Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Should we really have expected FBI Director James Comey to enforce the law?

Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help
Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help

The Wall Street Journal explains why the FBI and DOJ exist primarily to help the Democrat Party, and not to enforce the laws of the nation. (H/T Jay Richards)

Excerpt:

The Justice Department never went to a grand jury in the case, which was needed to gather all appropriate evidence and vet the legal charges. Judge Mukasey’s judgment was vindicated on Sunday when Mr. Comey sent a letter to Congress saying that the FBI had reviewed the new emails and “we have not changed our conclusion that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.”

To rehearse Mr. Comey’s actions: In July he publicly exonerates Mrs. Clinton in an extraordinary press event, two weeks before she is to be nominated for President, though that is not his responsibility. He thus liberates Attorney General Loretta Lynch from her decision-making obligations as the nation’s chief prosecuting official. Later we learn Justice cut needless and generous immunity deals with Mrs. Clinton’s advisers.

Then 11 days before Election Day Mr. Comey sends a letter to Congress saying the FBI has found new email evidence. He comes under ferocious Democratic assault for meddling in the final days of the campaign. His boss, President Obama, joins the criticism and says Mrs. Clinton has already been exonerated. Then two days before the election Mr. Comey sends another letter exonerating Mrs. Clinton again. And Washington’s political class wonders why Americans don’t trust government?

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the main point of Mr. Comey’s many political interventions has always been to protect Mr. Comey’s job and political standing. Certainly Mrs. Clinton will have cause to be grateful to Mr. Comey if she wins on Tuesday. The price to the country is the damage he has done to the reputation of the FBI as an apolitical law-enforcement agency.

And this isn’t the first time that Comey has used law enforcement as weapon against conservatives:

In better news for the cause of justice related to Mr. Comey, the D.C. Court of Appeals last week reinstated Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s law license. Readers will recall that as Deputy Attorney General in the Bush Administration, Mr. Comey named his buddy Patrick Fitzgerald as a special prosecutor in connection with the leak of Valerie Plame’s CIA identity. Mr. Comey then stood by as Mr. Fitzgerald pursued Mr. Libby, who was Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, even after he knew that someone else had leaked Ms. Plame’s name.

Mr. Fitzgerald won the conviction based on testimony that a key witness, journalist Judith Miller, has since recanted. The office of the D.C. disciplinary counsel recommended that Mr. Libby’s law license be reinstated in part due to Ms. Miller’s recantation. The hyperpolitical Mr. Comey has left a trail of legal messes wherever he has worked, but at least Mr. Libby can earn a living at his chosen profession again.

Judith Miller is a former journalist for the far left New York Times (a former newspaper).

So often when I blog on these news stories, I don’t really comment about how I feel about them. I guess I should say something about how this refusal to enforce the law for the sake of career makes me feel.

What happened to the rule of law in this country? What happened is that the university classrooms in non-STEM areas became political in the last few decades. Professors in the liberal arts who went through school achieving good grades in areas of knowledge that had no value in the private sector became bitter against their culture. They were so good at agreeing with their teachers, and they got good grades for it – how could it be that they were not as wealthy as people who invented smartphones? Their reports cards assured them that they were smarter than everyone. They blamed the marketplace for their failure to succeed. And in their classrooms, they started to teach against Judeo-Christian values, the Constitution, the free enterprise system and the history of the United States. Basically, they blamed their failure to succeed as well as technical entrepreneurs on everyone but themselves, and they wanted to use government as a tool to equalize life outcomes with the people who invented things that consumers actually want to buy. It was these professors who taught the people who went into the public sector. They taught them the values of their tribe: secularism and leftism. Nothing was taught to them about the foundations that allowed Western Civilization to be great.

