To comply with FTC regulations, all links on this site could lead to commissions paid to the publisher. Please see Advertising Disclosure in sidebar.
DELRAY BEACH, FL – Does any objective observer not think that the “fix” was in by the FBI and the Justice Dep’t. by not indicting Hillary Clinton for “gross negligence” (a/k/a “extreme carelessness”), for putting our national security in jeopardy by using a personal server in the conduct of her duties as Secretary of State? Prior to FBI chief Jim Comey’s refusal to suggest that Hillary Clinton committed a “crime”, Pres. Obama said that he saw no crime committed by Hillary and that it was just a “mistake” on her part, which she had apologized for. How did he know, was he part of the investigation or was he sending a message to the FBI and Justice Dep’t. that he expected no indictment? Something smells rotten in Denmark, as the old expression goes.
During the testimony of the FBI Director, James Comey, before the Congressional Oversight Committee, he was asked if he attended the interrogation of Hillary by the FBI – he replied that he did not. He also was asked if Hillary was put under oath – he replied she was not. In addition, he was asked if her testimony during the FBI “interview” was recorded – his answer was no it was not. And the kicker to all , he was asked if he was aware of the results of the interview by questioning all the actual interrogators – he said he did not, he only read the summary of the interview. But, even after admitting those disclosures, he was able to somehow determine, in a couple of days, that she committed no crime in his 13 minutes of damning disclosures and two minutes of exoneration. It just doesn’t add up.
As stated above, Comey’s presentation was approximately 15 minutes long and for the first 13 minutes, he laid out a “prima facie” case of why she violated the rules and protocols of the State Dep’t. and the civil code, which was a crime. It was a damning list of lies she has told over the past year and a half , and it certainly looked like he was laying the groundwork for recommending that the Justice Dep’t. convene a grand jury to hear the information that they gathered. But, after the 13 minutes of damning rhetoric by Comey, he did a complete 180 degree turn around and stated that he wouldn’t think that a “competent prosecutor” would try this case with the evidence at hand, and that he would not recommend an indictment. It has come out since, that back in April of 2016, Jim Comey wrote an “exoneration” memo of what Hillary was charged with, this was even before she was “interrogated” by the FBI.
Many people in law enforcement and the legal profession were amazed at his reasoning, and some friends of his who worked with him in the past were totally shocked by his incomprehensible decision. Included among the critics were his former boss in the federal prosecutors office, former Mayor of the City of New York, Rudy Giuiliani, and former Ass’t. Director of the FBI, James Kallstrom, among others, who said they thought that Comey was totally mistaken in his judgment.
Big Tech is censoring our publication severely reducing our traffic and revenue. (How they do it: NewsGuard) You can support our mission of truthful reporting by making a contribution. We refuse to let Silicon Valley crush us into becoming just another regurgitated, propaganda driven, echo-chamber of traditional news media and we need your support. You can also help by signing up for our featured story emails.
We cannot know what went through the mind of James Comey, but it does give the impression and appearance of a pre-determined outcome with political overtones. Why else would President Obama weigh in months before claiming the “innocence” of Hillary, and why would Hillary, when asked if she feared indictment, she said over and over again that there wasn’t a chance of that happening. Doesn’t that give the appearance of a “fix” in the eventual outcome?
James Comey had been touted as a person above reproach and a “straight shooter”, but one has to wonder how he could come up with that convoluted decision that he came up with? Was he looking to not be the one who derailed the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton, or was he just trying to appease the political establishment and the Wash. D.C elites even though the evidence overwhelmingly pointed otherwise? We have since learned that Jim Comey has not been forthcoming in telling the truth on other matters, and with his personal animus toward Hillary’s opponent, Donald Trump.
My opinion is that, “the fix was in” from the beginning, and Hillary has skated free for the umpteenth time, giving credence to the phrase that in Wash. D.C. “it’s not what you know it’s who you know” and it is obvious that there is a two-tier system of justice – one for the “connected” (the Clinton’s), and one for the average Joe. We seem to be fulfilling the prophesy of the late judge William Bork, who said we were “slouching toward Gomorrah”. Let’s hope we don’t fulfill his prophesy.