Jump to content

The P B S Whitewash Of Clinton's Legacy

Recommended Posts





Sorry Lib Media: Bill Clinton Took 26 Junkets with Deviant Epstein — Trump Banned the Perv From Mar-a-Lago

On Wednesday The Miami Herald published an extensive report on Democrat donor and Clinton condfidante Jeffrey Epstein’s child sex



Epstein abused dozens, if not hundreds, of teen girls.

It is well documented that former President Bill Clinton flew on convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet.

And Robert Mueller was FBI director when Epstein was given a lenient 13 month jail stint for his years of child sex abuse.


Bill CLinton took 26 junkets with the sexual deviant Jeffrey Epstein.





Perhaps that explains his interest in child sex trafficking?   


And remember this photo?



Her name is Ghislaine Maxwell.  


The guy hugging her in the inset is Epstein.

She is widely reported to be a PROCURER of *young* women for Epstein.   


And that photo was taken at Chelsea’s invite only, VERY exclusive wedding.  


You think the Clintons knew nothing about a woman invited to their daughters very very exclusive wedding? 

And by the way, Clinton has connections with other people involved with underage sex trafficking.

Rick and Beverly Lambert, working for Paula Jones, interviewed 209 witnesses, uncovering leads on previously unknown incidents involving Clinton.   A number of "promising leads" were abandoned when the Jones case was dismissed.  Among the leads not followed up was one that involved the rape of a 14-year-old girl at a Little Rock cocaine party.  That incident was said to have happened in 1984, at a party hosted by Dan Lasater, who later went to jail for supplying cocaine to underage girls.   Lasater was pardoned by Bill Clinton 6 months into a 30 month sentence. By numerous accounts, Lasater was one of Clinton's closest associates in the 1980s.  As told to Lambert, the 14-year-old was rendered unconscious by a deliberate overdose. When she came to she was half-naked, with the governor of the state of Arkansas (Clinton) on top of her. According to Lambert, the young assault victim fled Arkansas when Governor Clinton won the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination. The private detective, along with several reporters, traced the woman to California. After a stakeout that lasted several days, they concluded she had been tipped off and fled town, never to be seen or heard from again.   Make of that what you will, but we know DemocRATS just dismissed the information out of hand.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites





Curtains for the Clintons

By Maureen Dowd, New York Times

TORONTO — The snow is falling lightly.

My thoughts are racing darkly.

I’m feeling something foreign, something I’ve never felt before. It takes me a moment to identify it.

I’m feeling sorry for the Clintons.

In the 27 years I’ve covered Bill and Hillary, I’ve experienced a range of emotions. They’ve dazzled me and they’ve disgusted me.

But now they’re mystifying me.

I’m looking around Scotiabank Arena, the home of the Toronto Maple Leafs, and it’s a depressing sight. It’s two-for-the-price-of-one in half the arena. The hockey rink is half curtained off, but even with that, organizers are scrambling at the last minute to cordon off more sections behind thick black curtains, they say due to a lack of sales. I paid $177 weeks in advance. (I passed on the pricey meet-and-greet option.) On the day of the event, some unsold tickets are slashed to single digits.

I get reassigned to another section as the Clintons’ audience space shrinks. But even with all the herding, I’m still looking at large swaths of empty seats — and I cringe at the thought that the Clintons will look out and see that, too. It was only four years ago, after all, that Canadians were clamoring to buy tickets to see the woman who seemed headed for history.

It’s a sad contrast with the sold-out boffo book tour of Michelle Obama, who’s getting a lot more personal for the premium prices. But introspection has never been within the Clintons’ range.

I can’t fathom why the Clintons would make like aging rock stars and go on a tour of Canada and the U.S. at a moment when Democrats are hoping to break the stranglehold of their cloistered, superannuated leadership and exult in a mosaic of exciting new faces.

What is the point? It’s not inspirational. It’s not for charity. They’re not raising awareness about a cause, like Al Gore with global warming. They’re only raising awareness about the Clintons.

It can’t be the money at this point. Have they even spent all the Goldman gold yet? Do they want to swim in their cash like Scrooge McDuck?

The Clintons’ tin cup is worthy of the Smithsonian. They hoovered more than $2 billion in contributions to their campaigns, foundation and philanthropies.

After the White House, the money-grubbing raged on, with the Clintons making over 700 speeches in a 15-year period, blithely unconcerned with any appearance of avarice or of shady special interests and foreign countries buying influence. They stockpiled a whopping $240 million. Even leading up to her 2016 presidential run, Hillary was packing in the speeches, talking to the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, the American Camp Association, eBay, and there was that infamous trifecta of speeches for Goldman Sachs worth $675,000.

