Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Wasn’t the Clinton Campaign Investigated?
Sometimes the best way to determine bias is to look at what didn’t happen . . .
Using the standards employed by the FBI and DOJ in 2016 regarding the Trump campaign, for which the IG report has informed us that the standards for opening an investigation are very low. Let’s look at Hillary Clinton and her campaign in that light:
During the 2016 campaign, one candidate employed a series of cut-outs to develop a dossier on the opposition candidate. The dossier claimed to include information sourced from Russian intelligence sources, information damaging to the reputation of the opposition candidate. At the same time, the candidate’s lead contractor (Fusion GPS) represented a Kremlin-tied Russian oligarch in efforts to get the U.S. Congress to repeal sanctions damaging to Russia.
Contents of the dossier were leaked to the media, and representatives of the candidate met with FBI and DOJ officials in order to prompt them to take action against the opposition candidate based upon a dossier claiming to have information from Russian intelligence, all in an effort to influence the 2016 election.
These were the actions of the Clinton, not Trump, campaign.
Now, let’s go back a few years to add some context that should have triggered further concern at the FBI and DOJ during 2016.
In 2008 both Democratic primary candidates (Obama and Clinton) denounced President Bush for damaging relations with Russia and Putin and both pledged to improve American relations with Russia.
In 2008 Putin openly endorsed Obama (the Kremlin hated McCain).
Upon becoming Secretary of State, H. Clinton proudly announced the “reset” in Russian relations, after blaming their breakdown solely on the actions of the prior administration.
During her term as SoS, H. Clinton urged American high tech companies to become involved in a new tech center in Moscow, touted as Russia’s version of Silicon Valley, a tech center which several years later was identified by American intelligence as a den of Russian technology spying.
During her term as SoS, H. Clinton approved the controversial transfer of ownership of 20 percent of America’s uranium supply to a Russian oligarch with Kremlin ties.
During her term as SoS, H. Clinton’s husband was paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow and the Clinton Foundation received tens of millions of dollars in contributions from Russian oligarchs with Kremlin ties, including the one who ended up owning a portion of America’s uranium.
While still SoS, the Kremlin openly supported Obama’s 2012 reelection bid, in return for which Obama mocked Romney’s assertion that Russia was an enemy, and was caught on open mic promising Putin’s stooge that he would be more “flexible” after the election; positions supported by H. Clinton.
After H. Clinton left the SoS role, it was discovered that her private server, set up in violation of government regulations, was not secure, and government investigators concluded it was likely that hostile foreign governments had access to her communications. Was this just reckless behavior or was it designed to possibly allow the Russian government to have access?
There is certainly enough on the record to have justified the investigation of the Clinton campaign for potential coordination with the Russian government and, if such coordination occurred, to determine whether it was opportunistic, if Hillary Clinton had been compromised by the Russians, or was even a Russian asset.
When one looks at the skimpy and fraudulent justification for the Trump investigation, I think it fair to look at the Clinton campaign the same way. The difference in treatment during 2016 is strong evidence of political bias.
Published in General
Why? First, they both wanted and expected Clinton to win. Oh, but that’s the political bias you’re mentioning, so never mind. This stuff ought to be obvious to anyone and everyone. Unfortunately, many are oblivious.
I figured the title was a rhetorical question.
AND, an IG review of the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s illegal server prior to the 2016 election would very likely show many, many more gross violations of normal FBI procedures than the investigation of the FISA warrants.
Two New York FBI agents actually looked into various underhanded shenanighans operating under the auspices of the Clinton Foundation. As they were going to put a case together against the Clintons for all the illegal stuff the agents had uncovered, James Comey heard about their discoveries.
Comey told the agents that the NY FBI office didn’t have the funding or resources to handle the spectacular job it was going to be to do this. “Send me the files and I will see that here in Washington DC, we get ‘er done.”
So the material was sent off, and that was the last anyone heard of the FBI investigating the Clinton Foundation.
Stunning assembly of the facts and crimes that were actions undertaken by Hillary, her Foundation and her underlings.
I assume you spent some good deal of time making this appendeum.
Only part you left out: A young DNC staffer was gunned down in July 2016. His name was Seth Rich. The members of MS 13 charged with his murder were supposedly killed before the arrests were made. Nothing of value taken from Rich, although it was ruled a murder done during a burglary by our media.
It is widely believed that Rich is the actual person who leaked the files to Wikileaks, as it has been forensically proven by computer expert Bill Binney the information WikiL obtained was not theirs through a hack but through a leak. (Signatures of time are vastly different between the two.)
BTW, Roger Stone has somehow been implicated in all this, with Mr Rich being dead meaning now no one can verify whether Stone played a part in any of this or not.
I stay away from the Rich matter. Highly speculative and I have no way to evaluate the allegations. Everything else in my summary is pretty well documented. It would be a distraction and weaken the argument I am making to engage with the Rich matter. Binney has an opinion as to who leaked but it is far from forensically proven.
Fairness?
Get this through your thick head: Rules are for Republicans, they don’t apply to Democrats.
Got it?
Good.
.>)
Either the FBI-New York or the NYPD were the ones who eventually forced McCabe and Comey’s hand on the release of the information about Anthony Weiner’s computer and the fact that Huma’s State Department docs she had gotten through her association with Hillary were on them, in violation of federal rules. My guess is more NYPD, though it’s possible they and the FBI in New York could have tag-teamed on this, since the police were the ones investigation Weiner for his underage sexting.
The FBI brass in D.C. had to fear that since the information on the computer had gotten out of their hands, NYPD could leak before Election Day and expose that McCabe, Comey and the others had withheld the new information, which forced the FBI director to come forward in late October. If the bureau had full control of Weiner’s computer, the new information likely never comes out before Election Day.
(Also, on a side note about Comey, watching Fox News Sunday just now, Chris Wallace’s decision to seemingly go all-in on backing the Democrats’ narrative on impeachment and the Horowitz report may have been at least a little of a bait-and-switch, in order to get Comey to come on his program. His spin on being exonerated by the IG report was just reduced to rubble by Wallace.)
An excellent summary, Mark. We know very well why it was never pursued, don’t we? Maybe, just maybe, Durham’s report will address it. Big maybe.
Fabulous FBI we have here! Our government is acting just like an enemy of the citizenry. For me, any doubt was gone when the DOJ decided not to indict Hillary with Comey saying she lacked the requisite intent to do the crime. Intent is not an element of her crime with her server. This is not a drafting error on the part of lawmakers. It is always controversial when the Government eliminates intent, and it is always done to make prosecution easier.
The best first step to fixing this spectacular corruption is the prosecute everybody involved and put them in jail. This was not done with the Clinton machine and now we have Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and many others in our face spouting sanctimonious lies. This is not a time to turn the other cheek.
There was an investigation of the FBIs investigation.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download
The findings would cause any reasonable person, (herein defined as not being a product of an elite education), to question the competence of anyone in the FBI above the rank of janitor.
I will say, as much as it pains me to, we have a tradition of not punishing losing candidates. It is a good tradition.
While we would all get a certain satisfaction from “Hillary in Handcuffs”, seeing her crushed and hearing the lamentations of her supporters is not a bad consolation.
I don’t know if Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. I do know Hillary Clinton will never be President.
Haven’t watched in a year or more. Fox seems to be edging left as the Murdoch boys take over. Lachlan just bought a $150 million mansion in LA. To be closer to his friends in Hollywood, no doubt.
https://www.tatler.com/article/lachlan-murdoch-buys-150-million-mansion
Carol Joy:
“Only part you left out: A young DNC staffer was gunned down in July 2016. His name was Seth Rich. The members of MS 13 charged with his murder were supposedly killed before the arrests were made. Nothing of value taken from Rich, although it was ruled a murder done during a burglary by our media.
It is widely believed that Rich is the actual person who leaked the files to Wikileaks, as it has been forensically proven by computer expert Bill Binney the information WikiL obtained was not theirs through a hack but through a leak. (Signatures of time are vastly different between the two.)”
Gumby: “I stay away from the Rich matter. Highly speculative and I have no way to evaluate the allegations.”
This is how the Deep State and the Left wins.
Too many on the Right want to play gatekeeper of what is investigated and what is the truth, for fear that somehow they will be tainted to the Never Trumper/Leftist friends or something.
Seek the God Damned Truth and fear not where it takes you.
The circumstances of his death, the particulars of the leak, the comments of the people around Julian Assange, and the actions of people connected to the DNC should lead a reasonable person to believe the most likely people associated with Seth Rich’s murder are connected to the DNC. Now possibly DNC did not do it, but far too much evidence points in their direction, and the government should not fear looking into the matter. Nor should people here admonish those who advocate that Rich’s murder be investigated.
I dont think Burglary… I think Mugging, wasnt he gunned down in the street?
Clinton Cash documentary is still available here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/oHIo1dqW55Y8/
The video is no longer available on YouTube.
“wasnt he gunned down in the street?”
I believe he was shot in the back. Some mugging.
I am not sure Binney has a theory about the person who leaked it, that is, the who of the matter.
But he is a very excellent forensics computer examiner and he stated unequivocally that the signature in terms of time shows it could not have been a hack but had to be a leak.
Also I fully relate to your wanting to keep your compendium to those things proven or able to be proven. So no criticism at all to fall on you about it.
Even so, it’s just that overall, I hate how Seth Rich was so soon forgotten, even among many of those who were absolutely sure he had leaked the DNC material to Wikileaks.
Hillary probably no longer cares if she will be President. As long as she can keep the campaign contributions coming in, as long as she can be presumed to be running, there will people with wads of cash to shove down the Clinton Foundation in hopes she gets in again. Plus as a “viable candidate” she doesn’t have to give back any campaign funds she has already snared. The moment she is no longer running, those funds have to go away, or she is in violation of campaign laws.
Yes, I agree, but doesnt burglary mean that he’s inside? at home?
I dont know why Seth Rich was killed, but Washington is dangerous enough that his misadventure could have been completely random. That is at least a reasonable possibility.
I believe the term you seek is “plausible deniability.”