So, when you see people like Lois Lerner, James Comey and Loretta Lynch working for the IRS, the FBI and the DOJ, (respectively), then you must understand that they have never been taught to see their role as impartial law enforcement. They are unfamiliar with the phrase “rule of law”, and the importance of the rule of law for Western Civilization. Basically, you can go right through the Constitution, and they disagree with every sentence of it, because that’s what their secular leftists professors taught them to hate. You can’t expect secular leftists to act morally when they are given power – there is no foundation for moral behavior in a secular worldview. As my friend Ari likes to say “there is no law, there is only vendetta”. That’s what you get when you allow tax dollars to subsidize secular leftist wordsmiths in the public schools and public universities.

Hillary Clinton promotes taxpayer funding of abortion and opposes religious liberty

Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood
Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood

Where does Hillary Clinton stand on religious liberty? Here she is in a video explaining her view that religious liberty has to be changed by the force of government when it conflicts with abortion rights.

LIfe News explains:

In a speech last year, Hillary Clinton lamented that too many women are supposedly denied abortions. The Democratic presidential candidate came under fire for that pro-abortion comment, but she also drew widespread condemnation for another remark in the speech.

The comment had Clinton essentially saying that Christians must be forced to change their religious views to accommodate abortions.

“Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced,” Clinton said, using the euphemism for abortion.

“Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton argued. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

It doesn’t matter if you want to be a faithful Christian and disagree with the killing of unborn children. Hillary’s going to force you to agree with her pro-abortion agenda, and make you pay for the abortions with your taxes.

And that was actually the pattern of her behavior when she was Secretary of State. She wasn’t concerned with national security, or foreign policy. She was concerned with promoting abortion abroad, using taxpayer dollars, including the taxpayer dollars of pro-life taxpayers.

CNS News explains:

[…]Clinton’s State Department… sends tens of millions of dollars to African countries each year for family planning and reproductive health services, including abortion.

The largest recipient is the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), which received $50 million from the State Department in 2010, the most recent year for which figures are available.

UNFPA has a history of supporting abortion services in Africa, most notably in 2005 through its Maputo Plan of Action.

The plan, adopted by the health ministers of the African Union, calls for the implementation of another UNFPA-drafted document known as the Continental Framework on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, which calls on African countries to “[p]rovide safe abortion services to the fullest extent of national laws, and where appropriate provide legal framework for safe abortion services.”

In both the Continental Framework and the Maputo Plan, discussion of abortion is couched in terms of reducing “unsafe” abortions, providing “safe” abortions, and promoting access to family planning in Africa.

Through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the State Department also sends millions of dollars to Africa to help with population control and family planning programs.

Clinton on Monday cited six countries – Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Rwanda, and Uganda – which had partnered with the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute’s The Way Forward Project to increase care for children in their countries.

Combined, those six countries received a $90.5 million for “family planning” in 2010.

Meanwhile, in America, Hillary’s good friends at Planned Parenthood receive about $500  million from federal taxpayers each year. And Planned Parenthood returns the favor by donating millions to Democrats.

The Daily Signal explains:

In the past three election cycles, Planned Parenthood’s advocacy and political arms, employees, and their families have spent over $38 million to elect or defeat candidates for federal office who decide how much taxpayers subsidize the nation’s largest abortion provider.

[…]Planned Parenthood receives approximately $500 million from federal taxpayers each year for Medicaid and Title X Family Planning, both programs intended for low-income Americans.

“Planned Parenthood stands alone as a major recipient of taxpayer funding that is also a major participant in elections,” Mattox said.

If Hillary Clinton is elected, we should expect to see more taxpayer dollars being used to promote abortion abroad and here at home. This is something that Hillary Clinton is passionate about – eliminating children in the womb, and silencing Christians who disagree with aborting unborn children.

Wall Street Journal: Obama’s Department of Justice instructed FBI investigators to “stand down”

Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help
Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help

Remember when the Obama adminsitration issued a stand down order to American armed forces when the embassy in Benghazi was being attacked? Four people got killed, then Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice lied about the attack being caused by a YouTube video. It seems like the Obama people haven’t learned a thing, because they are doing it again.