“What scares me the most is Hillary’s smug certainty of her own virtue as she has become greedy and how typical that is of so many chic liberals who seem unaware of their own greed,” Charlie Peters, the legendary liberal former editor of The Washington Monthly, told me. “They don’t really face the complicity of what’s happened to the world, how selfish we’ve become and the horrible damage of screwing the workers and causing this resentment that the Republicans found a way of tapping into.” He ruefully worries about the Obamas in this regard, too.

Indeed, in the era of Trump, greed is not only good. It’s grand. The stock market is our highest value. Mammonism rules.

But watching the Clintons hash over their well-worn tale of falling in love at Yale Law School, I realize that it’s not only about the money.

Some in Clintonworld say Hillary fully intends to be the nominee. Once more, in Toronto, she didn’t rule it out, dodging the question with a lame joke. She carries herself with the air of a president in exile. Her consigliere, Philippe Reines, has prodded reporters on including her name when they write about 2020 candidates.

And Bill has given monologues to old friends about how Hillary knows how she’d have to run in 2020, that she couldn’t have a big staff and would just speak her mind and not focus-group everything. (That already sounds focus-grouped.)

After losing to an orange puffer clown fish who will go down as one of the most destructive forces in American history and flushing the Obama legacy down the drain, that’s delusional. Some Obama associates say the former president has some regrets about throwing his support solely behind Hillary and knows he misread the anger and frustration of voters.

Bill was radioactive in the midterms and Hillary was the Ghost of Christmas Past. Her approval rating is at a record low of 36 percent. The only American who seems truly interested in her these days is President Donald Trump, who can’t stop tweeting about her. She’s still money in his book.

The Clintons refuse to be discarded. It has been their joint project for half a century to be at the center of the public scene and debate. The way that the whole thing came crashing down in 2016 is too hard for them to bear. They would like to rewrite the ending, but there is no way to do that.

Nothing they have done lately suggests that they have learned anything, including their obtuse post-#MeToo comments about Monica Lewinsky, who has been far more candid and sympathetic in the 20th anniversary retellings of the impeachment saga. The Clintons are still unable to hold themselves accountable. The formerly golden couple who dominated their party for nearly three decades is traveling North America in a bubble, shockingly un-self-aware.

Their pathological need to be relevant in America is belied by a Canadian arena, where stretches of empty seats bear witness to the passing of their relevance.


Dowd … just telling it like it is … at least where the Clintons are concerned.    


But in other areas she too is shockingly unaware.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites





In contrast to the politeness of everyone else, Hillary Clinton refused to acknowledge the arrival and greeting of President and Mrs. Trump as they joined the other presidents sitting in the front row of the George H.W. Bush funeral at the National Cathedral. President Trump leaned over his wife to shake hands with President and Mrs. Obama, who graciously reciprocated. Bill Clinton, sitting on the other side of Michelle Obama, did not reach out to shake hands, but at least looked in the direction of President Trump. But not Hillary Clinton.

The woman defeated by Donald Trump stared straight ahead, refusing to acknowledge the arrival of the president of the Unmited States only a few feet away. Neither a glance nor a nod broke the frozen expression of anger on her visage.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites





The FBI and DOJ Were Working to Protect Hillary Clinton a Lot Longer Than Generally Discussed…


… snip …

This Pandora’s box is open now; everyone can see it; it cannot be closed.   No-one will ever look at the DOJ and FBI the same way.   Both organizations are still in denial.  Even with Trump officials they still think they can simply cover-up their history and get away with it.

Come on, folks.  


The FBI and DOJ have ben working to protect Hillary and Bill Clinton since the days of Chinagate, Filegate, Vince Foster and Ron Brown.  


And I haven’t looked at the FBI and DOJ the same way since THEN.    


Just saying …

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites





Are the Investigations the Cover-Up?

By Bryce Buchanan

Those of us who have been paying attention know that serious crimes were committed at the highest levels of government in an attempt to exonerate Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump.  There was collusion between government agencies, including collusion with foreign agents, to illegally influence the 2016 Presidential election.  There is enough evidence on the table to be confident of these claims.

And those of us who care about rule of law, who want to see justice done to the criminals in this conspiracy, have been waiting for years to see that happen.  We hear that these serious matters are being investigated.  We hear that there are whistleblowers inside the government who want to come forward and expose the corruption.  We hear that there are many, many more documents which will substantiate our worst fears about one of the greatest scandals in the history of our country.

We have been assured that there are several investigations looking into the various aspect of this abuse of power.  Inspector General Michael Horowitz, prosecutor John Huber, and others are looking into the corruption.  Mueller is supposedly tasked with exposing foreign influence on the Presidential election.

But what if the ‘investigations’ are really the cover-up? What if the investigations are carefully structured to protect criminal actions rather than expose them? What if the investigations are actually being used to hide evidence from the citizenry?

Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and others discussed the need for an “insurance policy” in case Trump won.  Was this “insurance policy” intended to protect deep-state criminals from exposure?  Mueller’s role is not to investigate collusion with foreign agents, or he would be investigating Christopher Steele and his Russian sources, along with the foreigners who worked with our government to infiltrate the Trump campaign.  He would investigate the illegal funding of Steele’s lies and how the lies were fed to the public by ‘bad cops’ and complicit media.  This is obviously not the goal of Mueller’s team.

Mueller’s key role is to have nearly absolute control over what information is released to investigators or the public.  Mueller determines what Horowitz and Huber can see.  Mueller can hide anything he wants by claiming that release of the information would hinder his ‘investigation’.  He has given Rod Rosenstein a list of lines of inquiry that will not be allowed.  Rosenstein, who volunteered to be part of the soft coup, is happy to comply.  We have witnessed Rosenstein repeatedly refuse to turn over documents to Congress, flagrantly obstructing its oversight role.

What is the most effective way to hide the truth and protect the deep-state criminals? It’s the never-ending Mueller investigation.  Sure, Mueller’s team is still in the business of promoting the Trump-Russia fiction, but the most important role of this ‘investigation’ may be to obstruct any real investigation.

Conspiracy theories become conspiracy facts when enough evidence piles up to support the theory.  Consider this evidence, starting before the election:

    •    Comey wrote a letter exonerating Hillary from her very intentional crimes long before she or key witnesses were interviewed.

    •    Hillary’s key co-conspirators were given immunity, allowed to share attorneys, sit in on each other’s depositions, and even destroy evidence.  This was a sham investigation.

    •    Hillary’s influence peddling through the Clinton Foundation was effectively swept under the rug.  The Clintons enriched themselves by selling future favors, often to foreign entities.  The foundation has been called “The Biggest Charity Fraud Ever”.

    •    The Trump-Russia collusion narrative was developed as part of the effort to undermine Trump. It was not started by any actionable intelligence.  Spies were placed in the Trump campaign to aid the false narrative and to allow further illicit intelligence gathering.

    •     Spying on the Trump campaign was authorized by presenting fraudulent, hearsay evidence to FISA Court judges.  This criminal act led to many other criminal acts including rampant “unmasking” of American citizens associated with Trump.  Comey and Rosenstein both played roles in FISA abuse. White House officials did much of the unmasking.

    •    On September 28, 2016, Peter Strzok texted Lisa Page that “hundreds of thousands” of email messages from Anthony Weiner’s computer had been turned over to the FBI by U.S. Attorneys who were conducting an investigation into Weiner’s sex crimes.  This was a treasure trove of information about Huma and Hillary.  The FBI immediately hid the information for a month while they figured out how to whitewash it to protect Hillary.  The bomb-control team successfully defused another bomb.  Surely, they expected a future reward from President H.R. Clinton.

Inspector General Horowitz’s June report had the goal of soft-peddling criminal behavior.  The report said that some unfortunate things were done, but there was no reason to think that bias played a key role in important decisions.  It did not find fault with things like granting immunity to the man who lied to the FBI and destroyed Hillary’s illegal server.  As we have learned, lying to the FBI can be fine, depending on who does the lying.  Destroying subpoenaed evidence is okay too, at times.

Horowitz’ public statement about his toothless report was followed by FBI Director Christopher Wray telling us not to worry about a thing because he intended to schedule a day when FBI agents would have a meeting to discuss bias.  Okay then -- I guess that takes care of it.

Last year, when members of Congress were rightly frustrated about evidence being hidden, there were increasing calls for a special prosecutor to investigate surveillance abuses by the Obama administration, the shady Uranium One deal, and the Clinton Foundation’s influence peddling.  The idea of appointing a truly independent prosecutor was thwarted by Jeff Sessions, who appointed a career insider to do the investigation instead.  Sessions promised that an Obama holdover in Utah, John Huber, would do a “full, complete and objective evaluation of these matters.” 

At this point, there is every reason to believe that the purpose of Huber’s investigation is to hide the truth, not to find it; to protect the criminals, not to charge them.   The key witnesses in each of the matters under investigation have not even been contacted.  It appears that no grand juries have been empaneled.  Tom Fitton, of Judicial Watch says, “Huber wasn’t tapped to investigate anything”, he was just “a distraction”.

What we are witnessing here is a carefully planned and orchestrated cover-up of a series of very serious crimes.  The deep swamp is pretending to investigate the deep swamp. 

This cover-up would not be possible if the mainstream media were honest and aggressive fact-finders, but they actually function as a branch of the Democratic Party.  The cover-up would fail if Republicans were unified in absolutely demanding to see all the evidence that is currently being hidden, but Republican ‘leaders’ do not unify and fight hard for anything.  They appear to be comfortable with losing this battle.

