As we’ve outlined for many months, it’s increasingly clear that regarding the various hoaxes and the legal targeting of President Trump, all roads lead back to Hillary Clinton. You might remember our big cork board from my TBN weekend show earlier this year...
Anyway, last week, the story broke about Trump’s RICO Act lawsuit against Hillary and a host of others (many of whom –- including Hillary, of course –- happen to be on my big cork board) being dismissed by a decidedly pro-Hillary jurist, Bill Clinton-appointee Judge Donald Middlebrooks. Trump had tried to get Middlebrooks to recuse himself earlier this year, but he refused, though, clearly, he should have done so. According to Trump’s own attorney, Alina Habba, Trump himself thought he’d lose this suit, but Habba dearly wanted to pursue it, anyway. She plans to appeal.
We haven’t read the entire 65-page ruling, but from what we’ve seen, Judge Middlebrooks offers some odd logic, even citing the acquittal of Michael Sussmann –- virtually inevitable in that DC courtroom –- as a reason not to take Trump’s complaint seriously. Trump had referenced Special Counsel John Durham’s indictment of Sussmann in his complaint.
The judge used extremely loaded language to talk about Trump’s complaint, calling it “a political manifesto” that was about “settling scores and grievances.”
More on that to come. In the meantime, it should be noted that September 11 was not only the 21st anniversary of the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (and an aborted attempt, most likely on the White House or Capitol dome), but also the 10th anniversary of the terrorist massacre in Benghazi, Libya, which Hillary and, really, the entire Obama administration lied to us about. Remember?
Four Americans were slaughtered: U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors and former Navy SEALs Glen “Bub” Doherty and Tyrone Woods. As FOX NEWS reported, the American consulate was ambushed in a coordinated attack by the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia. But the Obama Administration lied to us about this, maintaining it was a “spontaneous demonstration” in response to a YouTube video that they’d found offensive.
The election of 2012 was less than two months away, and the White House –- President Obama and then-Vice President Joe Biden –- had to, above all, maintain the proper narrative. So they made something up. Hillary looked us right in the eye and told enormous whoppers, but then, this comes naturally to her.
As J. D. Rucker says, there were actions our State Department could have taken in the weeks and months prior to the attack to protect Ambassador Stevens and the others. Stevens had written more than once to tell them how unprotected he and his staff were in that lonely outpost and to ask for more security, but his desperate requests were never heeded.
Nick Arama at REDSTATE certainly remembers this, and, as he mentions, so does former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who’d tweeted: “10 years ago, four American patriots lost their lives in Benghazi, Libya. I served on the Benghazi committee so we would learn the lesson that would never allow this to happen again. We must never forget to fight those who threaten us and support those that defend us.”
Shockingly, however, the Biden Administration has issued no formal statement to commemorate the attack or the killings, not even of a U.S. ambassador on foreign soil. Because they’d rather ignore it than bring up something inconvenient, it has gone unmentioned. Imagine Karine Jean-Pierre stumbling through an answer about what really happened in Benghazi!
Worse, Hillary herself went on CNN Sunday to talk about 9/11 and “extremism,” but she had not one word to say about Benghazi. As Arama said, “It was Clinton who was behind a lot of the failures and who promoted the false idea of the video motivating the attackers. It was Clinton who, during testimony about Benghazi, made the nefarious comment, ‘What difference, at this point, does it make?’”
Incidentally, the people working in the Obama Administration who lied about the reason for the attack –- most notably Susan Rice, who stunningly lied to us over and over –- are fixtures inside the Biden Administration now.
Ten years ago, Hillary abandoned our people to die in Libya, just as the Biden administration more recently did during the pull-out from Afghanistan. If you’ve never seen the movie 13 HOURS, this tenth anniversary of the Benghazi attack would be a good time to finally watch it.
So now let’s get into our Way-Back Machine and zip from September 11, 2012, to August 23, 2018, when REALCLEAR INVESTIGATIONS ran a Paul Sperry piece about the Hillary email investigation after then-FBI Director James Comey had given his assurance –- swearing before Congress –- that “all of the communications” on Anthony Weiner’s laptop had been reviewed when he was closing the case. (Anthony Weiner was married to Hillary’s top aide Huma Abedin at the time.) Perhaps you recall that Comey explained how the FBI had been able to review “hundreds of thousands” of emails in one week’s time, saying that “thanks to the wizardry of our technology,” the FBI had been able to eliminate the vast majority of emails as duplicates of messages they’d already seen. The others were reviewed by agents staying up “night after night after night.”
As Sperry reported in 2018, that story was pure horse hockey.
Even if the technology were there to enable the FBI to do that, a technical glitch had occurred that made it impossible. Most of the emails were never examined before the case was closed. Even so, what they did find included much more classified material than they had previously seen, including “highly sensitive information dealing with Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas,” Sperry reported. “The former secretary of state, however, was never confronted with the sensitive new information, and it was never analyzed for damage to national security.”
Keep in mind, Sperry wrote this in 2018, well before the Mar-A-Lago raid that was purportedly about classified documents in Trump’s possession: “Even though the uniquely classified material was improperly stored and transmitted on an unsecured device, the FBI did not refer the matter to U.S. intelligence agencies to determine if national security had been compromised, as required under a federally mandated ‘damage assessment’ directive.”
As Sperry reported, one career FBI special agent had complained that Washington was trying ahead of Election Day 2012 to bury this new evidence, which he suspected contained the full archive of Clinton’s emails. For when you have time –- it’s quite detailed –- Sperry’s piece is a must-read “refresher” that will make Hillary’s lies now seem even more jaw-dropping.
Jonathan Turley has posted a follow-up column to the one we discussed Friday –- the one that laid out some of Hillary’s scandals through the years –- and it’s worth your while for its legal analysis, though he appears to blur one very important point. “As I have said previously,” he writes, “I do not believe that the email scandal warranted criminal charges...” Read his entire piece, and, like us, you’ll scratch your head over how he came to say this.
“What the private server allowed was control by the Clintons,” Turley wrote. “That control would later prove key when Clinton delayed full disclosure to federal officials and ultimately deleted thousands of emails,” which were “sought by both congressional and federal investigators.” Turley goes on to detail the various ways in which she and her staff destroyed evidence and refused to cooperate with investigators. Please explain, Professor Turley, how this is not a criminal offense.
Finally, given everything in this update, Hillary’s matter-of-fact assertion on CNN that “no one is above the law” ought to be even more fall-down-funny that it would otherwise have been. Watch her make a fool of herself.