I’m going to link to the Daily Wire, because WSJ is behind a pay wall.

Excerpt:

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published a report on Wednesday night describing more internal conflicts at the FBI and Department of Justice (DoJ) regarding investigations into the Clinton Foundation. According to unnamed “people familiar with the matter,” the WSJ claims that agents’ wishes to aggressively pursue an investigation into government corruptions related to the ostensibly charitable philanthropic enterprise were stymied by DoJ prosecutors.

[…]The US attorney for Brooklyn, Robert Capers – an appointee of President Barack Obama – is described as being at “the center of the tension” between the FBI and DOJ. Some at the FBI are said to view him as misleadingly placating both sides of the interagency dispute.

FBI agents and DOJ corruption prosecutors are said to have disagreed over the strength of the evidence regarding allegations that contributors to the Clinton Foundation received favorable political treatment from the State Department during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as its head.

[…]The WSJ’s sources claim that some blame is being directed at the FBI’s second-in-command, deputy director Andrew McCabe. McCabe’s wife is a Democrat senatorial candidate in Virginia who received nearly $500,000 from Virginia Governor and Clinton loyalist Terry McAuliffe.

With the aforementioned tensions beginning in February and continuing today, the DoJ instructed investigators to “stand down” in their investigation of possible corruption related to the Clinton Foundation, according to the WSJ’s sources.

[…]DoJ officials are said to “have become annoyed” with FBI investigators who continued their investigations despite their efforts being rebuffed. Capers is said to have told officials in Washington that the involved FBI agents “won’t let it go.”

A senior DoJ official is said to have called McCabe on August 12 over the matter, concerned that FBI agents were disregarding or disobeying instructions to cease their investigation of possible corruption related to the Clinton Foundation.

Bret Baier of Special Report talked about the ongoing investigation on Wednesday night, and again on Thursday.

Wednesday night:

Thursday:

Real Clear Politics has an article posted about the first video:

Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of information in these two short clips:

1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.

2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.

3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton’s secret server on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.

4. Sources within the FBI have told Baier that an indictment is “likely” in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, “barring some obstruction in some way” from the Justice Department.

5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton’s server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information have been taken from it.

Pay attention to point #5 there – that point shows the importance of not electing a lightweight narcissist who will get us all killed with her carelessness and irresponsibility.

I think the only way that Hillary Clinton will avoid going to prison is by getting elected and replacing all the top leadership at the FBI and DOJ with her cronies, so that the investigations of her unsecure e-mail server and the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play deals get stopped.

Who halted the FBI investigation of Hillary’s private unsecure e-mail server?

Is Barack Obama focused on protecting the American people?
Is Barack Obama focused on protecting the American people?

That’s the question I’ve been asking myself: who killed the FBI investigation of Hillary’s e-mail server and the Clinton Foundation?

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey has an answer to the question in the Wall Street Journal.

First a quick review of the facts:

Nonetheless, in July [FBI director Comey] announced that “no reasonable prosecutor” would seek to charge [Hillary Clinton] with a crime, although Mrs. Clinton had classified information on a private nonsecure server—at least a misdemeanor under one statute; and although she was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information such that it was exposed to hacking by hostile foreign nations—a felony under another statute; and apparently had caused the destruction of emails—a felony under two other statutes. He then told Congress repeatedly that the investigation into her handling of emails was closed.

Those decisions were not his to make, nor were the reasons he offered for making them at all tenable: that prosecutions for anything but mishandling large amounts of classified information, accompanied by false statements to investigators, were unprecedented; and that criminal prosecutions for gross negligence were constitutionally suspect.

Members of the military have been imprisoned and dishonorably discharged for mishandling far less information, and prosecutions for criminal negligence are commonplace and entirely permissible. Yet the attorney general [Loretta Lynch], whose decisions they were, and who had available to her enough legal voltage to vaporize Mr. Comey’s flimsy reasons for inaction, told Congress she would simply defer to the director.