Victors write the accepted history of events.  It is possible that the story here will be that good men like Strzok, Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller protected America from a vast right-wing conspiracy.  Donald Trump, the victim of most of the crimes, will be portrayed as the villain. 



Now you’re catching on.  


This has been the case since the *investigations* of Filegate, Chinagate, the first Emailgate, and the *investigations* of the deaths of Vince Foster and Ron Brown.  


The investigations were the coverup ... then ... just as now.


As the contents of this thread proves over and over and over.


May all these people rot in hell.

Just saying …  :angry2:

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Litton on why the Clintons were the most corrupt politicians in history …


Go Judicial Watch …

Lock her up!

Lock them up!


And the lack of response to this post will be more evidence that the leftists here at LF are the biggest COWARDS in history too.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Gee ... don't any of the DemocRATS who voted for Hillary in 2016 want to enlighten us as to what the blue sack of potatoes ... I mean Hillary ... thinks this New Year's Eve?






Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites





An Epidemic of Erasures, Redactions, Omissions, and Perjuries

By Victor Davis Hanson


Imagine the following: The IRS sends you, John Q. Citizen, a letter alleging you have not complied with U.S. tax law. In the next paragraph, the tax agency then informs you that it needs a series of personal and business documents. Indeed, it will be sending agents out to discuss your dilemma and collect the necessary records.

But when the IRS agents arrive, you explain to them that you cannot find about 50 percent of the documents requested, and have no idea whether they even exist. You sigh that both hard copies of pertinent information have unfortunately disappeared and hard drives were mysteriously lost.

You nonchalantly add that you smashed your phone, tablet, and computer with a hammer. You volunteer that, of those documents you do have, you had to cut out, blacken or render unreadable about 30 percent of the contents. After all, you have judged that the redacted material either pertains to superfluous and personal matters such as weddings and yoga, or is of such a sensitive nature that its release would endanger your company or business or perhaps even the country at large.

You also keep silent that you have a number of pertinent documents locked up in a safe hidden in your attic unknown to the IRS. Let them find it, you muse. And when the agents question your unilateral decisions over hours of interrogatories, you remark to them on 245 occasions that you have no memory of your acts—or you simply do not have an answer for them.


In some instances, you state things that are not true, cannot be true by any stretch of the imagination, and contradict things you have said in the past—and you make it clear that you don’t think much of such inconsistencies. When pressed with contradictory evidence, you nonchalantly reply that you gave the “least untruthful” answer.

What would happen to you, a typical American citizen, should you follow this current Washington model of erasing, redacting, omitting, forgetting, and lying?

Of course, you are a citizen and so must obey the law. Therefore, you might well find yourself either broke, out on bail, in jail, or mired in endless litigation. But since 2016 we have seen how many high government officials involved in any number of such investigations, were not so much citizens as hyper-citizens above the law, who felt they were not subject to audit. And they were largely right in their assumptions.

Audacious Deletions


Take erasure. Hillary Clinton arbitrarily decided that some 30,000 communications under subpoena were not relevant to FBI inquiries about her illicit email server. So she erased them, or rather “bleached” them electronically to such an extent that they could not be recovered. Some of them, in fact, were likely classified, given even her surviving trove contained classified information. She also had her devices smashed to destroy any electronic footprints.

Again, try all that in a civil suit, and inform a judge that you have determined that electronic messages requested were irrelevant, and so were destroyed.

Investigators on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team arbitrarily announced that months of text communications on FBI phones between FBI employees Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, including critical periods in which Strzok interviewed key persons related to various scandals, were lost, due perhaps to thousands of messages slipping through bureaucratic cracks or to “technical glitches.” That is, the Mueller team apparently determined that texts on the surrendered FBI phones of its fired employees either could not be read for technical reasons, or were erased, purportedly because the Mueller team alone had determined that they found not only nothing of interest to themselves, but also nothing of concern to those who might disagree with them.

Once more, try explaining to a prosecuting attorney or judge that both technological glitches and your own determination of their superfluity explain why requested messages on your phone vanished.

Redacting Into Oblivion, Lying By Omission

Redaction for “national security” purposes now often results in making released documents almost unreadable, given the lacunae. When the FBI finally released over 400-pages related to the October 2016 FISA applications to surveille Carter Page they were so redacted as to become almost meaningless.

Moreover, two essential truths of the FISA application—the Steele dossier, as former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe had testified, was the chief impetus for the surveillance request (along with news reports in circular fashion based on it), and the dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton to damage the candidacy of Donald Trump—were obscured by omissions in the applications.

The infamous James Comey memos—the confidential transcripts of supposedly private conversations with the president, written on FBI devices and on FBI time, and deliberately and likely unlawfully leaked by Comey to the press to prompt the appointment of a special prosecutor—are both heavily redacted and full of deliberate omissions. Comey recounts his briefings with Trump on the Steele dossier, but somehow does not inform the president that his own (likely fabricated) information arose from the fact that Hillary Clinton had hired a law firm to hire an investigative firm to hire foreign national Christopher Steel to hire foreign Russian sources to provide supposed dirt on Clinton’s own presidential rival.

