*spit*

Mary Chastain: "Bill Clinton said he couldn't be elected nowadays because he doesn't like embarrassing people like Trump does. Um....I think it has something to do with MONICA LEWINKSY and the women who have accused him of sexual assault and rape. "

Clap. Calp. Clap

I don't want more prosecutors;  I want more prosecution! Tom Fitton at CPAC 2018

Id est, quo id est.

Here’s a Guy Who Might Know How FBI Clinton Email Probe Was Sabotaged One hopes that Department of Justice IG Michael Horowitz and his team already have interviewed Giacalone and reviewed all relevant evidence. Comey and many other have lots to explain to We, the People. FBI veteran John Giacalone served as executive assistant director of the FBI from June 2014 through February 2016, working from Washington, D.C. headquarters. According to his Linkedin profile, during this period he “manage[d] the strategic risks associated with the FBI’s counterterrorism, counterintelligence and weapons of mass destruction programs in close coordination with domestic and international partners.” Giacalone was also centrally involved in the FBI investigation into Clinton’s mishandling of classified information — a serious felony crime — and he resigned suddenly, for reasons not yet fully understood. Evidence now tumbling into the public domain suggests Giacalone may have exhausted his tolerance for a rigged inquiry late in January 2016. According to new FBI records, the visitor “explained … he had sent evidence of Hillary Clinton’s misuse of classified documents to the FBI Director earlier in January 2016, but, when he called to confirm receipt, he could not do so and therefore wanted to walk-in to make sure that the information was received by the right people at the FBI, specifically the ‘task force’ working on the Clinton email scandal.” Five days before the Iowa caucuses, on Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2016, a mysterious visitor arrived at FBI offices in Washington, D.C. “to present evidence of Hillary Clinton’s misuse of classified documents by putting them on an unclassified email system.” The male visitor was described as: “…a long-time government employee [who] had previously worked for many years at the Department of State. He provided a resume and a U.S. Foreign Service Employee Evaluation Report to prove his bona fides.” Neither the name of the visitor nor that of the recorder of the FBI Vault report, starting on page 11, are known. The document was written Feb. 22, 2016, 26 days after the unscheduled visit, approved by another as-yet unidentified person, and copied to Jonathan C. Moffa, Peter P. Strzok II, and a fourth unidentified person. The named individuals are controversial and the delay between the date of the visit and the date of the report is odd, all of which needs to be fully investigated. Additional details contained in the report, and still unreleased portions of FBI Vault records likely will help explain why John Giacalone resigned. [full] Id est, quo id est.

Say What ...

MoSup

OFF WITH HER HEAD!

WHO REALLY CREATED THE TRUMP DOSSIER? Was it really a British intel agent or a Clinton political operative? The Mueller investigation likewise isn’t actually hunting for Russian collusion, but trying to entrap President Trump with accusations that he covered up a crime that it can’t prove ever happened. [...] SCROLL President George H.W. Bush was enjoying high approval ratings. Bill Clinton would weasel and claw his way to the front of the line largely because the election seemed like a lost cause for the Democrats. But the Clintons still had plenty of dirty tricks left to play. The Quayle cocaine story was one of them. Like most discredited Democrat smears, it was forgotten once it was no longer needed. It’s hard now to understand how so many reporters and politicians could be sucked in by a ridiculous smear campaign. One of the Quayle accusers had confessed to lying both to prison officials and to 60 Minutes. "This guy not only flunked the lie detector test, but he broke down and cried in front of Morley Safer and said that he had made it up because he wanted to get out of jail," Don Hewitt, the executive producer of 60 Minutes, recollected. But the more the story came apart, the more new conspiracy theories were spawned to bolster it. Like Michael Wolff’s smears, it was too good for the left not to believe. Much like Russian collusion, the story quickly shifted from whether Quayle had actually bought drugs to whether the Bush administration had tried to cover it up. The shift from a specific criminal accusation to nebulous conspiracy theories that can never be disproven, but that empower open-ended witch hunts, are a hallmark of Dem smears. The Mueller investigation likewise isn’t actually hunting for Russian collusion, but trying to entrap President Trump with accusations that he covered up a crime that it can’t prove ever happened. <snip>  After Hillary’s Reset Button with Russia and Obama’s hot mic vow to show Moscow more flexibility after the election, the Democrats now spend all their time claiming that Trump is secretly working for Putin. And must be removed from office. That’s not how we do things in America. But it’s how Putin does things in Russia. Even as the Democrats pretend that they hate Putin, they fantasize about jailing their political opponents the way that Vladimir Putin does. Using police surveillance to spy on your enemies is a KGB tactic. So is accusing them of secretly working for foreign interests and trying to arrest them. The final tragic irony of the Democrat’s Russian conspiracies would be to make America just like Russia. FULL FRONT PAGE In light of the successful effort to get the Intelligence memo released, I can  actually see an opening for bringing the Clintons before the dock on charges of  ... like everything; Including several murders (although I still can't see them executed). PS. I wrote this earlier today, but had to go do things and didn't want to throw it away.

