loan officer but by three separate business units overseen by the highest levels of management — with all of those errors disadvantaging African-American mortgage borrowers. Would we need texts and emails documenting active racial bias on the part of the bankers to conclude that there was racial bias at play? If we found that a police department had violated its own standards on a regular basis in its treatment of African-American suspects but uncovered no texts or emails documenting racial intent, would we be satisfied that no racial bias existed?
Of course not.
And, in the case of the Obama administration, using investigative agencies as political weapons fits a well-established pattern of behavior. Under the Obama administration, the IRS abused its powers for political purposes: Conservative nonprofits were targeted for investigation and harassment. So was the National Labor Relations Board. So was the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. In fact, this is part of a pattern of behavior among Democrats both inside and outside of the federal government: New York State has just been forced to abandon a political jihad against Exxon, which Democrats attempted to prosecute for indulging wrongthink on global warming, using securities law as a pretext. Democratic prosecutors have abused their powers to harass and intimidate climate-policy critics including policy nonprofits such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute. That isn’t a conspiracy theory — New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (later driven from office) organized the campaign and announced his intentions in the New York Times.
The FBI’s actions in the Trump matter were outrageous, with agents going so far as to alter documents included as part of the FISA warrant process.
Focus in on that for a moment: The Federal Bureau of Investigation under the Obama administration sought to launch an investigation of the rival party’s presidential campaign in order to spy on it under powers reserved for national-security purposes. (FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.) In order to activate those powers, the FBI had to go to a federal court for permission, which it did — with falsified documents in hand. If the FBI attorney who altered that document avoids seeing the inside of a federal prison cell, it will be a grave disservice to justice.
Between the first complaints to the FBI and the time the agency took action, Nassar sexually abused some 70 women and girls. One of the agents who was supposed to investigate was angling for a job at USA Gymnastics
www.theguardian.com
The FBI’s handling of the Nassar case reflects a stunning failure of empathy by the agents, as well as a callous abandonment of duty amid the ongoing threat to public safety that Nassar posed. Gymnasts and Nassar victims
Simone Biles, Maggie Nichols and Aly Raisman, along with Maroney, told the Senate on Wednesday that the agency’s derelictions were both procedural and moral. In downplaying their experiences, delaying the investigation, and failing to collect evidence of Nassar’s crimes, the FBI committed a second, additional harm against Nassar’s victims: not only were they abused, but they were insulted and disregarded by those who were supposedly there to help them.
As Maroney put it in
her testimony, “What is the point of reporting abuse if our own FBI agents are going to take it upon themselves to bury that report in a drawer?”[/i]
View attachment 541223
www.mediaite.com
thefederalist.com
thehill.com
www.thetradingreport.com
www.foxnews.com
thepoliticalinsider.com
www.forbes.com
www.politico.com