We, the public still cannot read the full texts. But apparently Comey passed the supposedly confidential and apparently in some cases classified memos (Comey himself initially wrote on them “secret” and “confidential”), unredacted, to a small circle of friends, who had full access to what was government property, not Comey’s own. Note that Comey promised that he was doing everything he possibly could to limit leaks of confidential information, even as both he and Andrew McCabe were talking to the press, and Comey was soon crafting memos that were by design his insurance policy to be leaked to the media.

As for lying, the litany of top officials in the Justice Department, FBI, and CIA who routinely have not told the truth is now legion. James Clapper, former director of national intelligence, lied under oath to Congress; former CIA director John Brennan did on two occasions. Both have admitted such, as has former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. James Comey lied by omission by not answering or evading questions asked by Congress under oath—on 245 occasions. His testimonies cannot be reconciled with those of McCabe. He lied by omission by not informing the FISA court the true origins of the Steele dossier—sort of in the fashion of Bruce Ohr who filled out government forms without noting that his own wife worked for GPS on the dossier, while he sought to promote its currency from his office.

The Power Elite Exemption

To this day, we have no idea which officials in government leaked the unmasked names of surveilled Americans to the media, or leaked the transcripts of a conversation between the Russian Ambassador and Gen. Michael Flynn. I say we have no idea, because no one in government has any interest in finding out, because for the few, who might, to do so would earn them media and partisan venom.

The message from the Clinton email scandal, the Mueller investigation, and the careers of Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and McCabe seems to be that if the government wishes a document then do not provide it. If you are finally forced to surrender it, either erase or destroy what you can reasonably get away with hiding. Or barring that, insist that it be heavily redacted, according to your own judgment, for the sake of America. If asked to explain such behavior or allegations of leaking information to the press, either deny or claim faulty memory.

Do all of that and be of the correct political persuasion and of Washington repute, and there is little chance of criminal exposure.

Such exemption so far is the message that we’ve learned from the behavior of high officials of the Obama Justice Department, CIA, FBI and National Security Council. Or put another way, our illustrious government officials are reminding us Americans, “We are better than you.”


Given the above, don't Hillary and countless officials in the Obama administration deserve to rot in jail?  


Shouldn't they stand before military tribunals (since they thoroughly corrupted the FBI and DOJ) and face the consequences?


Or from now on are we to live in a dictatorship where DemocRATS/Progressives/leftists are above the law?


Is THAT to be the final legacy of the Clintons for America?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:




Given the above, don't Hillary and countless officials in the Obama administration deserve to rot in jail?  


Shouldn't they stand before military tribunals (since they thoroughly corrupted the FBI and DOJ) and face the consequences?


Or from now on are we to live in a dictatorship where DemocRATS/Progressives/leftists are above the law?


Is THAT to be the final legacy of the Clintons for America?


but but but but FU!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TDS said:


but but but but FU!


Did I upset you on the other thread, SNOWFLAKE?


Is that why you decided to come over here and repeat the same thing?



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BeAChooser said:


Did I upset you on the other thread, SNOWFLAKE?   :lol:


no, my son.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupid ass op is from 2012. Still repeating the same poo and expecting different results.


7 year old dead horse.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2018 at 10:31 PM, BeAChooser said:



Gee ... don't any of the DemocRATS who voted for Hillary in 2016 want to enlighten us as to what the blue sack of potatoes ... I mean Hillary ... thinks this New Year's Eve?







funny joke^

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites





New tensions are flaring on the Senate Judiciary Committee over plans by newly minted Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to dig into Obama-era scandals.

Graham, a close ally of President Trump’s, has outlined several areas he wants to probe now that he has the Judiciary Committee gavel.

They include the FBI’s handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications targeting former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.


Hey Graham … if you really want to see the DemocRATS (like TDS) scream bloody murder, demand that Ron Brown’s remains to be exhumed and autopsied.


And ask that the photos of Vince Foster’s wounds be released to the public.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 10:19 PM, TDS said:

7 year old dead horse.


Hey TDS ... do you know that both murder and (I believe) covering up a murder have no statute of limitations.    Just saying ... B)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Corporation For Public Broadcasting is now defunded and all of its non-essential workers "furloughed". 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skans said:

The Corporation For Public Broadcasting is now defunded and all of its non-essential workers "furloughed". 



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


And, we'll get the wall too.  Just watch.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Government still Furloughing Federal Workers - another day "WON".

