Imagine there was an ‘R’ after their names — would CNN think it was Newsworthy? Criminal, even?
We’ve seen what Hillary has gotten away with, but only now are we starting to connect the dots for WHY.
Despite Hillary’s claims, and Comey’s statements, the FBI had a solid case against Hillary.
Hillary LOVES to remind us that the FBI didn’t indict her. Nice that she’s putting the bar so low for herself. What a slogan: Vote for me … they never pressed charges!
The FBI broke ranks with the official story by Comey.
The immunity agreements came with outrageous side deals, including preventing agents from searching for any documents on a Dell laptop owned by former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills generated after Jan. 31, 2015, when she communicated with the server administrator who destroyed subpoenaed emails.
…What’s more, Comey cut a deal to give Clinton a “voluntary” witness interview on a major holiday, and even let her ex-chief of staff sit in on the interview as a lawyer, even though she, too, was under investigation.
Clinton’s interview, the culmination of a yearlong investigation, lasted just 3½ hours. Despite some 40 bouts of amnesia, she wasn’t called back for questioning; and three days later, Comey cleared her of criminal wrongdoing.
“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time,” Hughes said. “I hold Director Comey responsible.”
Agreed retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello: “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.
Many in the FBI don’t think Hillary should be permitted a security clearance, let alone be President.
A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”
“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”
…“It is well known that the FBI agents on the ground, the human beings who did the investigative work, had built an extremely strong case against Hillary Clinton and were furious when the case did not move forward,” said [Judge Andrew] Napolitano. “They believe the decision not to prosecute came from The White House.”
With all this going for them why would they NOT recommend charges?
Let’s look at it this way.
Suppose you were doing research: If you found out that a good friend of your boss… someone your boss owed favors to… was implicated in something shady. Would you wonder if it would hurt you to bring it forward?
Again, pretend there were an ‘R’ after the names involved. Would THIS be a story?
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an important ally of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, funneled nearly $700,000 in donations and support to the campaign of the spouse of an FBI official who then oversaw Clinton’s email investigation.
…McAuliffe’s PAC donated $475,000 to Jill McCabe’s campaign in 2015 and the Virginia Democratic Party, which is heavily influenced by the governor, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support to her unsuccessful bid for office.
…After that meeting, Andrew McCabe reportedly sought ethics advice from the FBI and followed it. He not only refrained from campaigning on his wife’s behalf but recused himself from public corruption cases in Virginia, currently including an investigation into possible foreign influence peddling by McAuliffe himself.
Do you think they would be eager to throw Clinton under the bus when their boss’s wife is getting almost three-quarters of a million dollars in financial support from the Dems?
Might recommending criminal charges against someone your boss is close with effect an office worker’s job security?
But there’s no ‘corruption’ in the system. Right?