The Tarmac

DEEP STATE

A Quiet Meeting ... The tarmac meeting being only small talk does make sense if it was the end point, not the starting point. SCROLL We now know a lot more about the sequence of events, which now strongly suggests that the tarmac meeting was not the start of events that led to the exoneration. Rather, it now appears that the tarmac meeting was the end of that process, the signal to the Clintons that all was taken care of. The key facts we know now but did not know then are: The tarmac meeting was planned, not spontaneous, as we covered on August 5, 2017, ACLJ: DOJ Document Dump Shows Lynch-Clinton Tarmac Summit Planned, Media Coverup. The conduct of Lynch in trying to conceal details was not consistent with it being an innocent meeting, as we covered on August 7, 2017, Loretta Lynch used alias “Elizabeth Carlisle” to email about Bill Clinton tarmac meeting and August 10, 2017, Why did Loretta Lynch need DOJ Talking Points about a meeting she alone attended? The FBI has tried its best not to produce documents regarding the tarmac meeting, and when it did, those documents focused heavily on how the meeting was discovered, as Judicial Watch reported on November 30, 2017. The FBI decided, sometime by early May 2016, not to charge Hillary. The drafts of the exoneration statement now are public, and show a concerted effort to reword the language to support exoneration. These drafts took place prior to the tarmac meeting and prior to the interview of Hillary on July 4th weekend. Senior FBI agent Peter Strzok, who was part of the team investigating Hillary, was removed from the Mueller investigation of supposed Russia collusion in the summer  of 2016 for sending anti-Trump text messages (though the removal was not disclosed for several months). Strzok was involved in editing and softening the Comey draft exoneration statement. Strzok was having an affair with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Based on text messages recently released, it appears they believed Hillary would not be charged and suggested Lynch Knew the Outcome of FBI Hillary Probe in Advance. So what significance does the tarmac meeting take in this new context? So the tarmac meeting very likely signaled to Hillary through Bill that all was good, that there was nothing to worry about regarding her upcoming FBI interview. How would that signal take place? It could have been stated verbally, but more likely was the proverbial nod and wink. If anyone understands body language, it’s Bill Clinton. He didn’t need to be told in words, though we can’t rule that out. [FULL] Sarah Carter, for one, asks this burning question:  Why Are Strzok and Page Still With The FBI?

Inside Judicial Watch

Going back to the Clinton Occupation, Judicial Watch, and Judge Royce Lamberth, were seemingly the only entities that, seemingly, were incorruptible.  Judicial Watch is still America's  Force majeure, so to speak, when it comes to sniffing out government corruption.  That said, can there be anyone who, after watching this Inside Judicial Watch report, who will not applaud the arrest, trial, and execution of the Clintons?

Sheesh!

