“If there is anything that’s axiomatic in investigations it’s that you don’t make up your mind until you interview the last witness. It is beyond dispute that he made up his mind not to charge Secretary Clinton before he interviewed her. There is no question about that”
Whether you are an FBI enthusiast or not, something about the Hillary Clinton investigation conducted by former FBI director James Comey smells reminiscent of an open can of sardines sizzling under the sun. Two House of Representatives chairmen, Trey Gowdy (R – SC) and Bob Goodlatte (R – Virginia) want to conduct some cleanup, namely in the Justice aisle. Reps. Gowdy and Goodlatte are interested in the black eye of the FBI and the dubious role James Comey played regarding the Hillary Rodham Clinton email scandal. Yes, the whole sordid former-Secretary of State saga looms and that can of worms continues to stink too.
A joint statement released on October 24, 2017 contained the following: “Decisions made by the Department of Justice [James Comey] in 2016 have led to a host of outstanding questions that must be answered,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC).
Rep. Trey Gowdy specified the crux of the matter, postulating “the decision to charge or not charge [Clinton] was made before all the witnesses were interviewed,” implying some preferential treatment was provided. Why? Fundamental rule-of-law principle dictates the obvious full-court press until completion/confirmation that no other stones were left unchecked.
Just as they are designed to do, members of the US Congress write laws. And to do so effectively and empirically takes a broad depth of knowledge to include what is or is not applicable on behalf of the American constituency and the US Constitution. Besides receiving information from respective district voters, the House of Representatives derive the breadth of their knowledge base from congressional hearings. Those same hearings involving government and non-government individuals alike often expose red herrings made by latent keystrokes or intact or partially-shredded paper trails. Remember the state department smashed harddrives and bleached bits, when Hillary Clinton skated away from paid resources who reportedly did the deed?
It is the recurring nightmare…and here it comes again. This time, congress is seeking newer information stemming from recently revealed speculations involving James Comey and his exact role. So, what’s on the agenda?
“Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic and our fellow citizens must have confidence in its objectivity, independence, and evenhandedness. The law is the most equalizing force in this country. No entity or individual is exempt from oversight,” wrote Rep. Gowdy.
The House committees exploring James Comey’s FBI and his strange political tip-toeing around presidency-seeking candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will focus on several aspects, to include the following:
- FBI’s decision to publicly announce the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s handling of classified information but not to publicly announce the investigation into campaign associates of then-candidate Donald Trump;
- FBI’s decision to notify Congress by formal letter of the status of the investigation both in October and November of 2016;
- FBI’s decision to appropriate full decision making in respect to charging or not charging Secretary Clinton to the FBI rather than the DOJ;
- FBI’s timeline in respect to charging decisions.
Whereas the Justice Department helms the judicial vessel, the FBI announcing its position pertaining to the Hillary Clinton email scandal signaled a side-step from the traditional method of Justice chronicling and revealing all its findings. Then-Director James Comey seemed to come out of the dark with his agency’s barometer indicating there was nothing to grasp with respect to Clinton’s alleged abuse of State electronic mail systems, shocking many. Even after congressional hearings chaired by Rep. Gowdy, that snag dragged on then. It drags on still.
GOP committees seek to explore the disparity between the FBI transparently divulging its HRC investigation and findings…while the agents covertly investigated Donald Trump.
Implying putting the cart before the horse, it was determined that Mr. Comey composed his declination of criminal charges for Hillary Clinton well before his July announcement to that effect.
“If there is anything that’s axiomatic in investigations it’s that you don’t make up your mind until you interview the last witness.”
“If there is anything that’s axiomatic in investigations it’s that you don’t make up your mind until you interview the last witness. It is beyond dispute that he made up his mind not to charge Secretary Clinton before he interviewed her. There is no question about that,” Gowdy shared with the press in September 2017.
Was James Comey’s bizarre decisions based on a tacit dislike for Donald Trump? Was it the ties that bind? Or both?
Hillary Clinton facing criminal charges stemming from the email scandal while she was secretary of state would be the heart’s delight for many, but Congress gives the impression that such an occurrence is unlikely. Rep. Gowdy believes that any newer hearings will at the very least restore confidence in the justice system and American governance. No allusion to prosecuting Hillary Clinton was foisted on the table. But it does not mean such a thing will never come to pass either.
Uranium One Enrichment
Ready for more stench from the former Obama/Clinton-era?
On October 17, 2017 The Hill reported evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was investigated for corruption by the FBI and other U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal pended approval. We now know that such details were withheld from congress. The Hill also reported “Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow,” purportedly corroborated by documents and eyewitness testimony it has acquired.
“Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow”
In response to the Uranium One deal and how the FBI, the Clintons, and anyone else whose name is attached to that shade, the following tweet is Rep. Gowdy’s flinty retort to the apparent swamp any and all parties have waded in for too long:
Chairman @tgowdysc: "No entity is above oversight." pic.twitter.com/Wj2ChZ8IKe
— Oversight Committee Republicans (@GOPoversight) October 25, 2017
On October 24, 2017 Media Research Center President Brent Bozell condemned the three major media networks for their loud silence concerning the Uranium One deal involving corruption, extortion, bribery, keeping Congress in the dark about Russia/Obama administration relations, the sellout of 20 percent of United States uranium reserves…and the hundreds of millions of dollars poured into the Clinton Foundation as the enriched uranium deal went down. It would appear there is more than one definition for “enrichment” when it comes to the Clintons and Russia implicated in a uranium-enriching pact.
The Uranium One debacle is “a blatant cover-up”
Mr. Bozell said the Uranium One debacle is “a blatant cover-up” and explained his criticism in a video presented by the Media Research Center. Listen carefully to the mention of a gag order against an FBI informant who was allegedly corralled by the Obama Administration in its attempts to curtail the seemingly slight-of-hand transaction.
On October 27, 2017 the MRC reported that at least one formerly-gagged FBI informant closely involved in the Uranium One deal can and will now testify, since the previous gag order is no more. That late-breaking factor was perhaps triggered by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley who initiated a special counsel request regarding the seemingly sordid Uranium One chapter.
Rich Noyes reported some perhaps not-so-shocking data pertinent to biased media coverage, citing, “Sneaky Russian influence in American politics is a huge story if it involves Republicans/Donald Trump, but a non-story if it involves Democrats/Hillary Clinton.” Noyes extrapolated “1000 minutes for Trump/Russia ‘Collusion’ vs. 20 seconds for Hillary/Russia Scandal” in which the downplay of the Uranium One deal was trumped by the ongoing and yet unproven allegations surrounding Pres. Trump colluding with Russia.
“They are a crime family. The Clinton Foundation is an absolute scam. It should be investigated under the RICO statutes.”
RICO?
On November 1, 2016 The American Spectator published an article more than hinting at investigating The Clinton Foundation as a mafia-esque organization whose enterprising ways falls under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, the same one used to bring down powerful and violent mafioso family figures. Former FBI agent James Kallstrom told American Spectator reporter Daniel Flynn: “They are a crime family. The Clinton Foundation is an absolute scam. It should be investigated under the RICO statutes.”
As of October 27, 2017 Hillary Rodham Clinton has existed for 70 years. My heartfelt wish for her and others is justice, absolute and unequivocal justice. Maybe Trey Gowdy will finally get to blow out someone else’s candles and bellow “Your party is over!”
As the US Congress gears-up for another round of Capitol corruption Q&A involving James Comey, how do you imagine the outcome?
