Tag Archives: Corrupt Hillary

A Fish Called Obama Or The Fish Rots From The Head

 

James A. George

As one who very publicly proclaimed his belief that James Comey was one of the most honest, incorruptible public servants in Washington, before he permanently stained himself and his agency with the corruption so endemic to that swamp of mendacity in these times, I feel uniquely qualified to comment on the serious damage his decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton has done to our Nation. And, as one who really believed in his integrity and probity, I can certainly agree with his own words in describing himself in a Senate Committee hearing –“a deeply flawed and fallible human being.” That deficiency, obviously not peculiar to Mr. Comey, is one which addresses itself to Mr. Comey and those he has dragged with him into such disrepute. However, as with so much of the lawlessness which will forever be the real legacy of this most corrupt administration in our history, the damage to the Rule of Law—the very foundation of our Republic, as designed by the Founding Fathers—carries the potential of being dangerous and far-reaching. Should, God forbid, Hillary Clinton be elected President, it could well become permanent.

In a post recently on Ricochet.com, the author observed the following, in a piece appropriately entitled “James Comey Is A Disgrace”:

“When James Comey was not eroding everyone’s belief in the competence of the FBI, he was acting as a political hack for the Obama’s and Clinton’s. One of the largest intelligence breaches in American history takes place and director Comey’s response is to hand out immunity to almost everyone involved, ask no follow up questions, and then say he could not prove intent by Hillary Clinton. John Schindler does an excellent job documenting the sham of an investigation.

“It’s prudent to judge people by comparing how they found something against how they left it. James Comey has destroyed the credibility of the FBI. The man is a disgrace. I do not care if he was feeling pressure from Obama, if he was uncomfortable with that pressure then he should have resigned. He is just another apparatchik along with Loretta Lynch and John Koskinen in an increasingly corrupt and incompetent government.”

I am  a great admirer of the writings of Andrew McCarthy, a former Federal prosecutor who was the lead prosecutor of “the Blind sheik” in the successful prosecution of that radical Islamic terrorist for his role in planning the first World Trade Center attack in the early ‘90’s. Thus, when he analyzes matters prosecutorial, this non-criminal-defense lawyer credits his opinions as highly as any commentator on the scene today. Way back in the distant mists of February, he opined that

“As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.”

***

“Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.”

He concluded at that time:

“To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information.”

More recent analyses have shown rather clearly that, in all probability due in large part due to the President’s own exposure to liability (see, e.g., United States v. Nixon) if these e-mails were to be made public, as they absolutely would be in any prosecution of Clinton, there never was a plan to do anything but let her skate.

As McCarthy discussed a few days ago, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, her Chief of Staff during her tenure as Secretary of State (N.B.: not her attorney), who was a target of the investigation, was allowed to represent Clinton as her attorney in her “voluntary” interview—an “unheard-of accommodation … made in violation not only of rudimentary investigative protocols and attorney-ethics rules, but also of the federal criminal law.”

He further notes that Comey kept stressing that Clinton’s interview was “voluntary” and that she could impose any conditions on her appearance she wanted to impose. This is, of course, pure fantasy, as any person in that situation (except, of course, The Dowager Duchess of Chappaqua) who insisted on having present in her interview a target of the investigation, who was not her lawyer, would have simply been handed a subpoena and directed down the hall where a Grand Jury would be waiting for her to testify—“under oath and all by her lonesome, without any of her lawyer legion in attendance.”

In the Wall Street Journal, Kimberley Strassel addressed questions posed by Rep. Tom Marino, a former Justice Department prosecutor, as to why

“…. Ms. Mills was so courteously offered immunity in return for her laptop—a laptop that Mr. Comey admitted investigators were very keen to obtain. Why not simply impanel a grand jury, get a subpoena, and seize the evidence?”