What if Ken Starr Was Right? No Russ.  It's "What if I Was Wrong?") So now a new [narrative]  may be forming for the age of Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump. In this story, Kenneth Starr and the Republicans are still dismissed as partisan witch hunters. But liberals might be willing to concede that the Lewinsky affair was a pretty big deal morally, a clear abuse of sexual power, for which Clinton probably should have been pressured to resign. DUH After doing all this reading, I’m not sure my reasonable middle ground is actually reasonable. It may be that the conservatives of the 1990s were simply right about Clinton, that once he failed to resign he really deserved to be impeached. Yes, the Republicans were too partisan, the Starr Report was too prurient and Clinton’s haters generated various absurd conspiracy theories. But the Clinton operation was also extraordinarily sordid, in ways that should be thrown into particular relief by the absence of similar scandals in the Obama administration, which had perfervid enemies and circling investigators as well. The sexual misconduct was the heart of things, [No it wasn't.  'At the heart of things' were the drugs, murders, treason, and utter corruption of the Clinton crime family] but everything connected to Clinton’s priapism was bad: the use of the perks of office to procure women, willing and unwilling; the frequent use of that same power to buy silence and bully victims; and yes, the brazen public lies and perjury. Something like Troopergate, for instance, in which Arkansas state troopers claimed to have served as Clinton’s panderers and been offered jobs to buy their silence, is often recalled as just a right-wing hit job. But if you read The Los Angeles Times’s reporting on the allegations (which included phone records confirming the troopers’ account of a mistress Clinton was seeing during his presidential transition) and Stephanopoulos’s portrayal of Clinton’s behavior in the White House when the story broke, the story seems like it was probably mostly true. I have less confidence about what was real in the miasma of Whitewater. But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her. The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.? There is a common liberal argument that our present polarization is the result of constant partisan escalations on the right — the rise of Newt Gingrich, the steady Hannitization of right-wing media. Some of this is true. But returning to the impeachment imbroglio made me think that in that case the most important escalators were the Democrats. They had an opportunity, with Al Gore waiting in the wings, to show a predator the door and establish some moral common ground for a polarizing country. And what they did instead — turning their party into an accessory to Clinton’s appetites, shamelessly abandoning feminist principle, smearing victims and blithely ignoring his most credible accuser, all because Republicans funded the investigations and they’re prudes and it’s all just Sexual McCarthyism— feels in the cold clarity of hindsight like a great act of partisan deformation [BLAH BLAH BLAH] After 25 years Russ (writing for the NYT) concludes: Bill Clinton may have been a sexual predator.  Here's the real Clinton epitaph.  Bill Clinton was John the Baptist to a satanic Obama savior.

:to overwhelm with wonder or bewilderment boggle the mind

FULL

We had the sumbitch!

To this day, Mr. Clinton has annual visits with George H. W. Bush. He Calls G.W. Bush "brother." A March 1992 New York Times article published during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign reported that the Clintons, then governor and first lady of Arkansas, had invested and lost money in the Whitewater Development Corporation. The article stimulated the interest of L. Jean Lewis, a Resolution Trust Corporation investigator who was looking into the failure of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, also owned by Jim and Susan McDougal. Lewis looked for connections between the savings and loan company and the Clintons, and on September 2, 1992, she submitted a criminal referral to the FBI naming Bill and Hillary Clinton as witnesses in the Madison Guaranty case. President Bush's DOJ stopped her investigation during the 1992 campaign.  In 1993 President Clinton fired her, along with all US Attorneys. I'm just saying. spit!

Nibbling Around the Edges Here Boss

I ignore current news

FAKE! .

