The shameful truth about the FBI's "examination" of Hillary's emails
With so much in the news every day, it’s easy for something earth-shaking to be overlooked, even for those of us not tied to the mainstream media narrative. On Thursday, I wrote about a breaking story uncovered by Paul Sperry of Real Clear Investigations about the way the FBI dealt with those Hillary emails found (along with lots of porn) on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, former husband of Hillary aide and confidante Huma Abedin, in the months before the 2016 election. But the story, outrageous as it was, didn’t seem to get traction until Jason Chaffetz did a segment on it for the Laura Ingraham show Thursday night.
Ever since Donald Trump shocked the Democrats by winning in November of 2016, Democrats have espoused a theory that then-FBI Director James Comey hurt Hillary’s chances with the October timing of his “re-opening” of that investigation. (Of course, they never mention that she wouldn’t have even been a candidate by then if Comey had made her do the perp-walk back in July, but I digress.) The actual story surrounding those emails is much more insidious. And it’s no theory.
These new findings are so important, and reflect so badly on Comey and the FBI’s kid-glove treatment of then-candidate Hillary, that I’d rather leave the discussion of porn-star payoffs and plea-bargaining sleazebag lawyers for another time.
As told to Chaffetz by Sperry, the vast majority of Hillary’s State Department emails discovered on Weiner’s nasty laptop were never examined. (Chaffetz happens to have been the one who received Comey’s October 2016 letter about those emails.) Comey’s claim that the FBI had individually examined hundreds of thousands of emails (“all of the communications”) for classified information and incriminating evidence was wildly untrue --- in reality, they looked at only about 3,000 out of almost 700,000. And just how did the FBI decide which 3,000 to look at? Was it random, with agents checking the first 3,000 they came to? Why, no, they were hand-picked by the head of the “MYE” (Mid-Year Exam) investigation...Peter Strzok.
And, case closed.
According to Sperry, the story Comey gave Congress was that some miraculous breakthrough in technology had made it possible for the FBI to look through all those thousands of emails, and they worked “night after night after night” until they got it done. That story did not check out; as it happened, a technical glitch thwarted their effort to process the bulk of the emails. (All together now: “Awwwww!!”) Strzok and a couple of other investigators ordered in some pizza and went through a relatively tiny number of emails for 12 hours before calling it a night. But, hey, the FBI just COULDN’T look at every single email, with the election coming up and all. They didn’t have enough time! What else could they do? They just HAD to put the case to bed before Hillary was elect---I mean, before the election.
Okay, then, so why didn’t Comey admit to Congress that they had done such a half-arsed job? He made it seem, falsely, as though Hillary’s “mid-year exam” had been comprehensive and that she’d passed. They all get an “incomplete” on this exam, and an “F” overall.
Sperry points out that all this email evidence is still relevant, as the investigation into the Clinton Foundation is ongoing. But he sees this story as one more example of politicization at the FBI, and he calls for an outside independent prosecutor to go through everything and see if agents were trying to protect Hillary by covering up material evidence. Chaffetz concurs, saying the inspector general, Attorney General Sessions and potentially a second special counsel should take up this case.
A more concise version of Sperry’s story appears at the link below, outlining the ways the investigation of Hillary was spectacularly –- and, I believe, intentionally –- botched. If anyone still doubts that we have a two-tier “justice” system, just read this. And Hillary...well, she might want to grab a few bottles of chardonnay, take a long walk far into the Chappaqua woods and hide there until the statute of limitations runs out.
Conservative voices being stifled
When the left can’t win at the ballot box or in the court of public opinion, they turn to other familiar tactics, such as unaccountable rogue judges and bureaucrats; thuggish threats and intimidation; and economic pressure via easily-spooked companies that withdraw their support from conservatives due to PR assaults and boycott threats on social media. Lately, we’ve seen that last underhanded tactic at work in several ways: airlines and banks cutting off services for NRA members, advertisers pulling their ads from conservative shows and websites, and financial services choking off conservatives' funding sources.
The David Horowitz Freedom Center, a respected conservative non-profit that’s been around for 30 years and is the publisher of Front Page magazine, was forced to ask supporters to mail them checks after Visa and Mastercard suddenly cut off processing donations to them. Why would those credit card giants do such a thing, when they provide payments to millions of organizations? Because of pressure from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which for years has been falsely labeling the DHFC as a “hate group.”
This is par for the course, since the SPLC, which used to be a legitimate anti-hate group organization, now routinely attempts to silence and bankrupt Christian and conservative groups by falsely labeling them as “hate groups.” They do this by defining any traditional values that vary from their far-left views on issues such as LGBT rights or abortion as “hate.” They enrich their coffers by sending out hysterical fundraising pleas to liberals, labeling every group to the right of MSNBC as a “hate group” to convince the suckers that there are hate groups popping up everywhere (even though when actual white supremacists recently called for a national rally, fewer than two dozen people showed up.)