“Mr. Comey’s answer was enlightening: “It’s a reasonable question. . . . Any time you are talking about the prospect of subpoenaing a computer from a lawyer—that involves the lawyer’s practice of law—you know you are getting into a big megillah.” Pressed further, he added: “In general, you can often do things faster with informal agreements, especially when you are interacting with lawyers.” ”

The key words: “The lawyer’s practice of law.” What Mr. Comey was referencing here is attorney-client privilege. Ms. Mills was able to extract an immunity deal, avoid answering questions, and sit in on Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview because she has positioned herself as Hillary’s personal lawyer. Ms. Mills could therefore claim that any conversations or interactions she had with Mrs. Clinton about the private server were protected by attorney-client privilege.

She then illustrates how easily Mills conned (there really is no other way to describe the way she lied her way into both the interview with Clinton and her own immunity agreement) the apparently eager-to-please FBI agents and Justice Department lawyers by telling them she did not know about Clinton’s server until they both left the State Department. At one point, she even said she didn’t even know what a server was! As McCarthy observed, these obvious fabrications don’t even pass the laugh test, but they were accepted hook, line and sinker by these inside-the-Beltway “investigators” (why does the phrase “Keystone Kops” come to mind?) who were busy constructing their Potemkin village to help Clinton stagger to the White House.

Now, if all that pile of corruption stench is not overpowering enough, it has just been learned that side agreements were reached with Mills and another member of the Clinton team in which the FBI agreed (1) to destroy their laptops after reviewing their contents and (2) limited their search to no later than January 31, 2015, preventing the Bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice. According to a Fox News summary of these truly bizarre agreements:

“Judiciary Committee aides told FoxNews.com that the destruction of the laptops is particularly troubling as it means that the computers could not be used as evidence in future legal proceedings, should new information or circumstances arise.”

“Committee aides also asked why the FBI and DOJ would enter into a voluntary negotiation to begin with, when the laptops could be obtained condition-free via a subpoena.”

“The letter also asked why the DOJ agreed to limit their search of the laptops to files before Jan. 31, 2015, which would “give up any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.” ”

“Aides expressed shock at the parameter, saying it is especially troubling as Mills and Samuelson already had immunity from the consequences of whatever might be on the laptop.”

““You’re essentially extending immunity to everyone,” one aide said.”

These house-of-mirrors shenanigans have now been brought to the attention of the D.C. Bar Association in a letter outlining the ethical violations by the Republican National Committee. Based on the Clintons’ records over the past 30 years, there is scant reason for optimism that these transgressions, which would bring this lawyer and any other not favored by the aura (perhaps “aroma” might be more appropriate here) of the Clintons into a disciplinary hearing, will be acted upon, but perhaps there is some reason to hope that the Bar will fairly discharge its obligations.

This strange and – may I say it?—deplorable parade of one corrupt act following closely upon the heels of another has even caused scholars of a decidedly leftist persuasion to raise questions about the glaring double-standards being applied. One such scholar had this to say:

“As Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and who first defended the FBI’s decision not to prosecute Hillary,  recently put it:”

“Of all of the individuals who would warrant immunity, most would view Mills as the very last on any list. If one assumes that there may have been criminal conduct, it is equivalent to immunizing H.R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman in the investigation of Watergate.”

 

As Americans who love our country and who simply do not want to believe that the persons leading our government are engaged in the destruction of evidence, lying under oath, impeding proper investigations, granting favorable treatment and immunity to certain favored persons where no one else in the country would ever get such treatment—even to targets of a criminal investigation. As a lawyer who practiced in many Courts of Law for many years, it is especially grievous—painful!—to witness the steady dismantling of the Rule of Law by conduct which is clearly, under any objective analysis, thoroughly and deeply corrupt.

 

One of the best summaries of what we’re faced with was written by Col. Lawrence Sellin (U.S. Army, Ret’d), a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq, and captures the way so many of us feel about the sewer known as the Obama Administration. He said:

 

“Comey’s performance in office is symptomatic of a problem that cuts across the entire political-media establishment, namely the desperate attempts being undertaken by those trying to preserve the corrupt status quo.”

“As part of that effort, the FBI Director joins a long list of aspiring office holders and fawning journalists willing to exchange integrity for the opportunity to audition for a seat at Hillary Clinton’s Presidential dinner table.”

“President Trump should fire James Comey.”

It is my fervent wish that this is President Trump’s second official act, right after ordering his Justice Department to forthwith issue an indictment against Hillary Rodham Clinton.

