Tag: FBI

Which is worse: Incompetence or intentional effort to upset a democratic election?

Which is worse: Incompetence or intentional effort to upset a democratic election?

Inspector General Michael Horowitz: “On the one hand, gross incompetence, negligence? On the other hand, intentionality? And where in between? We weren’t in a position, with the evidence we had, to make that conclusion, but I’m not ruling it out.”  (ABCNews)
This is obviously sad. Both are bad. The hand-picked inspectors by the top management of the FBI were either incompetent or they were intentionally trying to affect the outcome of their investigation in one direction.
If they were incompetent than why were they hand-picked by the FBI management to run this investigation? Does that mean the FBI management is incompetent? If they were incompetent on this, the most serious investigation that the FBI has conducted in probably a decade (the investigation of members of the out-of-power party’s nominee for POTUS), then do we need to go back to every other investigation that these hand-picked professionals have conducted to see where else they have been negligent or incompetent?
If they were intentional, then they should be charged with treason for trying to use the police state powers to affect the out-of-power party’s candidate for POTUS. That is a treasonous act similar to the tactics of a fascist state. That is the same as saying that Obama was a fascist and I doubt that many Americans want to say that.

Did you see Comey’s interview with Chris Wallace? He essentially says the same thing but of course, he gets it backward. He said that if the problem was systemic than it was worse than if this was an individual situation.
If it is systemic than it is the FBI leadership that has allowed incompetence to thrive in the organization. Yes, that is very bad indeed. But is it as bad as being an individual situation?
If it is an individual situation than it is a case of the top law enforcement organization appointing its best investigators and those investigators try to use their police powers to upset the activity of the opponent of the party in power. That is treason. That is being fascist-like.
I don’t know Mr. Comey. You may want to say that you are consistently incompetent than to say that your hand-picked team of ace investigators are plotting police-state activities to disrupt the democratic election of our leaders. IMO, incompetence may be a better tactic to staying out of jail.
The renewed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails

The renewed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails

On Friday, October 28th, the political world of the US was shocked to read that the Director Jim Comey was investigating new emails in the Hillary Clinton investigation.

As you may remember, Director Comey ended this investigation several months ago. It is utterly amazing that he would announce a renewed interest in more emails. This could easily affect the vote for the President of the United States, and surely Director Comey understands this implication.

And therein gives us our first understanding of what is going on with the investigation. It is very doubtful that these emails have anything to do with Ms. Clinton’s yoga classes or seating arrangements at her daughter’s wedding. The emails, numbering more than 1,000, were found on a computer used by both disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) and his wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, according to law enforcement officials with knowledge of the inquiry who spoke to reporters on the condition of anonymity.

In short, as famed reporter Carl Bernstein hypothesizes, I think we can assume that Director Comey already knows enough about these emails to suspect that this is a significant and major problem. To put the American electorate into a frenzy on a whim would be irresponsible of Director Comey. While I disagreed with Dir. Comey on his earlier conclusions, I do think that he is smart enough to know that he just caused Ms. Clinton a lot of pain and possibly destroyed her chances of being elected.

We probably will not get a solid explanation from the FBI in time for the election. We probably will have to choose our next President of the United States without knowing if the FBI thinks that she is a traitor. We definitely will not have a trial by a jury of her peers in time for the election.

What will the American electorate do in a world of uncertain choices and incomplete information and significant innuendo? We will know in just a few days.

Jim Comey’s Clinton Standard

Jim Comey’s Clinton Standard

The most revealing words in FBI Director James Comey’s statement Tuesday explaining his decision not to recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information were these: “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.”

So there it is for everyone to understand: One standard exists for a Democratic candidate for President and another for the average citizen. No wonder so many voters think Washington is rigged for the powerful.

The following remarks are taken from the press release issued by the FBI

Read More Read More

Clinton’s Email Evasions

Clinton’s Email Evasions

The FBI is finally looking into Hillary Clinton’s handling of email as Secretary of State, but her campaign says not to worry because it’s not a “criminal referral” and she followed “appropriate practices.” The relevant question is why isn’t it a criminal probe?

Congress asked Charles McCullough III, Inspector General for the intelligence community, to evaluate whether classified information was transmitted or received by State Department employees over personal email systems. His office sampled 40 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, determined that four contained classified intelligence, and passed that finding to Justice for review. This was merely a first step, and now we know the FBI is investigating the security of Mrs. Clinton’s private server.

The McCullough findings at a minimum rebut Mrs. Clinton’s claim in March that there was “no classified material” in her personal email. Extrapolate the McCullough finding of four of 40 classified emails to the 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton gave to State, and thousands could contain classified information. State has already redacted and withheld dozens of Mrs. Clinton’s emails from its monthly, court-ordered email releases, having deemed them confidential.

She knew the rules, yet she chose to break them for her own political benefit. In the process she put state secrets at risk. This is gross negligence in the pursuit of gross self-interest.

Source: Clinton’s Email Evasions