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a great example/description of the *investigation* (or lack of) in the Hillary email case …




Judicial Watch Uncovers Email Between Clinton Lawyer David Kendall and FBI Lawyer James Baker Same Day FBI Was Forced to Re-Open Investigation…

by sundance 

A lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch has unearthed an email [full pdf below] from Clinton Lawyer David Kendall to FBI chief legal counsel James Baker on the day the FBI was forced to re-open the Clinton email investigation due to the Weiner laptop.

With the passage of time the inherent issues have become somewhat clouded, and most people have forgotten many of the inherent issues that showcased how the FBI and DOJ had decided in advance not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. However, the key takeaway from this latest FOIA finding is that Clinton lawyers directly contacted the FBI team that was investigating the Weiner laptop.  (Note: read email chain bottom to top)


The Weiner laptop emails were originally discovered by New York investigators and reported to the FBI office in Washington DC on September 28th, 2016. However, the FBI never took action to review the emails until a month later on October 28th.

It was DOJ officials within SDNY (Southern District of New York) who called Main Justice (DOJ in DC) and asked about a needed search warrant a month later that kicked off the review.

Let’s look at the Page/Strzok messages and remind ourselves of what was going on.

Here are the messages from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok surrounding the original date that New York officials notified Washington DC FBI.  It’s important to note the two different entities: DOJ -vs- FBI.

According to the September 28, 2016, messages from FBI Agent Peter Strzok it was the SDNY in New York telling Andrew McCabe in DC about the issue.  Pay close attention to the convo:


George Toscas “wanted to ensure information got to Andy“, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe…. so he called FBI Agent Peter Strzok…. who told George Toscas “we know”.

Peter Strzok then tells Bill Priestap. Of course, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe already knew about the emails since September 28th, 2016, more than three weeks earlier.

That phone call kicks off an internal debate about the previously closed Clinton email investigation.  And Andrew McCabe sitting on the notification from New York for over three weeks kicks off a second internal FBI discussion about McCabe needing to recuse himself because of the optics of his doing nothing.

It’s October 27th, 2016, James Comey chief-of-staff Jim Rybicki wants McCabe to recuse himself.  But Rybicki is alone on an island. Lisa Page is furious at such a suggestion, partly because she is McCabe’s legal counsel and if McCabe is recused so too is she.


At the same time as they are debating how to handle the Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton emails, the FBI begin leaking to the media to frame a specific narrative.  The issue of them sitting on the laptop for three weeks and doing nothing is a potentially damning detail.

Important to note here: at no time is there any conversation -or hint of a conversation- that anyone is reviewing the content of the laptop emails.  The discussions don’t mention a single word about content… every scintilla of conversation is about how to handle the issues of the emails themselves.  Actually, there’s not a single person mentioned in thousands of text messages that applies to an actual person who is looking at any content.

Quite simply: there is a glaringly transparent lack of an “investigation”.

Within this “tight group” at FBI, as Comey puts it, there is not a single mention of a person who is sitting somewhere looking through the reported “600,000” Clinton emails that was widely reported by media.  There’s absolutely ZERO evidence of anyone looking at emails or scouring through laptop data…. and FBI Agent Peter Strzok has no staff under him who he discusses assigned to such a task…. and Strzok damned sure ain’t doing it.

It’s still October 27th, 2016, the day before James Comey announces his FBI decision to re-open the Clinton investigation.  Jim Rybicki is still saying McCabe should be recused from input; everyone else, including FBI Legal Counsel James Baker, is disagreeing with Rybicki and siding with Lisa Page.

Meanwhile the conversation has shifted slightly to “PC”, probable cause.  Read:


While Lisa Page is leaking stories to Devlin Barrett (Wall Street Journal), the internal discussion amid the “small group” is about probable cause.

The team is now saying if there was no probable cause when Comey closed the original email investigation in July 2016 (remember the very tight boundaries of review), then there’s no probable cause in October 2016 to reopen the investigation regardless of what the email content might be.  The inspector general report from June 2018 explains why:


The DOJ’s legal interpretation of “intent”, as a prerequisite for criminal charges based on transmission of classified data, virtually assured Clinton would not be prosecuted.

This appears to be how the FBI “small group” or “tight team” justify doing nothing with the content and notification received from New York (SDNY).  They received notification of the emails on September 28th and it’s now October 27th, and they haven’t even looked at them. Heck, they are debating if there’s even a need to look at it.

Then on October 28th, 2016, the FBI and Main Justice officials have a conference call about the entire Huma Abedin/Hillary Clinton email issue.  Here’s where it gets interesting.

George Toscas and David Laufman from DOJ-NSD articulate a position that something needs to happen because Main Justice is now concerned about the issue of FBI (McCabe) sitting on the emails for over three weeks without any feedback to SDNY (New York).