Oct. 10: “I love WikiLeaks,” Trump says at a Pennsylvania rally. He specifically cites some of the hacked emails to attack Clinton. Oct. 11: Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta warns there may be a tie between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks. * Jul 13, 2016 Rich, Seth C. Seth Rich, 27, was shot and died on Sunday, July 10th, in Washington, DC, where he lived. Seth is survived by his parents, Mary and Joel Rich; and his brother and sister-in-law, Aaron Rich and Molly Zwerdlinger. Seth was a 2011 graduate of Creighton University in Political Science and History. He was involved with Democratic Party politics since high school and was currently working at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington DC. He was serving as Deputy Director-Data-for-Voter Protection/Expansion. SERVICES at 10am on Wednesday at Beth El Synagogue, 14506 California Street followed by burial at Beth El Cemetery, 84th and L Streets. Contributions to Camp Ramah in Wisconsin, 65 East Wacker Place, Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601 or Beth El Synagogue, 14506 California St. Omaha NE 68154. JEWISH FUNERAL HOME 402-556-9392 Aug. 12: Guccifer 2.0 releases the cellphone numbers and email addresses of almost all of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, apparently with documents stolen from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The digital security firm ThreatConnect announces that day that another site posting leaked documents, DC Leaks, appears to be linked to Russian intelligence services. The site’s documents also mostly targeted Democrats, but it also had emails stolen from campaign staffers for noted Russia hawks GOP Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Oct. 4: Julian Assange makes a 3 a.m. EST announcement via video saying WikiLeaks will publish new information on the presidential election “every week for the next 10 weeks.” Oct. 7: WikiLeaks dumped a trove  of emails hacked from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s personal email account. The release came just hours after a tape emerged in which Trump bragged about groping women by the genitals. The emails were widely covered in the American media, and the Republican National Committee touted them as evidence of “who Hillary Clinton really is.” The Obama administration accuses Russia of deploying hackers to interfere in the presidential election. A statement from Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, says hacked documents posted on DC Leaks, Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks appear linked to Russian intelligence and accuses “Russia’s senior-most officials” of directing the hacks. Oct. 9: Trump cites WikiLeaks in the second presidential debate to accuse the DNC of rigging the Democratic primary against Sen. Bernie Sanders. Clinton is also asked at the debate about purported excerpts from a paid speech she gave released by WikiLeaks. Clinton responds, in part: “But, you know, let’s talk about what’s really going on here, Martha, because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election. And WikiLeaks is part of that, as are other sites where the Russians hack information, we don’t even know if it’s accurate information, and then they put it out. Oct. 10: “I love WikiLeaks,” Trump says at a Pennsylvania rally. He specifically cites some of the hacked emails to attack Clinton. Oct. 11: Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta warns there may be a tie between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks. “I think it’s a reasonable assumption to — or at least a reasonable conclusion — that Mr. Stone had advance warning and the Trump campaign had advance warning about what Assange was going to do,” Podesta  tells reporters, referencing Trump friend and ally Roger Stone. Oct. 31: The New York Times publishes  a story  with the headline, “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link To Russia.” Nov. 8: Trump is elected President of the United States. There 's nothing new.  I'm frankly tired of the daily battle between the Deep State media' false narrative and  dismissal of established fact.  I was stuck in a horrendous traffic jam on Wednesday, and thus listened to Sean Hannity interview Julian Assange.  Live.  Mr. Wikileaks acknowledged that Seth Rich was his source for, among other things, the DNC files showing that the Democratic primary was rigged against Sen. Bernie Sanders. The official story—that Rich was the victim of a botched robbery— where he was shot in the back  And nothing was taken—is simply ludicrous.  The left media of course howled "To try to destroy the memory of a staffer who met a violent death is really just gross."  He was killed by political assassin. The odds that dozens of murdered Clinton associates, who posed a threat to this crime family since 1992, are coincidental, are something like a trillion to one. Hillary Clinton is an assassin. We are at war. A "phony war" right now,  but one that Deep State wants to ignite.  HELTER SKELTER. It's a war they will lose, but at the cost of a million lives.

State Dept Pedo Files

State Department Pedo File Menu

Let's just focus on Bill Clinton here.  With the Clinton Foundation fraud, and this, it's almost impossible to see him avoiding a prison sentence. (T.L.SMITH)

kLINTON cRIME cAVELCADE

oLDIES bUT gOODIES Solid Asian Gold1 week ago Either the Clintons' are guilty of serial murder, or they just happen to have miraculously beaten the same odds a person would have done if winning Power Ball three times in a single lifetime! > uh, uh, I'M NOT BUYING IT!  85

