“Splinter the CIA, NSA and FBI into a thousand pieces and scatter them into the winds.”
Agreed, 100 percent! And what lovely imagery --- this cannot come too soon! But there’s just one thing: this quote came from former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, who was at the helm of Twitter during the worst of the unconstitutional collaboration between wannabe censors in government and their eager accomplices in the private sector. So this is a head-scratcher.
The responses to his tweet show that many people find this Dorsey totally at odds with the other one, and they gladly tell him so. One typical response: “Your words today don’t match your actions when you were at Twitter, so which one is real? No one really knows, although it generally makes sense to pay more attention to what people do, rather than what people say.”
Dan Bongino was back Wednesday to offer more details on President Obama’s involvement with Hillary’s State Department email scandal. But, to borrow Yogi Berra’s expression, it seems to us like “deja vu all over again,” as the Huckabee newsletter was full of this story several years ago. If Hillary had mishandled classified material, that meant Obama had, too. As Bongino says, “This whole thing was about Obama the whole time.”
If you’re a longtime reader, perhaps you’ll recall legal analyst Andrew C. McCarthy’s 2017 article in NATIONAL REVIEW about why then-FBI Director James Comey had no choice but to drop the Hillary email case. And, of course, you remember Comey’s surreal press conference on July 5, 2016, listing all of Hillary’s transgressions relative to her sneaky private email account and then saying “no reasonable prosecutor” would take the case because they couldn’t prove she meant to break the law. She had simply shown “carelessness.” But the issue of intent was a straw man; the way the law is written, there is no need to prove she intentionally broke it.
But a few months before Comey’s bizarre press conference, Obama had publicly stated the very same thing, about Hillary’s “carelessness.” He’d said she didn’t mean to endanger national security and that the importance of the emails had been vastly overstated. It was in that same month of April --- even before the FBI had interviewed Hillary --- that Comey started drafting his “no reasonable prosecutor” speech.
So now we can see where Comey got his rationale for letting Hillary skate. Obama had dictated in April exactly how the case was going to go. As Bongino points out today, Comey used the exact same words Obama had used when talking about Hillary’s case.
Another thing to note again today: when Obama was communicating with Hillary on his Blackberry, he was even using an ALIAS.
Also, the Obama administration refused to disclose these communications between him and Hillary because they no doubt contained classified conversations. (Even worse --- McCarthy doesn’t mention this --- we’re wondering if they might have had something to do with the raid on our consulate in Benghazi. That would be an additional reason to keep them under wraps.)
So, because Obama had communicated with Hillary over her non-secure private communications system, McCarthy said in 2017, “it would not have been possible to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for mishandling classified information without its being clear that President Obama had engaged in the same conduct. The administration was never, ever going to allow that to happen.”
Hey, maybe THAT’S why “no reasonable prosecutor” would take the case. They knew it would mean a short-cut to the unemployment line. They’d be taken off the case just as surely as those IRS agents investigating Hunter got dropped from theirs.
By May, while Comey was purportedly still drafting his so-called findings, “the Obama Justice Department had fully adopted the theory of the case that had already been announced by President Obama in April. They leaked to the WASHINGTON POST that Hillary probably would not be charged. The government scribes at WAPO dutifully noted the exact same rationale Obama had given: that there was “scant evidence tying Clinton to criminal wrongdoing” because there was “scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in [the] handling of emails.” And nobody at WAPO pointed out that intent had nothing to do with whether or not she’d broken the law.
As McCarthy wrote in 2017, all they had to do to prove Hillary had committed those felonies was show that she willfully transmitted classified information, was grossly negligent in handling it, and withheld or destroyed government records. They knew she had done all of those things. Under normal circumstances, plenty of reasonable prosecutors would have taken that case.
McCarthy went on to list “a series of Obama Justice Department shenanigans” designed to block the investigation. “There is a way,” he said,” a notoriously aggressive way, that the Justice Department and FBI go about their business when they are trying to make a case. Here, they were trying to UNMAKE a case.”
McCarthy could never have anticipated this when he wrote his piece in 2017, but lately we’ve seen plenty of the “notoriously aggressive way,” as it’s been used to destroy the lives of nonviolent Trump protesters who thought they were simply exercising their constitutional rights on January 6. We’ve also seen them “unmake” a case --- the Hunter Biden case.
The Obama administration was able to dispense with Hillary’s case by essentially rewriting the statute to require intent and by, McCarthy said, “offering absurd rationalizations for not applying the statue as written.” That plan came from Obama, to protect Obama, and was previewed by Obama three months before Comey gave his press conference.
FINAL NOTE: We love to get letters but receive so many with the same refrain: Why is no one ever prosecuted?? Why is there no accountability?? We’ve just served up one big reason. Obama’s administration knew how to make itself impervious, to a shocking degree, and set up the ‘Justice’ Department to maintain their power. It won’t change until we have someone in the White House who will do it what Jack Dorsey suggested. But until then, it’s imperative that people like us keep informing and reminding the public of what really happened, so that the whitewash the media keeps applying isn’t allowed to dry, and the next Republican government will have all the evidence ready to justify the herculean task they’ll face.
RELATED: There’s plenty more FBI news today. On Wednesday, CBS NEWS (surprise) actually aired a brief interview with the IRS whistleblower now identified as Gary Shapley. It certainly didn’t provide any in-depth information but did at least confirm that this person and his claims actually exist. He says he faced “deviations from the normal process” that were “way outside the norm of what I’ve experienced in the past.” He told CBS chief investigative correspondent Jim Axelrod that he had to say something when he could no longer deal with the “egregiousness” of the preferential treatment given to Hunter Biden.
Turning to the Durham Report, you’re no doubt aware that Special Counsel John Durham never fully interviewed a number of key people: FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, agent Peter Strzok, attorney Lisa Page, Bill Priestap, Kevin Clinesmith (who got a slap on the wrist for altering a piece of evidence), and Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson. They all to some extent “declined to be interviewed.”
Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin have sent a letter demanding to know why those people were “allowed to avoid fully cooperating with your office, particularly given your authority to compel testimony and records.” They find it “odd.”
They compare Durham’s special counsel probe with Robert Mueller’s. Durham “served more than 190 subpoenas under the auspices of grand juries” and “executed 7 search warrants.” For Mueller, those numbers were “more than 2,800” and “nearly 500.” It’s obvious that the Trump-haters on Mueller’s team were on a mission.
Just a hunch: this might very well be another example of the DOJ not backing up the prosecutor. If that’s the case, Durham should have pressed the issue --- like those whistleblowers at the FBI who said the DOJ had put obstacles in front of THEM.
Durham has until May 30 to answer these questions:
-- Did you subpoena any of the individuals listed above? (Comey, etc.)
-- Did the DOJ, or any of its components, impede any of your office’s investigative activities?
-- Which FBI Counterintelligence personnel refused to cooperate? Of those, which eventually cooperated?
-- Please describe how each individual “refused to cooperate.”