God Bless America.

The Bottomless Corruption of Hillary, Huma, Cheryl and their sycophants

We now have, in addition to the multitude of violations of public trust outlined by the Director of the FBI right before he permanently soiled himself and his reputation for integrity and that of his agency by letting this criminal skate for Federal offenses from which no one not named Clinton would have escaped prosecution, the spectacle of this gang of lawless cretins deliberately and intentionally destroying evidence they knew to be under Congressional subpoena! It does seem that every day that passes sees new levels of sheer depravity by these people and, of course, it will continue as long as they know they can get away with it–truth be known, the Dowager Duchess of Chappaqua has been getting away with violations of public trust, that of the citizens of Arkansas, where she honed her slithery talents of deception and artifice, and then, for lo these many years, after an interim training on the citizens of New York, the citizens of the United States.

Therefore, I have written the following letters to my representatives in Congress, and would most wholeheartedly urge any of my fellow citizens so moved to do the same. I muddle along under no illusions whatsoever that my lone voice, even though I have tried to back it up with brief, but hopefully solid, research, is going to make a whit of difference, but I am still naive enough to believe that if enough of us present a strong and powerful enough voice about this outrageous in-your-face lawlessness, it just might make some difference, even if only a small one.

So, here are my letters; just a cry in the wilderness of just one citizen trying to get the attention of his public “servants” and trying to get them to do SOMEthing, ANYthing, before it’s too late, because if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States, it will, in all probability, be “too late” for America.

Letter of September 4, 2016:

This message is being sent to my representatives in Congress, Senators Vitter and Cassidy and Congressman Graves and concerns what I and many others view as the complete dismantling of the Rule of Law by the President, the Attorney General and the FBI, with regard to Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and others on Mrs. Clinton’s staff.

 

It is becoming more and more clear that Clinton and her staff may welll have destroyed evidence which, at the time of its destruction either by them personally or at their direction, they knew to be evidence subject to a validly issued subpoena. This was beginning to be the clear case before the  FBI cynically made its “Friday night before a long holiday weekend document dump”, an act which should convince anyone that the Bureau and the Department of Justice have become totally politicized under this Administration. However, although the Bureau only gave Congress two items for public release, ordering that the remainder be subject to very strict viewing “privileges” (when did we get to the point that a Member of the Senate or the House of Representatives are ordered to observe such strict limits on what they can and cannot see of records which should all be totally public records? ) but, according to several analyses I have reviewed over the past two days, it is beginning to appear that Clinton’s staff deliberately destroyed, or attempted to destroy, a large volume of her e-mails, some of which related to the Benghazi tragedy, over which she should have been impeached long ago, not by “wiping with a cloth, or something” as she so cynically stated at one of her two “press availabilities” in 10 months, but by the use of a device known as Bleach Bit, said to leave no traces whatsoever on any drive it touches. One of the most thorough discussions I have seen on this question, and one which I most respectfully request that you read carefully, was published yesterday in the Washington Examiner and authored by Byron York, a highly respected investigative reporter, and a real journalist in a time when those are more and more scarce on the ground. His article (From FBI Fragments, a question: Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under subpoena?”) contains the following statement, and it is important in reading this sentence to remember  that this reporter is not given to unsupported charges of any kind:

“But even with the fragments now public-the Clinton 302, the overview report, but none of the many other witness interviews-  it seems fair to conclude that staff on the Clinton team destroyed material that was under subpoena. Whether that was unwitting, or whether it was something else, is not known, at least publicly.”

There are so many other legitimate questions to which the public should be demanding answers it has become difficult to keep track of all of them, but certainly one such question which should be answered by the Justice Department and the FBI is, as is phrased in the title of an excellent article by Andrew McCarthy which appeared Friday in National Review Online: “Hillary Clinton’s Mind-Boggling FBI Interview-What Was Cheryl Mills Doing There?” It is truly astonishing that an agency which was once known world-wide as the epitome of integrity and incorruptibility is now shown to have conducted an investigation which was, to be most charitable, almost as “extremely careless” as its Director deemed Mrs. Clinton’s handling of National Security secrets. It is truly mind-boggling that they would permit one of the main organizers of the entire e-mail cover up scheme, if not the one who conceived the entire operation, to sit in with the person who was the target of the investigation (and who without a doubt would now be under indictment had her name been Hillary Rodham Smith).

