FBI Officials Wanted To Charge
Hillary Clinton — Turns Out, They Should Have
Deep State: The plot, as always in the Russia investigation,
thickens. It never thins. Now we find out, contrary to what former FBI Director
James Comey said, that top FBI officials wanted to charge Hillary Clinton for
criminally misusing her homebrew email server and compromising American
secrets. The lies continue to unravel.
alit Captions
This is the Deep State on steroids. If newly appointed Attorney
General William Barr decides to clean house, and we hope he does, he'll have
his hands full.
Meanwhile, as former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe continues
his self-destructive book tour, it's increasingly obvious he too was part of a far-reaching plot to take down President Trump. They based it
on the flimsiest of evidence.
Of course, as we've said, it's possible Special Counsel Robert
Mueller has a surprise up his sleeve when he wraps up his Trump-Russia
investigation. But if not, then the actions of key leaders in both the FBI and
Justice Department constitute an extra-constitutional effort to subvert
America's democratic republic. That is, a silent coup.
CLOSE
That's the clear subtext of testimony last October from FBI
General Counsel James Baker, the FBI's top lawyer in 2016, indicating both Comey and Clinton lied. Though he
spoke to Congress in October, Baker's actual remarks only came to light this
week.
Hillary Clinton: Unpunished Crimes
Baker told Congress that, despite her denials, Clinton and her
team mishandled "highly classified" information on her server, and
that they should have known they did so. That's a crime.
Contrary to Comey's glib self-serving comment that "no
reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," Baker said that he still
thought Clinton should be prosecuted "pretty late" in the game and
that FBI debates over charging her with a crime continued "I think, up
until the end."
Baker backed off from seeking prosecution for Clinton after
being convinced by higher-ups — like Comey — that they couldn't prove
she intended to expose classified documents across her unsecured email server.
So therefore, a prosecutor couldn't prove criminal intent.
The only problem is, that's not the law. As Fox News noted this
week, "Federal law states that 'gross negligence' in handling the nation's
intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines, and there is no requirement that defendants act intentionally or recklessly."
Deep State Interference
In other words, Clinton's clear reckless negligence itself
warranted charges. But because of Comey, Andrew McCabe, and others at the FBI
and Justice Department, she was never charged. Instead, they used charges
contained in an unverified dossier financed by Hillary Clinton to begin their
relentless pursuit of Donald Trump.
This isn't the first time we've talked about this, by the way.
Way back in October of 2016, we led our editorial with this:
"When FBI Director James Comey dismissed the case against Hillary Clinton
he said it was because no reasonable attorney would take the case. Now we learn
that there were plenty who would have done so."
In short, we said, she should have been charged. She wasn't.
At the time, we based our opinion on a 2016 Fox News report that
noted, "Career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously
believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged."
If anything, Baker's testimony confirms that two-year-old Fox
report.
Will Barr Act?
So career investigators and attorneys wanted to charge Clinton,
but were derailed, as Baker said, by higher-ups. For the record, that means
Comey and the ever-growing cast of characters in the Justice Department and FBI
lied, dissembled and covertly supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump
during the 2016 presidential election. It was a clear violation of the law.
The attempted coup by the Deep State cannot go unpunished. It
will seriously endanger the rule of law in our country. The only real question
is who should be charged first? Clinton? Or her Deep State allies who did all
they could to undo a legitimate American presidential election on her behalf?
Once again, we hope William Barr has the answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment