In early September when it became known that former FBI Director, James Comey had formulated an exoneration statement for one Hillary Rodham Clinton (the former presidential candidate who won’t go away), I posted “Just How Corrupt Is The FBI?” on Ricochet. In that earlier post, I wrote:
“It seems likely, given the FBI’s refusal to let historians or the American people discover just how criminal Ms. Clinton and her cronies were that Mr. Comey is not an isolated case. Mr. Comey’s legacy and others currently at the FBI will continue to tarnish the reputation of the Bureau and unfortunately, it seems that there’s not much that can be done about it.”
Well, hopefully, I was wrong given the new information that has surfaced in the last few days.
In September when I wrote the aforementioned piece, it had become known that former disgraced congressman, one-time New York mayoral candidate, and now imprisoned husband of Ms. Clinton’s aide and personal confidante, Huma Abedin, one Anthony (Carlos Danger) Weiner, had his laptop seized by FBI agents. (There’s a rude joke in there somewhere.) Director Comey, before he was fired, conveyed to Congress that Mr. Weiner’s laptop contained classified emails that his wife had routed to him from the illegal private email server that Ms. Clinton maintained so Mrs. Danger Mrs. Weiner Huma could print out the sensitive emails at home – which, according to former Director Comey, as he testified before Congress, was not an illegal act because she did not intend to break the law. Isn’t that nice? What a thoughtful person.
The now defunct and digitally-bleached Clinton email server was apparently used by Ms. Clinton, and on-again/off-again State Department/Clinton Foundation employees Abedin and Cheryl Mills (both of whom apparently convinced FBI agents that they didn’t know what an email server was) and others to receive, share, and send classified communications about yoga lessons, Chelsea’s wedding plans, and perhaps even friendly correspondence with very kind-hearted philanthropists possibly of Russian origin and other foreign personages who just felt obliged to contribute millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. From a Democrat or sympathetic Clinton media perspective, this is, of course, all ancient history and is as relevant to today’s news as all that silly rumor-mongering about orgies, incest, and a horse surrounding Emperor Caligula.
But there is bad news for appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller, impeachment-obsessed Tom Steyer, the sometimes very animated host of “The View” Joy Behar, and throngs of Hillary Clinton supporters who have been seen screaming up at the sky. It has come to light, through no help from the FBI, that one of its agents and a DoJ attorney have apparently have acted with less than dispassionate motives in the investigation of Russian collusion aimed at Trump’s campaign and the incoming Trump administration.
As reported by Fox News, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok changed Director Comey’s earlier draft of the announcement that exonerated Ms. Clinton. He switched it from “grossly negligent,” which is the language in the criminal statute pertaining to the mishandling of classified material, to simply “extremely careless,” essentially getting Ms. Clinton out of criminal jeopardy. Agent Strzok also interviewed Ms. Clinton without recording the session after Mr. Comey was apparently planning to exonerate her. He was fired by Mueller presumably when Mr. Strzok’s anti-Trump emails to a fellow FBI colleague, lawyer, and lover, Lisa Page, came to his attention. Are we having fun yet? It only gets better.
Andrew Weissmann, a Justice Department attorney, still on the Russian collusion matter investigation, in an email procured by Judicial Watch via a FOIA request, effusively praised former interim Attorney General Sally Yates. The position of Yates was to refuse to support President Trump’s travel ban even though it has since been upheld by the Supreme Court. As of this writing, attorney Weissmann is still on the Russian case. Fox commentator, Brit Hume so aptly remarked yesterday,
“This cringingly … suck-up email … raises questions about impartiality.”
Indeed it does. With earlier questions about Mueller’s own impartiality, given his close personal friendship with former FBI Director Comey and now his selection of seemingly strident Hillary Clinton supporters to investigate the Trump campaign and transition team, one has to wonder if his credibility and the aura of impartiality has been permanently damaged and the Russian collusion investigation will begin to unravel.
The House Intelligence Committee, whose chairman Devin Nunes (R-California) has recently threatened the FBI and Justice Department officials with a Contempt of Congress citation for stonewalling some of the information that Judicial Watch was able to secure, will have a chance to further probe into these matters in the coming days. It should make for entertaining television at least and, unlike my earlier speculation, we may get a glimpse of just how corrupted the FBI and the Department of Justice had become beyond these recent revelations. The question remaining will be whether there will be a Part Trois.