After many decades at the Louisiana Bar, the very idea of this kind of pure, unmitigated lawlessness is so repulsive to me that it defies description in terms civil and professional.

Therefore, I am asking you, as one of my representatives in the United States Congress, to –as soon as possible, please-use whatever procedures, powers, agencies, etc. you may have within your authority to bring to bear whatever needs to be done, including urging the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, to bring these lawless people who were supposed to be working for us, the taxpayers, but were in fact working for the Clinton Family Foundation, all the while, to the Bar of Justice, exactly as would be any other “regular” citizen not named Clinton, long ago.

I would greatly appreciate being advised of what steps you intend to take in this regard, and with best wishes, I am,

James A. George

Letter of September 7, 2016:

This message is being sent to my representatives in Congress, Senators Vitter and Cassidy and Congressman Graves and concerns what I and many others view as the complete dismantling of the Rule of Law by the President, the Attorney General and the FBI, with regard to Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and others on Mrs. Clinton’s staff and constitutes my request that you join publicly with Chairman Jason Chaffetz in calling upon the US Attorney for the District of Columbia to open an investigation into their lawless conduct by the intentional destruction of evidence under subpoena.

I urge you, as one of my three representatives in Congress, to actively and openly and publicly join the Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in his call for the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia to immediately launch a full investigation into what more and more clearly appears to be deliberate, willful, intentional, wanton and lawless destruction of evidence –UNDER SUBPOENA AT THE TIME OF ITS DESTRUCTION—by and/or on behalf of Hillary Clinton during and after her tenure as Secretary of State, in which capacity she doubled as Manager of the pay to play scheme benefitting herself, her husband and her daughter.

In an article appearing in the Independent Journal Review (url: http://ijr.com/2016/09/687917-federal-prosecutor-called-on-to-investigate-hillary-clinton-for-obstruction-of-justice/?utm_campaign=morning-newsletter&utm_medium=owned&utm_source=email) the author notes:

“Hillary Clinton was let off the hook earlier this summer when The Department of Justice hastily dropped the mysterious case of the missing emails.

The flurry of activity coinciding around that curious decision was punctuated by an odd press conference delivered by FBI Director James Comey, followed by a pronouncement by Attorney General Loretta Lynch that ‘of course, she’d be taking the advice of the FBI and would cease investigation of Mrs. Clinton posthaste.’

As is always the case with the Clintons, there is more to the story. Signaling that a Hillary Clinton presidency would truly be a historically fractious one, the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has now issued a call for the federal prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton for “obstruction of justice.”

Although I assume your staff has ready access to Chairman Chaffetz’ letter, here is the url for ease of immediate reference: https://www.scribd.com/document/323159423/US-Attorney-for-District-of-Columbia-Letter#download.

She should be (finally!) indicted for, inter alia, obstruction of justice for this clearly intentional (regardless of what the Director of the FBI and the Attorney General of the United States may believe) destruction of evidence under subpoena, which fact was very clearly, according to the string of letters submitted by Rep. Chaffetz along with his recent letter to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, known to Mrs. Clinton and her staff, or, at a minimum, should have been known by the person we have been assured is “the most qualified person to ever run for the President of the United States”.

I would appreciate very much hearing from you, or a staff member who is authorized to give me a complete report, as to your response to this request and what steps you intend to take to publicly support Chairman Chaffetz in pushing for this investigation of this extremely corrupt group of people, who have violated the great trust put in them by the American people.

I remain,

James A. George

As this critical election season moves on, “in its steady pace”, and it becomes more and more clear that the defeat of the most dishonest, corrupt, grasping, greedy, hypocritical, cold, cynical pathological liar who ever stood for election to the highest position of trust we Americans can give anyone is absolutely essential to the survival of our Beloved Nation as we know it, all I can say in closing is

God Bless America!