Comey later admitted in his memoir “A Higher Loyalty,” that political calculations shaped his decisions during this period. But, he wrote, they were calibrated to help Clinton:



“Assuming, as nearly everyone did, that Hillary Clinton would be elected president of the United States in less than two weeks, what would happen to the FBI, the Justice Department or her own presidency if it later was revealed, after the fact, that she still was the subject of an FBI investigation?”

Thanks to the political decision of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Main Justice in DC, specifically DOJ National Security Division, now looks like they are facilitating a cover-up operation being conducted by the FBI “small group”.  [which is actually true, but they can’t let that be so glaringly obvious].  FBI Director James Comey is worried that if anyone found out they had sat on this laptop discovery a “President Clinton” would then come under investigation…..  how would the FBI explain themselves?

As a result of the Top-Tier officials conference call, FBI Agent Strzok is grumpy because his opinion appears to be insignificant; the discussion is above his pay grade.

The decision is now reached to announce the re-opening of the investigation.  This sends Lisa Page bananas…


…In rapid response mode Lisa Page reaches out to journalist Devlin Barrett, again to quickly shape the media coverage.  Now that the world is going to be aware of the need for a Clinton email investigation 2.0 the internal conversation returns to McCabe’s recusal.

Please note that at no time in the FBI is anyone directing an actual investigation of the content of the Clinton emails.  Every single second of every effort is devoted to shaping the public perception of the need for the investigation.  According to Peter Strzok and Lisa Page every media outlet is being watched; every article is being read; and the entire apparatus of the small group (James Baker, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Mike Kortan et al) is shaping coverage therein by contacting their leak outlets.

The laptop emails Anthony Weiner’s lawyer brought to Preet Bharara (SDNY) might have been Anthony Weiner’s leverage to try and escape NY prosecution.  Eric Prince outlined the content of that laptop as carrying much more than just Clinton emails:




“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

“I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said. (Link)


There’s never been any investigation that would disprove the laptop content was not what Eric Prince’s sources outlined. However, the SDNY, responding to upper level leadership from Main Justice and FBI in DC, turned over all material and essentially the laptop was buried.

In DC the FBI (Comey and McCabe) created the appearance of a re-opening of the Clinton investigation on October 28th, 2016, to keep control and ensure the investigative outcomes remained in their hands; as Comey said: “they had no choice.”

However, once the FBI opened the investigation October 28th, they did exactly the same thing they had done from September 28th to October 28th… they did nothing.  A few days later they declared the second investigation closed, and that was that.

Again, they never expected her to lose.

When she did lose, panic ensued.

Now does Mueller make more sense?

The widely held view of the process is/was that Rod Rosenstein selected Robert Mueller as special counsel, and following that selection Mueller created his team. The perspective from CTH research is slightly different.

CTH believes that following the firing of FBI Director James Comey, the FBI Chief Legal Counsel, Jim Baker and FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe; together with the corrupt small group that was involved in the prior year’s counterintelligence investigation; reacted to Comey’s firing by pressuring Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint their preferred person, Robert Mueller.

Within this internal debate (May 2017); at the time this construct was being argued; is when the famous comment from Rosenstein originates: “what do you want me to do, wear a wire?” The corrupt FBI investigative crew; having initiated and continued “Crossfire Hurricane”; including people from the DOJ-NSD side (Ohr, Weissmann, etc) were pressuring Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel….. but not just any special counsel.. Baker and McCabe had the person pre-selected. That person was Robert Mueller.

They needed Robert Mueller because they needed a person who held a similar level of risk from prior activity exposure as themselves.  Mueller, directly or indirectly, was at the center of multiple Obama and Clinton abuses of power.

Obviously we can see the reason for this FBI/DOJ crew to need a special counsel. As career corruptocrats they were operating from a mindset of mitigating risk to themselves and continuing to advance on the objective to attack the executive office through their investigative schemes.

The key point here is subtle but very significant. Robert Mueller didn’t select his team, the corrupt team, the “small group”, selected him.





Everyone in this sorbid saga belongs in jail ... for lying under oath, obstruction of justice AND WORSE.   EVERYONE.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites





BREAKING: Docs Reveal FBI Cover Up of “Chart” of Potential Violations By Hillary Clinton: Judicial Watch


Once again Judicial Watch is doing the heavy lifting.

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Friday it received another tranche of documents from a January 2018 FOIA lawsuit that revealed the FBI actively covered up a ‘chart’ of potential violations by Hillary Clinton.

The newly obtained emails came in response to a May 21 order by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton to the FBI to begin processing 13,000 pages of records exchanged exclusively between Strzok and Page between February 1, 2015, and December 2017.

The FBI may not complete review and production of all the Strzok-Page communications until at least 2020, reported Judicial Watch.