The SPLC’s schtick is to defame those they hate as haters, and Visa and Mastercard have apparently fallen for it, as have a number of social media giants that actually allow the SPLC to advise them on such matters. Between that level of undeserved censorship power and the flood of donations from the gullible, the SPLC has become the most successful hate group in America.
If you have a Visa or Mastercard, you might want to let those companies know what you think about their caving in to this out-of-control leftist group (which recently had to give a $3.375 million settlement and an apology to the Quilliam Foundation for falsely labeling it an anti-Muslim hate group, and may be facing further lawsuits from up to 60 more conservative organizations.)
Visa and Mastercard need to be aware that there are many millions of conservative and Christian Americans who use credit cards and who vote for politicians who will hold corporations accountable for discriminating against conservatives and Christians for their personal beliefs.
This might also be a good time to look into what perks American Express and the Discover Card are offering these days.
Free speech in Utah
A University of Utah graduate student/teaching assistant has been removed from the classroom after she attempted to segregate students who carry legal concealed weapons. She taped off a 3x3-foot square in the back of the room, dubbed it the “Second Amendment Zone,” and ordered all students who carry personal weapons to stand in it (there were no desks.) She compared it to the University’s restricted “free speech zones,” saying that while they had a right to carry a gun, like they have a right to free speech, it could be restricted to certain areas. Also that anyone who carries a weapon is exhibiting “absurd, antisocial, and frightening behavior” (wow, talk about projection!) and disrespecting her and other students’ “personal and psychological safety” (I think her sense of "psychological safety" is insanely solid if she seriously believes legal gun carriers are that dangerous, yet she’s willing to tick them off that much.)
After students complained, the T.A. and her syllabus were both yanked, and she was reprimanded and informed that she was in violation of both state law and university policy (not to mention the Bill of Rights). She’s apologized to the students and will undergo further training.
All well and good, but let’s not put this story to bed without pointing out one thing she said that’s actually true, only not the way she intended. She’s right: that restriction of gun owners into a tiny “zone” is analogous to university “free speech zones” – in that both are equally ludicrous and unconstitutional. If you’re going to teach at a college level, then you ought to have enough sense to understand that the entire United States of America is a “free speech zone.”
This just in: the Democratic National Committee reported that their computers had been hacked! Russia! Collusion! Trump! Impeachment!...Oh, wait. Never mind. That was fake news. It was just a security test to determine if the DNC is vulnerable to phishing attempts.
Well, I think we all know the answer to that already.
Tracing guns used in crimes
When gun control advocates are asked why places with the strictest gun laws have more gun crimes, they always claim it’s because gun control isn’t widespread enough. The guns are flowing into the gun-free zones from neighboring backward states that don’t have strict gun laws. If only everyone had such laws, the flow of guns would be cut off. Sounds almost reasonable…except the latest ATF data shows it’s not true.
The ATF was asked to trace the origins of guns taken from 8600 crime scenes in the heavily gun-regulating Democratic stronghold of Baltimore. They found that only 15% of the guns came from Virginia and 7% from Pennsylvania. A whopping 47% came from right there in Maryland, which has universal background checks, a ban on “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines,” a fingerprinting requirement and other strict gun control laws.
It would almost lead one to surmise that you can’t keep criminals from getting guns by making gun laws tougher because criminals, by definition, don’t obey laws. Adding more and more gun laws makes it more difficult for the law-abiding to protect themselves, but it just gives criminals more laws to break, and that's what they do.
It seems that every day, I get new reports of social media censoring conservatives, usually followed by dismissive stories from liberal media sources about how it’s just a lot of paranoid nonsense. It’s just algorithms and trigger words, and the fact that it consistently strikes conservatives and not liberals is just one of those mysterious coincidences.
Like this latest mystery: why did the article I named as yesterday’s “must-read” get removed from Facebook? It was the New York Post article by Salena Zito on why Trump supporters say this week’s hysterical reaction to the Manafort and Cohen news won’t cause them to turn on him. It was a legitimate news piece with nothing offensive or slanted in it, yet Facebook alternately branded it as “spam” or in violation of their terms of service. It took Ms Zito a while to get in touch with anyone at Facebook (if you’ve ever tried to contact them, you know they are great at hiding their own faces, ironically enough), but it finally reappeared online after 90 minutes. Ms. Zito says she still has no explanation for why it was removed.
Neither do I, but I can tell you that stories like this one are yet another reason why anti-Trump stories in the mainstream media will not convince Trump supporters to turn on him.
Sometimes, two stories appear at the same time, and one of them is such a perfect response to the other that further commentary isn’t even required.