That July announcement of Mr. Comey, and that testimony by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, also had a history.

When the FBI learned that two of the secretary’s staff members had classified information on their computers, rather than being handed grand-jury subpoenas demanding the surrender of those computers, the staff members received immunity in return for giving them up. In addition, they successfully insisted that the computers not be searched for any data following the date when Congress subpoenaed information relating to its own investigation, and that the computers be physically destroyed after relevant data within the stipulated period was extracted.

The technician who destroyed 30,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails after Congress directed that they be preserved lied to investigators even after receiving immunity. He then testified that Clinton aides requested before service of the subpoena that he destroy them, and that he destroyed them afterward on his own initiative.

Why would an FBI director, who at one time was an able and aggressive prosecutor, agree to such terms or accept such a fantastic story?

 

Yes, why did Comey stop the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton given all of these facts?

Mukasey explains who called off the investigation and why:

The search for clues brings us to an email to then-Secretary Clinton from President Obama, writing under a pseudonym, that the FBI showed to Ms. Abedin. That email, along with 21 others that passed between the president and Secretary Clinton, has been withheld by the administration from release on confidentiality grounds not specified but that could only be executive privilege.

After disclosure of those emails, the president said during an interview that he thought Mrs. Clinton should not be criminally charged because there was no evidence that she had intended to harm the nation’s security—a showing required under none of the relevant statutes. As indefensible as his legal reasoning may have been, his practical reasoning is apparent: If Mrs. Clinton was at criminal risk for communicating on her nonsecure system, so was he.

That presented the FBI director with a dilemma that was difficult, but not complex. It offered two choices. He could have tried to proceed along the course marked by the relevant laws. The FBI is powerless to present evidence to a grand jury, or to issue grand-jury subpoenas. That authority lies with the Justice Department, headed by an attorney general who serves, as her certificate of appointment recites, “during the pleasure of the President of the United States for the time being.”

[…]Instead, Mr. Comey acceded to the apparent wish of President Obama that no charges be brought. 

Obama would have wanted the FBI investigation stopped because if the Department of Justice decided that Clinton “was at criminal risk” for communicating on Clinton’s nonsecure system, then so was he. Fortunately for Obama, he appointed Loretta Lynch as attorney general, and we know she won’t prosecute Democrats, because she refused to go after the IRS for persecuting conservative organizations ahead of the 2012 election, so that Obama would win.

So, did Obama know that he was communicating to Secretary Clinton on an unsecure private e-mail server?

"We need to clean this up" = We need to cover this up
“We need to clean this up” = We need to cover this up

His own staff sent e-mails confirming that he knew.

The far-left New York Times reports:

In a March 2015 interview, President Obama said that he had learned about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state “the same time everybody else learned it, through news reports.”

But that assertion concerned aides of Mrs. Clinton, who knew that the president himself had received emails from the private address, according to a hacked email made public on Tuesday by WikiLeaks.

“We need to clean this up — he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov,” Cheryl D. Mills, a top aide, wrote to John D. Podesta, another senior adviser, on March 7, 2015.

Two days later, Mr. Obama’s spokesman, Josh Earnest, tried to clarify the president’s remarks, saying that he had, in fact, exchanged emails with Mrs. Clinton through her private account.

And far left CNN confirms:

A top Hillary Clinton adviser said President Barack Obama’s answer on Clinton’s private email use as secretary of state needed “clean up,” according to hacked emails from her campaign chairman released Tuesday.

In a March 2015 email chain, Cheryl Mills, a top legal adviser and longtime member of Clinton’s inner circle, told campaign Chairman John Podesta of an interview in which Obama said he learned about Clinton’s private email setup from news reports.

“We need to clean this up — he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov,” Mills wrote to Podesta.