Three days after then-FBI Director James Comey’s July 2016 press conference where he usurped the DOJ and exonerated Hillary Clinton, a July 8 2016 email chain reveals a Special Counsel to the FBI’s executive assistant director in charge of the National Security Branch, whose name is redacted, wrote to Peter Strzok and other officials that he was creating a “chart” of Hillary Clinton’s violations they found during the investigation and reasons to NOT prosecute.

Via Judicial Watch:




[Redacted] writes: I am still working on an additional page for these TPs that consist of a chart of the statutory violations considered during the investigation, and the reasons for the recommendation not to prosecute, hopefully in non-lawyer friendly terms …

Strzok forwards to Page, Jonathan Moffa and others: I have redlined some points. Broadly, I have some concerns about asking some our [sic] senior field folks to get into the business of briefing this case, particularly when we have the D’s [Comey’s] statement as a kind of stand alone document. In my opinion, there’s too much nuance, detail, and potential for missteps. But I get they may likely be asked for comment.

[Redacted] writes to Strzok, Page and others: The DD [Andrew McCabe] will need to approve these before they are pushed out to anyone. At the end of last week, he wasn’t inclined to send them to anyone. But, it’s great to have them on the shelf in case they’re needed.

[Redacted] writes to Strzok and Page: I’m really not sure why they continued working on these [talking points]. In the morning, I’ll make sure Andy [McCabe] tells Mike [Kortan] to keep these in his pocket. I guess Andy just didn’t ever have a moment to turn these off with Mike like he said he would.

Page replies: Yes, agree that this is not a good idea.


Neither the chart of Hillary Clinton’s potential violations nor the talking points drafted by the FBI officials have ever been released.

On May 15, 2016, James Rybicki sent Bill Priestap, McCabe, Lisa Page and others an email with the subject line “Request from the Director.”

Comey wanted a list of all cases charged in the last 20 years where the “gravamen of the charge was mishandling classified information.”

“It should be in chart form with: (1) case name, (2) a short summary for content (3) charges brought, and (4) charge of conviction,” Rybicki wrote.

A July 22, 2016 email exchange between Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and other FBI and DOJ officials show that Beth Wilkinson, a lawyer for several of Hillary Clinton’s aides, demanded a conference call with the FBI/DOJ and that she was “haranguing” the FBI/DOJ about the return of laptops in the FBI’s possession:




A Wilkinson Walsh attorney, emails [Redacted] FBI National Security Division Officials: We wanted to follow up on our conversation from a few days ago. We would like to schedule a time to speak with both you and [Redacted] early next week. Is there a time on Monday or Tuesday that could work on your end?

[Redacted] FBI National Security Division official writes: In the meantime, I’ll tell Hal that we will certainly schedule a call and will get back to him as to timing. Since he knows Beth [Wilkinson] personally, it could be useful to have Jim on the phone if she is going to be haranguing us re: the laptops.

[Redacted] FBI Office of the General Counsel writes: More…I guess this is [Redacted’s] rationale for why we need to have the GC on the call to discuss the fact that we will be following all of our legal obligations and FBI policies/procedures with regard to the disposition of the materials in this case.

Strzok writes: You are perfectly competent to speak to the legal obligations and FBI policy/procedures. We should NOT be treating opposing counsel this way. We would not in any other case.


President of Judicial Watch Tom Fitton had this to say about the FBI hiding a chart detailing Hillary Clinton’s violations of the law:



“Judicial Watch caught the FBI in another cover-up to protect Hillary Clinton. These records show that the FBI is hiding a chart detailing possible violations of law by Hillary Clinton and the supposed reasons she was not prosecuted.”




So Comey wanted a list of all cases charged in the last 20 years where the focus of the charge was "mishandling classified information"?


Remember Comey telling the public and Congress this?  “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”    I believe he stated that under oath.    


So I want to know if the list contains the case of Bryan H. Nishimura.   Recall the Press Release issued by the Sacramento FBI office less than a year before Comey said the above discussing this case:   https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials .  Read it and you will discover that in July 2015, the FBI and DOJ brought charges against a man who did almost EXACTLY what Comey said Hillary did and they they brought charges even though they themselves (in the press release) stated they found no evidence of “intent” to harm the US.   They did it even though it involved far less classified material (and far less sensitive classified material) than Hillary and her aides mishandled.  They did it even though there were no indications of disloyalty by the man (which we still don’t know to be the case where Hillary and some of Hillary’s aides are concerned).  Nor were there efforts to obstruct justice in that case, unlike in the case involving Hillary and her aides where efforts to obstruct justice are more than obvious.   In the end, the man ended up pleading guilt and was given a multi-year prison sentence (but paroled), fined, and lost his security clearance … FOREVER.  


If the list doesn't include this case, then the person compiling that list should be fired for total incompetence.  


If it does include this case, then Comey should be charged with perjury.   AND SEDITION.

And by the way, Comey committed perjury in half a dozen other instance, too, as discussed previously on this forum.


 So ...




Then ...



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now