A few weeks ago, the U.S.
Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, had what she called an “informal” discussion with
Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix, being both there by “coincidence.” Isn’t
it remarkable how the Clintons’ arrogance seems impervious to even the most
obvious impropriety? The meeting was seen as inappropriate given that Hillary
Clinton was still allegedly under investigation for illegally storing
classified information on her personal email server, a byproduct of it being
more “convenient” for her and her underlings to conceal their communications
from public scrutiny (in direct contravention of FOIA). Despite their denials, there is no doubt that
Lynch informed Bill Clinton that the FBI was not going to recommend charges
against Hillary Clinton, and thus it was “safe” for her to speak to FBI
investigators, something that she refused to do before despite claims she was
“ready” and “eager” to do so.
That the FBI failed to force
Clinton to speak to them early in the investigation means that their “vetting”
of her answers was cursory at best and not at all serious. Despite the fact
that the FBI investigation found numerous instances of factually false statements
made by Clinton in the past concerning her use of her personal server, its
investigators decided that Clinton did not “intend” to illegally store
classified information on her server. Are we to be taken as fools? Bryan
Pagliano, who set-up her server and was given immunity to testify, was
apparently undercut by the refusal of Clinton’s chief-of-staff Cheryl Mills—supported
by a literal army of lawyers on the Clinton payroll—to even acknowledge she
knew anything about what he was doing for Clinton. The FBI meekly decided to
proceed no further on Pagliano’s testimony, no doubt "accepting" Clinton's own likely perjured "explanation" of Pagliano's activities on her behalf.
Thus we are left with either
that Clinton, by not understanding what classified information is, isn’t quite as
intelligent a prospect for president as we’d like that person to be (she
flunked her Washington, DC bar exam, although she did pass the much less
arduous Arkansas exam, persuading her to stay with Bill, unfortunately for us)—or
she didn’t “intend” on classified information being exposed to hacking. Either
rationalization suggested by the FBI ought to be very concerning, as does the
third, more likely reason which the FBI in its cowardice refused to say for
politically expedient reasons: that Clinton in fact knew very well what she was
doing was illegal, but she didn’t give a damn because no person or law will
stand in the way to the full flower of her megalomania.
Since the FBI refused to do
anything useful, it appears that the State Department has decided to reopen its
own investigation, this time to see if sanctions against Clinton’s underlings—all
female and all who clearly are under her “spell” and patronage, and who certainly
perjured themselves over and over again about both Clinton’s and their own
involvement in crime—are warranted. These of course won’t include prison
sentences, of course, but the declining of security clearances. But it all is
another snow-job, since I doubt this would be a problem that Clinton can’t
handle—by simply ignoring enforcing any sanction against her drooling
sycophants and slaves. As she has shown time and again, laws and rules do not
apply to her.
Donald Trump may not seem to
believe that rules governing common human decency apply to him, or common sense
in accordance to prevailing reality, for that matter; xenophobes, jingoists and
national chauvinists (or is it National Socialists?) who lap-up his every
syllable are equally immune to the accusations of fantasy. But this is no more
reprehensible than Hillary Clinton being given yet another “Collect on Go” on her Monopoly
board of crime. No one has the guts (save perhaps first Bernie Sanders and now Trump)
to stop her, despite her leaving a trail of corruption and perjury as far as
the eye can see.
No comments:
Post a Comment