So, who ordered the FBI to stop investigating Hillary’s private e-mail server? Who ordered the Department of Justice not to proceed with the criminal investigation? Obama was the one with the authority to call it off, and Obama had a reason for calling it off: he was at risk of criminal charges himself.

Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Russia’s acquisition of American uranium

Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help
Hillary Clinton look bored about the deaths of 4 Americans who asked for her help

That headline is sensational, but consider this article by Andy McCarthy in National Review.

It says:

Hillary and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, operated the Clinton Foundation. Ostensibly a charity, the foundation was a de facto fraud scheme to monetize Hillary’s power as secretary of state (among other aspects of the Clintons’ political influence). The scheme involved (a) the exchange of political favors, access, and influence for millions of dollars in donations; (b) the circumvention of campaign-finance laws that prohibit political donations by foreign sources; (c) a vehicle for Mrs. Clinton to shield her State Department e-mail communications from public and congressional scrutiny while she and her husband exploited the fundraising potential of her position; and (d) a means for Clinton insiders to receive private-sector compensation and explore lucrative employment opportunities while drawing taxpayer-funded government salaries.

While the foundation did perform some charitable work, this camouflaged the fact that contributions were substantially diverted to pay lavish salaries and underwrite luxury travel for Clinton insiders. Contributions skyrocketed to $126 million in 2009, the year Mrs. Clinton arrived at Foggy Bottom. Breathtaking sums were “donated” by high-rollers and foreign governments that had crucial business before the State Department. Along with those staggering donations came a spike in speaking opportunities and fees for Bill Clinton. Of course, disproportionate payments and gifts to a spouse are common ways of bribing public officials — which is why, for example, high-ranking government officeholders must reveal their spouses’ income and other asset information on their financial-disclosure forms.

While there are other egregious transactions, the most notorious corruption episode of Secretary Clinton’s tenure involves the State Department’s approval of a deal that surrendered fully one-fifth of the United States’ uranium-mining capacity to Vladimir Putin’s anti-American thugocracy in Russia.

Here are the details about the donations:

In a nutshell, in 2005, under the guise of addressing the incidence of HIV/AIDS in Kazakhstan (where the disease is nearly nonexistent), Bill Clinton helped his Canadian billionaire pal Frank Giustra to convince the ruling despot, Nursultan Nazarbayev (an infamous torturer and human-rights violator), to grant coveted uranium-mining rights to Giustra’s company, Ur-Asia Energy (notwithstanding that it had no background in the highly competitive uranium business). Uranium is a key component of nuclear power, from which the United States derives 20 percent of its total electrical power.

In the months that followed, Giustra gave an astonishing $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation and pledged $100 million more. With the Kazakh rights secured, Ur-Asia was able to expand its holdings and attract new investors, like Ian Telfer, who also donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Ur-Asia merged with Uranium One, a South African company, in a $3.5 billion deal — with Telfer becoming Uranium One’s chairman. The new company proceeded to buy up major uranium assets in the United States.

[…][L]ater, it was announced that Russia’s Rosatom had purchased 17 percent of Uranium One.

Later on:

[…][T]he Russian company sought to acquire a controlling interest in Uranium One. That would mean a takeover not only of the Kazakh mines but of the U.S. uranium assets as well. Such a foreign grab requires approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a powerful government tribunal that the secretary of state sits on and heavily influences. Though she had historically postured as a hawk against foreign acquisitions of American assets with critical national-security implications, Secretary Clinton approved the Russian takeover of Uranium One. During and right after the big-bucks Russian acquisition, Telfer contributed $1.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Other people with ties to Uranium One appear to have ponied up as much as $5.6 million in donations.

Does this sound unbelievable? Well consider this article from the far left New York Times, of all places.

Excerpt:

The headline in the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

That’s what Hillary Clinton did as Secretary of State. I wonder if Democrat voters are paying attention. I wonder if national security is important to them.