FBI blew this investigation
By: Tom Jackson – Columnist for News Talk Florida
Even a cursory reading of the latest in a tradition of holiday document dumps involving Hillary Clinton leaves the consumer with only two choices.
Either she is the all-time epitome of incompetence, or she reeks of corruption. There is no in-between, no matter what Mark Cuban says. And either condition makes her unfit to serve as president of the United States.
Heck, when you get right down to it, either condition disqualifies her from serving as a member of the Pasco County Mosquito Control Board, house sitting or looking after grandbabies.
I mean, do you really want someone wielding any sort of authority — even if it’s only over your toaster oven — who either suffers frequent memory loss over important events, or lies about lapses in memory to dodge the truth about prickly questions?
Once more, however, the Clinton’s proven war room strategy is at work.
First you deny (deny, deny, deny). How many lies did she tell Congress? How many did she tell the FBI? How many has she told the American public?
Then you stonewall, meanwhile enlisting your allies in government who are beholden to you for their careers. Bill got cabinet secretaries to defend him in the Monica scandal; the State Department is still fighting the Associated Press over Hillary’s years-old calendar.
Then you conjure visions of conspiracy theorists, as Hillary did in the early stages of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, coining “vast right-wing conspiracy,” and she did it again during a press gaggle on her campaign plane Tuesday.
Then you bury it by declaring the whole thing “old news.”
It helps, too, if the situation is vaguely complicated. Bill’s legal transgression wasn’t about sex; it was about lying to authorities. But Clinton operatives and media acolytes managed sell the services the bedazzled Monica performed for the president as the McGuffin.
Now instead of focusing on the clear evidence of wrongdoing — the plainly criminal mishandling of classified documents, recklessly endangering covert operatives, peddling access to the State Department through the Clinton Foundation, hiding government correspondence, perjury, breaking the law that prohibits mobile devices in secure areas, and destroying evidence under subpoena — we instead are consumed by what other secretaries of state might have done, or what how to define the ancient conjunction in quid pro quo.
And it’s simply too complicated for us to figure out. Writing for The Federalist, Daniel Payne takes up the daunting task of laying out an stunning list of particulars, including this damning paragraph:
“On Clinton’s personal e-mail server were nearly 100 e-mail chains containing nearly 200 e-mails, ranging in classified status from Confidential to Top Secret, drafted on unclassified systems. She did not initially surrender 12 of the chains to the State Department and FBI even though Clinton insisted both that she had never transmitted classified information on her server and that she had surrendered all work-related e-mails to the proper authorities. The classified material in these chains concerned not just the State Department but the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the FBI.”
I’ve read the entire article three times, and it makes my head hurt. It’s all so dang complex. … Or is it?
The Watergate scandal was eye-glazingly complicated, too, but the likely breaking point came when the public glimpsed the photograph depicting the ridiculous contortions required for Rosemary Woods to have “accidentally” erased 18-odd presumably damning minutes of tape from the Oval Office recording system.
We had to believe then, if we were reluctant to before, that the president was a crook.
Here’s something else the public knows without a doubt: People with nothing to hide do not order hammers to be applied to their mobile devices. We know, too, that people with nothing to hide do not “lose” more mobile devices in four years than an entire high school.
These incidents, many in law enforcement would say — although, tellingly, perhaps none in the FBI as currently comprised — are what they call “a clue.” Most likely, even those of us who can’t untangle the legal nuances of what went down with Hillary’s home brew server also get what’s meant when mobile devices are pulverized or systematically deep-sixed.
This is what someone does who’s trying to get away with something they oughtn’t have done, something, if proven, that promises awful consequences. No one who is not all-in for Hillary no matter what can see what the FBI saw and think she didn’t break the law and then actively participate in covering it up.
Anybody not named Clinton would already be fitted for a multi-count indictment. Why James Comey’s FBI didn’t recommend prosecution is anybody’s guess. Maybe the unprecedented release of all this evidence is his invitation for voters to do what he thought he could not.