Preet Bharara, Save Us

NY Governor’s top aides indicted on sweeping corruption charges. There are more shady deals described in these charges than you can shake a stick at, but one of the biggest is Cuomo’s “Buffalo Billion” initiative, which Bharara described as little more than, “a cash cow for friends of the administration” who funneled money into the governor’s campaign war chest. Cuomo himself has somehow managed to avoid indictment thus far and still insists that he was utterly oblivious to any nefarious dealings allegedly going on in his administration. Pull the other one, Governor. It’s got bells on it. As a side note, I find it interesting that when aides to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie are charged or convicted on something related to Bridgegate it consumes the news cycle for days on end. When the same thing happens to Andrew Cuomo it’s apparently a “local news story.” Funny how that works, eh? We’ve discussed U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara here many times in the past. His pursuit of government corruption wherever it may be found and the prosecution of those who betray the trust of the public has become legendary. That’s why, when he told reporters earlier this year that he detected an “air of corruption” in the executive branch of New York’s state government people were rightly looking over their shoulders. Now his work in that area is moving into high gear. Bharara has made his case to a grand jury and been given the green light to take eight top aides and associates of Governor Andrew Cuomo to trial on charges of corruption. (New York Observer) CUTTING TO THE CHASE  The Hillary Clinton Connection Preet Bharara is the honey badger of corruption investigations and he is not afraid to do his job. There’s one last thing to consider which you’re going to want to keep your eye on. This investigation has been going on for well over a year without making very many headlines. That’s not how Bharara operates. His rare media statements are short and businesslike. But he promised action on this and after the long and challenging investigation was complete he delivered. Remember that Preet owes no loyalty to either party and is absolutely relentless. When he detected corruption in the state legislature in 2014, he launched a lengthy investigation which resulted in former Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver – arguably the most powerful Democrat in the state – being sent to prison. He followed that up by sending the state’s senior Republican to keep him company behind bars. Bharara is the guy who is currently going after Anthony Weiner… an investigation which produced all sorts of interesting information. And in August he announced that he was investigating corruption at the New York offices of the Clinton Foundation. As I said at the time, this isn’t the sort of investigation which was going to be wrapped up in a matter of weeks. These things take time. The FBI may have thrown in the towel on going after Hillary Clinton. Even Donald Trump may be making noises about not needing to “lock her up.” But out there in New York City Preet Bharara is still grinding away at his job. And if he has the Clintons in his sights, don’t expect him to simply go away because the election is over. Preet Bharara is the honey badger of corruption investigations and he is not afraid to do his job. [FULL] More reason why Trump's declaration that he would not be investigating Hillary's emails was not the betrayal I first suspected.  If Preet Bharara doesn't get the Clintons, the U.S. AG will have them by their Clinton Foundation balls.

A few puzzling anomalies

Liberal Culture

I was a federal agent for over a decade. During that time, I was the lead investigator in a number of federal criminal-investigations. In my experience, I have never seen or heard about a criminal case handled like the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Here are just a few of the puzzling anomalies that should leave you scratching your head. Dan Bongino: 1. Why is the FBI seizing computers now from the Weiner household and why didn't they seize all of the potentially incriminating evidence at the start of the investigation? If it was a genuine investigation into the transfer of classified information electronically, and otherwise, why not seize ALL of the computers from the start? I used to enjoy working counterfeit currency cases and cannot imagine a scenario where we would initiate a counterfeit investigation but NOT seize the counterfeit printing devices. It’s illogical. 2. Why agree to forgo prosecuting potential co-conspirators Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin — and destroy the computer evidence they possess — before charging them with a crime? That's not the way the process works. In order to build leverage against a criminal conspirator, a federal agent would typically draw up a federal complaint or seek an indictment. Second, an agent would get an arrest warrant from a judge pursuant to a probable cause ruling and then, AFTER THE ARREST, he or she would ask if the arrested individual wished to cooperate, potentially using their cooperation against co-conspirators. Third, if the cooperation is substantive, then a 5k letter is issued to a judge, which indicates the subject's level of cooperation and how that should be considered in sentencing the cooperating defendant. None of that was done in this case. They essentially said to Hillary's co-conspirators, “Help us, pretty please, or else we’ll have to ask you again.” 3. Why would you allow a co-conspirator in a criminal case to act as a lawyer for another co-conspirator? There is NO attorney-client privilege if the attorney is a part of the investigation. Allowing Cheryl Mills in the room for the questioning of Hillary Clinton when Mills was also part of the investigation allowed both Clinton and Mills the opportunity to coordinate their stories. It's difficult to coordinate a false story if you're questioned separately and that's why we rarely, if ever, put multiple subjects in the same interview room. 4. Why did FBI Director Comey, along with a number of Clinton campaign surrogates, insist that this investigation wasn’t worthy of prosecution due to a lack of criminal “intent”? The criminal law that Hillary Clinton and her surrogates appear to have violated, 18 USC 793, doesn’t require intent. It requires only “gross negligence” in the improper removing, handling, and transferring of classified information under section (f) of the law. Surely the FBI Director knows this. Surely Clinton’s surrogates, assuming they can read, know this as well. You should be asking yourself: If the FBI Director knows this, then why did he publicly state that the FBI was not recommending prosecution based on misleading information about the elements of the crime in question? Would you get the same deference if you committed these acts? I don’t think so, because I’ve arrested people, and seen them prosecuted, for far less.  FULL One thing for sure.  Under Obama, every federal agency, department, and our very culture have been compromised to suit his "vision."